Archive

Posts Tagged ‘olympia’

Legislators Want Voter Opinion? NOT

March 5, 2010 4 comments

This article, from the Olympian, was posted just today, after the drill yesterday to introduce the bill around noon and hold a ways and means hearing on it at 4:30 yesterday.

I wonder if they really want our “voter opinions”.

Legislator wants voter opinions on income tax

Referendum: Measure would target high-income residents

RACHEL LA CORTE; The Associated Press | • Published March 05, 2010

  • Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown wants voters to weigh in on the idea of an income tax on high earners.

In a blog posting on Thursday, the Spokane Democrat suggested that the Legislature pass the Senate Democrats’ temporary three-tenths-of-a-cent sales tax increase proposal and that it take effect immediately. But Brown also suggested that the Senate should pass a bill sponsored by Sen. Rosa Franklin, a referendum that would ask voters whether they want to lower the sales tax to 6 cents, and in its place approve a “high earners” income tax.

The tax would be on 4.5 percent on all income over $200,000 for individuals, $300,000 for heads of households, and $400,000 for married couples.

“It’s a question to voters if that’s the direction they would want to go,” Brown said later in the Senate wings.

The Senate was still working on language of the bill, and it was to be posted before the start of a hearing on it later Thursday.

The likelihood of such a measure getting enough votes is uncertain, and Brown acknowledged she hadn’t yet counted votes.

“Just because we’re holding a hearing doesn’t mean that this is a direction for the caucus,” said Senate Ways and Means Vice Chairman Rodney Tom, D-Medina, who is opposed to the measure. “We have a lot of serious issues we need to address now, as far as how we’re going to get our fiscal house in order and get a balance between our revenues and our expenses.”

Lawmakers are working to patch a $2.8 billion budget deficit before the legislative session ends next Thursday.

House and Senate Democrats have both unveiled proposals mixing of cuts and tax increases.

The Senate is pushing for a temporary sales tax increase and an additional $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes, and closing numerous tax exemptions. House Democrats are looking to shrink a long list of tax exemptions and collecting more money from smokers, lawyers, accountants and out-of-state businesses.

House Democrats indicated that introducing such a measure a week before session is to adjourn makes it a long shot.

“It seems fairly unlikely,” said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam. “But, you know, everybody’s out there trying to figure out a way that will work.”

Republicans questioned whether such a referendum could be passed on a simple majority vote. Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, said that he thinks any change to the tax code would require a constitutional amendment, meaning that two-thirds of the Legislature would have to approve it.

“They’re trying to do the class-warfare thing in their tax debate,” he said. “But constitutionally, it’s not going to work.

Brown has long supported the idea of an income tax on the state’s highest earners, but the idea has not been able to gain traction in past years.

She pointed to the January election in Oregon, where voters approved tax increases on businesses and the wealthy. Measure 66 raised tax rates on individuals who earn more than $125,000 and couples with incomes greater than $250,000. Measure 67 increased business taxes.

“Oregon voters spoke loudly and clearly about their desire to limit the impact of any revenue increase on middle class families, while also protecting the classrooms, financial aid, health care and public safety so essential to their middle class standard of living,” Brown wrote on her blog.

Brown said that under the referendum, the state’s middle class voters could “not only have a the opportunity to protect essential services while asking wealthier citizens to pay their fair share, but the middle class would also have the opportunity to lessen the amount they currently pay.”

Gov. Chris Greogire is “not closed off to the idea, but knows there’s difficulties,” said spokeswoman Karina Shagren.

SB 6754 & SB 6449 Public Hearing Scheduled for TUESDAY, 2/23

February 18, 2010 Leave a comment

They’ve scheduled public hearings for these two pieces of…..”Legislation”.  TUESDAY, Feb. 23, 2010 at 1:30.  If you can make it down to Olympia for this, please do.  Please write and call your Representatives.

State Government & Tribal Affairs

2/23/10 1:30 pm House Full Committee House Hearing Rm D John L. O’Brien Building Olympia, WA

ESB 6754 – Making the names and addresses of persons signing initiative or referendum petitions public records.

SB 6754http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2010&bill=6754 SB 6754

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6754%20SBA%20GO%2010.pdf

ESSB 6449 – Regarding signature gatherers for petitions. Other Senate bills previously heard in committee. 

WA SB 6449: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2010&bill=6449

Here’s the Latest on SB 6130 – I 960

February 17, 2010 Leave a comment

Here’s what I find this morning.  I watched this debate until about 10:00 last night.   They’re going to convene at 10:00 today to continue the debate and vote later today.  Please make a trip down there if at all possible.  If you can’t make it to Olympia, you can watch the live debate and vote here: http://www.tvw.org/index.cfm?bhcp=1   You can also find it broadcast on TVW Station from your local cable provider. 

Wash. House has debate on suspension of I-960

By RACHEL LA CORTE | Associated Press Writer

OLYMPIA, Wash. – The state House had a contentious debate Tuesday night over the temporary suspension of tax-limiting Initiative 960, with opposition Republicans maneuvering to delay a vote.

Related Stories & Links

Washington state Legislature (weblink)

Making full use of their limited power, the GOP minority asked to indefinitely postpone action on the bill, a move that allowed each legislator up to 10 minutes of speech time and led to about six hours of debate. The House currently has 61 Democrats and 37 Republicans, and the motion ultimately failed.

“This bill completely guts taxpayer protection in this state,” said Rep. Jaime Herrera, R-Camas. “I think there is no greater thing we can do than to respect the will of the people.”

The House is expected to return to the floor at 10 a.m. Wednesday for more debate before voting on the measure that would suspend I-960, which was approved by voters in 2007.

The initiative requires that two-thirds of the Legislature approve any tax increase – a significant hurdle compared to the simple majority approval needed for other bills.

The Senate already has endorsed a suspension of that rule until July 2011, when the next two-year budget cycle begins. Majority Democrats said they needed to make that move to patch a budget deficit now pegged at $2.8 billion.

Democratic lawmakers plan to increase taxes and cut spending to balance the deficit, but they don’t have enough members to get a two-thirds vote in either the Senate or House.

“I believe that my voters want me to have a balanced view of how I look at our budget and our responsibilities here,” said Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina.

Lawmakers can amend initiatives with a simple majority vote after they’ve been on the books for two years, making this the first legislative session that Democrats can suspend I-960.

But critics of the plan said it would be a mistake to raise taxes while Washingtonians try to recover from the worst recession in decades.

“The bill before us would raise taxes during one of the worst economic downturns of our state,” said Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale.

As it stands, the I-960 suspension bill would still allow e-mail notifications to be sent to the public about proposed tax increases, including 10-year cost projections of the measures. But the rest of the measure would be suspended, including a requirement for a nonbinding advisory vote by the public on taxes passed by the Legislature.

Four Republican amendments were rejected Tuesday night, including one that would restore the advisory vote requirement.

The changes to I-960 must clear both chambers and be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire before lawmakers can move ahead with tax-raising votes. Gregoire is expected to approve the Legislature’s plan.

The state Senate would have to vote on the bill one more time before it could be sent to Gregoire for final approval.

The I-960 suspension is Senate Bill 6130.

Washington State Fascists will try again to suspend I-960Legislative do-over

February 10, 2010 Leave a comment

This is INFURIATING.  These FASCISTS need to hear from us, and soon.  To ignore the State Constitution and the will of the people is absoloutely jaw-dropping.   Their imperialistic attitude will not be tolerated and they’re going to see just how mad We, The People are in November, but I hope they hear us LOUD AND CLEAR before then.  To say that they’ll face a WALL OF RAGE, no matter what they do, so they should just do it anyway is absoloutely UNACCEPTABLE and APPALLING.  This is Nazi crap we’re dealing with now, folks.

 GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE.  YOU ARE FIRED.

Vote would suspend entire initiative, not just part of it.

State Senate Democrats say they flubbed their vote on suspending the two-thirds vote requirement in Initiative 960 for tax increases, and they need to vote again as soon as today on a broader measure.

The Senate voted 26-23 on a largely party-line basis to suspend the supermajority vote requirement for I-960. But they really intended to suspend the entire initiative and will have to vote again, Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said Tuesday evening in a news release.

The new vote would completely suspend Initiative 960, including its requirement for nonbinding or advisory votes for any tax increases as well as publication of all tax increases approved and who voted for them.

“Today’s vote was a recognition of the revenue crisis facing our state and 47 others, and the need for immediate responsiveness on the part of the Legislature to the state’s current budget emergency,” Prentice said in her statement. “Suspending the entire initiative allows for prompt action now, avoiding the added delay and additional cost to the state that a November public advisory vote would require.

The state treasurer says the state will run out of cash by September, so you can see how that sort of delay is something the state just can’t afford.”

Republicans roasted the Democrats in floor speeches during a more than two-hour floor debate for purportedly “gutting” I-960 with Senate Bill 6843. The GOP is likely to step up those attacks.

The vote on SB 6843 initially appeared to move the Democrat-controlled Legislature another step closer to being able to raise taxes as they work to plug a budget gap now measuring $2.2 billion.

Sen. Tim Sheldon of Potlatch and four other Democrats – Steve Hobbs of Lake Forest Park, Claudia Kaufmann of Kent, Derek Kilmer of Gig Harbor and Chris Marr of Spokane – had crossed over to vote with Republicans in opposition.

Until the do-over was announced, the bill was supposed to go to the House, where Democratic leaders said a vote might not occur until next week. Democrats need Gov. Chris Gregoire to sign the bill into law before tax bills can move easily through the two chambers, because they do not have two-thirds majorities needed to approve taxes, as I-960 requires. Gregoire also backs the bill; her legislative director said she wants to be sure lawmakers can provide revenues to avoid an all-cuts budget.

In a lead-up to their vote, Democrats dropped a plan to amend several details of I-960 besides the tax-vote requirements. Instead, they chose to focus on the vote requirements – a move that was less severe than their decisions to fully suspend two education-funding initiatives in 2003 and again last year.

Rural Democratic Sens. Jim Hargrove of Hoquiam and Brian Hatfield of Raymond led the changed strategy, and it was the way a majority of the caucus preferred to go, according to Sen. Tracey Eide, Democrats’ floor leader. But it still drew thundering objections from Republicans, who said its emergency clause prevents a public referendum to overturn SB 6843 in November.

Republican Sen. Mike Carrell of Lakewood and others complained Democrats were “thwarting the will of the people.’’ But Democratic Sen. Rodney Tom of Medina said the circumstances of the state have changed dramatically since 51 percent of voters approved I-960 in November 2007, and the economic downturn has cost 225,000 jobs in the state. “This is not an easy vote, but it is the right vote,” Tom said. “We are in unprecedented times. How many of you have lived through a time like this? How many of you have family members that are unemployed, that are losing their jobs? I do,” said Sen. Eide, D-Federal Way. “Think about this. We are in a crisis. We need to think logically. And who do the people of this state turn to when they need help? To you, me, all of us. They turn to us.”

The vote on I-960 is needed to free up action on other measures to raise revenue. For instance, the House is waiting to act on a bill that closes several tax “loopholes.” Among those is House Bill 3176, which will be heard in the House Finance Committee. HB 3176 would raise $205 million in the budget year ending in June 2011, according to Rep. Ross Hunter, the Medina Democrat who sponsored the bill and is the chairman of the Finance Committee. The bill closes a tax break that was widened by a 2009 Supreme Court ruling in the Dot Foods case; it also adds an excise tax to privately owned airplanes, eliminates a sales tax break for out-of-state residents who shop in Washington, and imposes other taxes on out-of-state firms that do a certain minimum amount of business in Washington.

Numerous other tax proposals are on the table, including a tripling of a hazardous-materials tax that would mainly hit oil refiners and makes of pesticides; a cigarette tax increase; and taxes on candy, bottled water and other products.

Hospitals also have a proposal for increasing the tax, or “assessment,” they pay as a way to generate a larger matching payment by the federal government.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown has not ruled out broader taxes on businesses instead.

Whatever happens with I-960, Republican Sen. Cheryl Pflug of Maple Valley warned in a floor speech that lawmakers face “a wall of rage” from voters if they repeal or suspend I-960.

Democrats say that misses a larger point. Hatfield, a conservative Democrat, said in an interview before the vote that Democrats face voter anger no matter what they do. He said lawmakers already cut several billion in spending last year, which affected law enforcement and drug-prevention efforts in his district. “I think we get a wall of rage either way. If we vote for another all-cuts budget, we’ll have a wall of rage,” Hatfield said. “The easy thing to do is say, ‘Let someone else solve the problem’ and vote no. That’s irresponsible.”

 

http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/1132118.html

Dems: YOU PEASANTS JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND!

February 10, 2010 Leave a comment

Many of you have inquired about the status of the I 1053 and I 960 issue. I’m posting the email I just received from Tim Eyman on this matter and I hope this answers some of your questions.
RE: Democrats aren’t bound by votes, not even their own — “you peasants don’t understand, the rules don’t apply to us”

A vote on the floor of the Senate yesterday by the Democrats eliminated the 2/3’s legislative vote requirement for tax increases. Voters have approved that law 3 times and that 2/3’s law has survived 4 court challenges — the voters are clearly on record demanding that that be the law.

Nonetheless, Democrats in Olympia took it away yesterday without hesitation — they are clearly planning on violating that voter-approved law in the coming weeks and during all of next year’s legislative session after the election.

But in their zeal to steal more of the taxpayers money, they realized after their vote, that the citizenry would learn of their treachery because of I-960’s transparency provisions.

So now they’re saying yesterday’s vote doesn’t count. Now they’ve ordained they’re entitled to a ‘do-over’ vote, eliminating not just the 2/3’s vote requirement, but all of I-960’s sunshine policies, especially the bills’ costs and legislators’ voting records.

Democrats in Olympia aren’t bound by 3 votes of the people, nor are they bound by their own vote yesterday. They are above the law, above the rules, above reproach, above criticism.

With their dictatorial, banana republic approach to governing, why are they even having another vote? Why not just ‘decree’ that Democrats don’t have to follow the law, aren’t required to follow senate rules and cut-off dates, and don’t have to disclose the costs, hearing dates, sponsorship, and voting records of legislators? Why are they even pretending to follow the rules or abide by the Constitution? Such strictures only apply to us mere mortals, not to the demi-gods in the Democrat party.

During the debate on the Senate floor yesterday, Democrats didn’t even allow for a full discussion, voting to cut-off and truncate debate. Rodney Tom’s exasperated “let’s get on with it” captured perfectly the Democrats’ arrogance.

Citizens worked for 300 days to qualify and pass I-960, waited nearly a year for a unanimous state supreme court rejecting Lisa Brown’s lawsuit, and yet Democrats whined about spending a couple of hours discussing the ramifications and implications of eviscerating this 3 time voter-approved policy.

The Democrats’ scheme is to screw over the taxpayers, while making sure we never find out who screwed us and by how much.

The most effective, constructive, meaningful response to their arrogance? Committing ourselves to getting Initiative 1053 on the ballot and resurrecting the 2/3’s vote requirement for tax increases.

Let their arrogance fuel your efforts.

Petitions are printed and were mailed last Friday to our thousands of supporters throughout the state.  You can request petitions at: www.voterswantmorechoices.com

SB 6843

February 3, 2010 Leave a comment

This, another example of how our rights are under attack.  I guess I will have to drop everything to attend this very important meeting.  

Folks, our “representatives” are on a rampage.  They know they’re in trouble in November and they are doing everything they can now to destroy our legislative process.  If we lose this, we will no longer have the right to speak in OUR house.

Please attend this meeting if you are able.

Just today, Senate Leader Lisa Brown told the press that there will be a public hearing tomorrow on SB 6843, a bill that will cripple I-960.

Legislators are looking to go beyond simply ‘suspending’ I-960, attempting instead to amend it, therefore changing it completely. Details on what the amendment will do can be found at www.libertylive.org.

It has only been two years since the people of Washington voted this initiative into law and our legislators are already trying to gut some of its most critical components, permanently! You can make a difference! Please attend the public hearing tomorrow in Olympia at 1:30pm and show your support for I-960.

EFF’s economic policy expert, Amber Gunn, will be testifying. When you arrive, be sure to do two things: 1. Sign In – As you sign in, you will have the opportunity to mark whether you support or oppose the bill. This goes into record and is a way to influence the outcome without testifying. 2. Indicate if you want to testify or not – You don’t have to say a lot; just share your perspective as a taxpayer. It will make a big difference.

What: Public Hearing on SB 6843 (amending I-960) Where: Senate Hearing Rm 4, J.A. Cherberg Building, Olympia, WA When: Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 1:30pm (arrive early at 1:00pm) 

If you cannot make it to the hearing tomorrow, please contact your legislators and tell them to oppose SB 6843!

HB 2778 THE ONE THAT ALMOST GOT AWAY….

February 2, 2010 Leave a comment

GOAL ALERT 1-2010                                                          1 February 2010

One almost slipped past us! 

House Bill 2778 appears to adopt federal restrictions on firearm possession in cases of domestic violence or “no-contact” or other family-related restraining orders.

Federal law is already bad enough.  Banning possession of firearms, a fundamental constitutional right, for a misdemeanor simple assault conviction is already unconscionable.  The same is true with regard to firearm bans on individuals subject to certain restraining orders — individuals who have committed no crime whatsoever.

But HB 2778 goes much further than that.  Bill sponsors claim the bill merely incorporate the federal prohibitions into state law.  But rather than simply quote federal law, or cite it in existing Washington law, it adds entirely new language that far exceeds the already oppressive federal restrictions.

From the NRA Legislative Counsel:

            Adding “harassment” to the provisions of the federal DV law would exceed the scope of the federal law.  “Harassment” under Washington law may not even contain an element of the use of or threatened use of force. 

            “Family or household members” as defined in RCW 9.41.040(2) is broader than the definitions of “intimate partner” in federal law. 

            The surrender of firearms and prohibitions contained in RCW 9.41.800 would apply to ex parte restraining orders, where the subject of the order would not even have the opportunity to defend him- or herself. 

HB 2778 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on 21 January.  It was subjected to a hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee today (1 February) and will likely come out of that committee in a few days.  Then it goes to the full House for a floor vote by all Representatives. 

You are urged to call both of your Representatives and ask them to oppose this poorly drafted legislation. 

A substitute MAY be offered that would limit the impact of the bill to that of federal law.  While that is infinitely preferable to the version under consideration at this time, the bottom line is, do we really want to deny a fundamental constitutional right to someone who has not been convicted of a serious crime?  Or in the case of a restraining order, NO CRIME?

You may contact your Representatives via the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or directly via the contact information available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx 

When your legislative district pops up, it will include links to your Representatives’ web site, with office and e-mail addresses and direct telephone numbers. 

In no way does our opposition to HB 2778 imply we condone domestic violence, in any form.   This is simply a poorly written bill that does not deserve serious consideration.

GOP Bans Senator Pam Roach from Caucus

January 30, 2010 1 comment

This is infuriating!  Senator Pam Roach (D-WA 31) is a strong proponent of our Second Amendment and has done an amazing job in spite of being surrounded by the liberal socialists here in Washington State.  She’s a no-nonsense Republican who doesn’t allow others to shove her around and she works for her CONSTITUENTS.  She’s a life member of NRA and she’s always stood up against those who would attempt to destroy our rights.

She’s also strong on DSHS (particularly related to Child Protective Services) and Education Reform and she walks the talk when it comes to voting on legislation that’s truly FOR THE PEOPLE here in Washington State.

For the GOP to pull this is nothing less than juvenile and petulant and we here in Washington aren’t going to stand by and condone this nonsense without making our voices heard.  Senator Roach’s experience and efforts in serving her constituents and the State of Washington are exemplary should be applauded, not condemned by the GOP.

Sen. Pam Roach voted out of Republican caucus | Roach calls caucus a ‘star chamber’

By DENNIS BOX
Covington Reporter Editor
Today, 4:52 PM

The Senate Republican caucus voted Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn out of the caucus meetings for this Legislative session and the remainder of the year.

According to Roach both sides can revisit the issue when the 2011 Legislative session convenes.

The Seattle Times posted a story earlier on its Web site.

Roach said the issue stems from an incident between Mike Hoover, the Republican Senate attorney and herself during a 2009 caucus meeting. According to the senator there was discussion in the caucus meeting concerning whether a press release for another Republican senator should be sent out.

“I asked him, ‘What are we paying you for?’,” Roach said during a phone interview today. “Was I outspoken to him? Yes.”

Roach said she later apologized to Hoover.

According to the Roach, Sen. Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla, Senate minority leader, is behind the move against her. She stated the two senators were involved in an argument at a caucus meeting.

Roach said during a phone interview today, she was in trouble with the caucus because, “I have been vocal pointing out the failings of leadership. We have a myriad of problems in our caucus.”

The senator said being booted out of the caucus does not affect her ability vote on measures or her committee assignments.

“It’s uncommon, but it doesn’t affect the voters,” Roach said. “I work the district very hard.”

Roach said when the caucus voted to ban her, “(I) no opportunity to talk (and) I had no idea what was happening…. It’s not like a court of law. It is a star chamber.”

Fear and hostility toward open carry in Olympia

January 29, 2010 Leave a comment

Fear and hostility toward open carry in Olympia

 http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d29-Fear-and-hostility-toward-open-carry-in-Olympia?cid=examiner-email

Wrapping up this week’s coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on SB 6396 – Sen. Adam Kline’s measure to ban so-called “assault weapons” – the story would not be complete without noting an incident that occurred outside the hearing room.

Prior to the hearing, as several Open Carry activists gathered in the hallway of the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building, Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli approached a member of the State Patrol’s security team and, after pointing out that there were visibly armed citizens in the building, demanded of the trooper: “Do you know if they’re loaded?”

Sources have confirmed to the Gun Rights Examiner that Fascitelli appeared both irritated and unnerved, and he wanted the State Patrol troopers to check every firearm at the door of the building to see if they were loaded. He was told by the WSP that troopers do not have the authority under state law to do that.

We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm.

We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.” State Court of Appeals, Division II, State v. Casad Fascitelli, in the vernacular, “ain’t from around here.” An East Coast transplant, his activities as the Northwest’s most vocal – and alarmist – gun prohibitionist makes him a sterling example of hoplophobia in action, at least certainly as it applies to his conduct the other day in Olympia.

As defined by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, a renowned pistol instructor who was a personal friend of mine, hoplophobia is an “irrational aversion to weapons.” Evidently, Fascitelli was not aware that carrying firearms in public, even on the Capitol Campus, is legal.

Open carry in this state has been affirmed by at least two court rulings in the past several years, State v. Spencer and State v. Gregory Casad, the latter an unpublished opinion from the State Court of Appeals, District II. Fear of guns has also been discussed at length by Sarah Thompson, MD in her essay titled Raging Against Self-Defense. Dr. Thomas differs from Col. Cooper in her analysis of fear of firearms, insisting that it is not perhaps a true phobia, but simply a strong fear. Those afflicted with this fear, she suggests, project that toward everyone. The result can be an anti-gunner whose fear of guns compels him to try banning them from everyone else’s possession.

Open Carry activists Jim Beal, John Parks and Jeff Hayes told Gun Rights Examiner in separate interviews that they were only a few feet away from Fascitelli when he approached the state trooper. Their accounts have been independently verified by two other sources.

We tried to contact Washington CeaseFire, but learned that Executive Director Kristen Comer’s voice mailbox is full. The incident was mentioned briefly in a larger discussion on the OpenCarry.org forum.

As I noted earlier here, the Open Carry contingent of the gun rights crowd, which numbered more than 300, was particularly well behaved. Likewise, several state troopers who were on hand were both casual and professional at the same time; aware of the visibly-armed citizens, but hardly uncomfortable with their presence.

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they’re less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can’t handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD

Prior to the hearing, I had even discouraged some of the Open Carry folks from packing their guns in the open, concerned that their appearance might shift public focus from a very bad piece of legislation to an issue that is already settled by court precedent.

As it turned out, the only objection was raised by Fascitelli, who apparently went away disappointed, until he was summoned to testify before the committee in support of the Kline measure.

KOMO’s always-affable Bryan Johnson interviewed Parks and did not seem one bit alarmed at his holstered sidearm. One might even consider open carry to be covered as much by the First Amendment as it is the Second, and by Article 1, Section 24 of the State Constitution, along with the court precedents protecting it.

That Fascitelli might want those armed citizens checked, and perhaps even removed from the premises, suggests that anti-gunners may be just as cavalier about stepping on someone’s freedom of speech and expression as they are about trying to trample on their right to keep and bear arms.

SMUG FACES AND MIDDLE FINGERS

January 26, 2010 Leave a comment

Just LOOK at this trash we are fed by OUR Legislature here in Washington State. 

They have a Judiciary Committee Meeting scheduled for 10:00 Tuesday, then once they find out We, The People are taking time off work, driving ALL THE WAY TO OLYMPIA to voice our concern, they change the schedule to allocate ONLY 30 MINUTES for the Committee Meeting! 

Nothing But Smug Faces and Middle Fingers from our Socialist Government and “Representatives” here In Washington State.

We’ll be there ANYWAY.  THEY ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES. NOT OUR RULERS.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/cmd/default.aspx?aid=15466

%d bloggers like this: