Wherein gun rights are restored and affirmed, the GMA's negative impacts are limited, and sex offenders are more tightly controlled and regulated.
House Bill 1052 (concerning firearm licenses for persons from other countries)
Substitute offered in the House on January 29, 2009, to modify distrubtion rates for licenses, provide law enforcement immunity and removal of the emergency clause. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on January 29, 2009, to modify distrubtion rates for licenses, provide law enforcement immunity and removal of the emergency clause.
House Bill 1825 (identifying specific facilities planning requirements under the growth management act)
Introduced in the House on January 30, 2009, requires that a county or city, while planning for new urban growth, must include enough area that will accommodate the building of necessary facilities for new population growth, such as hospitals, government,institutional,commercial, service,and retail facilities among others.
House Bill 1827 (uncompensated signage requirements under the growth management act)
Introduced by Rep. Jay Rodne, (R-North Bend) (D) on January 30, 2009, prohibits local governments and state agencies from requiring private property owners to pay for or locate signs for the public benefit on properties without providing compensation to the property owners for taking of the land.
House Bill 1828 (prohibiting certain restrictions under the growth management act )
Introduced by Rep. Jay Rodne, (R-North Bend) (D) on January 30, 2009, prohibits development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW (growth management act) from regulating, imposing conditions upon, or otherwise restricting persons from annually removing three or fewer trees and surrounding vegetation from their property for the purpose of preventing potential harm to persons or structures on their property or on abutting properties.
House Bill 1832 (protecting the right to the lawful possession of firearms during an emergency)
Introduced by Rep. Jaime Herrera (R) on January 30, 2009, repeals the prerogative of the Governor, upon declaring a state of emergency, to prohibit private citizens from carrying firearms on their person, away from their home of residence, during the declared state of emergency.
House Bill 1834 (regarding the registration of level III sex offenders)
Introduced by Rep. Jan Angel, (R) (R) on January 30, 2009, requiring the electronic monitoring of all registered sex offenders who are classified as risk level III, have registered as homeless or transient, or have a prior conviction for failure to register as a sex offender.
House Bill 1839 (improving the resources and tools community corrections )
Introduced by Rep. Kirk Pearson, (R-Monroe) (R) on January 30, 2009, officers and law enforcement need to perform their duties protecting the public requires the department of corrections to allow community corrections officers to inspect the person, and personal property of an offender, including escapees and absconders, under its supervision in the community whenever the community corrections officer, has reasonable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition or requirement of his or her sentence. Allows community corrections officers, based on the officer's professional judgment and discretion, to perform random, unannounced inspections of all offenders (including escapees and absconders) and/or the offender's personal property under the department's supervision pursuant to a term of community custody imposed for a crime committed on or after August 1, 2009. Conditional upon approval of appropriations.
House Bill 1840 (increasing the flexibility of community corrections officers to make searches of offenders in the community)
Introduced by Rep. Kirk Pearson, (R-Monroe) (R) on January 30, 2009, make searches of offenders in the community requires the department of corrections to allow community corrections officers to inspect the an offender as well as his or her personal property, under its supervision in the community whenever the community corrections officer has reasonable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition or requirement of his or her sentence. Allows community corrections officers, based on the officer's professional judgment and discretion, to perform random, unannounced inspections of the person, residence, automobile, or other personal property of every offender, including escapees and absconders, under the department's supervision a crime committed on or after August 1, 2009.
Senate Bill 5739 (Concealed pistol licenses by members of the armed forces)
Introduced by Sen. Curtis King, (R-Yakima) (R) on January 30, 2009, allows deployed members of the armed forces to renew a concealed pistol license that expires during their deployment within ninety days of their return.
Senate Bill 5740 (Requiring drug testing of peace officers)
Introduced by Sen. Curtis King, (R-Yakima) (R) on January 30, 2009, allows for voters in local communities to require drug testing of peace officers and gives guidelines on voter approval and how testing will be conducted along with specific testing policy procedure. (See also Companion HB 1511).
Senate Bill 5747 (Taxing plastics manufacturers)
Introduced by Sen. Jim Hargrove, (D-Hoquiam) (D) on January 30, 2009, levies a plastics tax on the business of primary plastics manufacturing or of primary plastic container manufacturing in this state. Creates the climate protection forestry account.
Aside from the fact that it is sponsored by Marilyn Chase (commie of the first order) and other dems, the alien firearm bill (HB 1052) appears to restrict its application to only non-immigrant legal foreigners. This would add a burden to foreign hunters (how many of those do we get a year?) and to foreigners here for business, education, or diplomatic reasons.
The second bill (HB 1832) removes an unconstitutional authority granted to the Governor. It won't pass for two reasons - it hasn't been litigated and its sponsored by a Republican.
The third bill (SB 5739) has a potential of passing, since it affects our serving military. The dems may not favor the military, but they have not to date actively punished those who serve. The provisions are pretty minor and will save a few dollars for folks who are out of country when their CCW permits expire.
All the climate stuff is intended to bring our society back to the stone age. Fight it with all the tools and strength you have. It will be a lot harder to remove once passed.
I have seen a pattern in the last five years of Republicans conceding ground on the climate issue. The science does not support it. Only computer models provide any justification for this insanity, and these have been deliberately fudged to make a natural, life giving substance (CO2) a villan. The real climate is cooling and will continue to do so for the next decade or so.
There's a story behind the alien bill. Basically, we have already had restrictions on alien firearm possession, but they were moving toward making ALL alien firearm possession illegal. This new bill, as I understand it, would restore legal possession of firearms for aliens. The NRA has been hammering WA on this issue, and it's an easy way for Democrats to support both immigrants AND gun rights.
As to the unconstitutional power granted to the Governor, we'll see. I agree with most of what you said, but OTOH, since most Democrats surely know that it is unconstitutional power, again, supporting this might be an easy way for the Dems to say they are bipartisan and that they care about gun rights.
(I am proud to say that three of the nine sponsors of that one come from Snohomish County, and two of them from my 39th LD! The other is Mike Hope, from the 44th, who beat out Liz Loomis in a close recount.)
We'll see how it shakes out ... but like you, I am not optimistic.
She is still the same law abiding person she always was. The state decided she no longer had the right to defend herself.
Posted by: Vince on February 1, 2009 05:08 PMSo why, if she is married to an American, hasn't she applied for green card. This law doesn't apply to green card holders - only to non-resident aliens who are legally here (i.e. those on student, business and diplomatic visas).
If she is a green card holder and has been cut off, would not the second amendment have been violated? It seems all the rest of the bill of rights applies to green card holders (through the 14th amendment), why not the second?
Posted by: deadwood on February 1, 2009 05:47 PMWhile I wholeheartedly agree what the Congress likely meant back in the 1860's when the 14th Amendment was drafted, the courts have taken the last part of Section 1 (Equal Protection Clause), which does limit it language to citizens, but to persons, to mean non-citizens as well as citizens.
Who knows how far they will eventually take this now that the left has the ability to replace members of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: deadwood on February 2, 2009 06:35 AMIt's not what they merely MEANT, it is what they explicitly stated:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, what you say in @7 is different from what you say in @5. The part about "privileges and immunities," which is what makes the Second Amendment apply to states -- although this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court* -- is specifically for citizens. Equal protection, and due process, are for all persons, including Green Card holders and non-Green Card holders alike.
If you have an example of the Court ruling that the civil rights -- not equal protection or due process, but the rest of the rights -- apply to non-citizens through the 14th Amendment, I'd like to see it. I've been wondering about this lately but have not had time to research it.
As to "why not the second," I have every confidence that the Supreme Court will soon change this. Unfortunately, about 100 years ago, the doctrine of selective incorporation was invented by the Supreme Court to prevent the Bill of Rights in its entirety being applied to the states.
This goes against both the letter and the intent of the 14th Amendment, and it seems to me the doctrine has fallen out of favor in recent years, perhaps because there's only a small handful of rights left un-incorporated, most notably the Second Amendment. And that is the next target for the NRA and its allies.
I think that incorporation of the Second Amendment will not only happen within the next few years, but that it will pass with (if given the Court's current makeup) the support of at least seven justices: even though some of the justices do not agree with the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment, that doesn't mean they think any recognized constitutional right should not be applied to the states.