Washington

Washington (12)

Tuesday, 08 March 2016 11:05

WA State SBR laws fix passed - updated

Written by

Revised 4/1/16: Governor Inslee signed SB6165 into law! It goes into effect in 90 days after the session that it was passed. Since this was passed as part of the regular session I believe that will be June 9.  
This gives folks who want to do a Form 1 prior to the ATFE 41F changes a window that they can file (have to submit prior to July 14th) .

 

SOURCE: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6165&year=2015#history

There was a glitch in the Legislature's fix for allowing SBRs. Unfortunately, the ATF interpreted it to disallow Form 1's from non-licensed individuals. 

The wording has been fixed and awaits Governor Inslee's signature.

 

CORRECTION: Speaker signed the bill 3/9/16 and has been delivered to the Governor.

 UPDATE 3/10: Governor has signed 10 bills and vetoed 27 as a result of a budget debate with the State Legislature. This bill does not appear on the signature or vetoed list (http://www.governor.wa.gov/office-governor/official-actions/bill-action).  If not vetoed or signed it becomes laws in 20 days (not counting Sundays).

 

Source: opb.org

"So the sheriff made the decision to go ahead and focus on Multnomah County resident applications, try and reduce that backlog, and then we'll re-open the process for Washington State residents who have business here in Oregon."

Oregon is a little different than most states in that while resident CCW licenses are required by law (shall issue) if the person meets the requirements, non-resident CCW licenses (contiguous states only) are completely discretionary (may issue). This means that the it can (and does) vary from county to county. I know of at least one county that simply does not issue to non-Oregon residents.

It would appear that the Multnomah County is currently inundated by applications. We can assume that since they get a lot of WA applications because of Portland. They state that they will reopen the applications at least from WA in the future. What about the other states, I wonder?

Is it coincidental to the fact that Multinomah County just passed some interesting new firearm restrictions? New restrictions include the open carrying of a firearm while hiking and making it illegal to have a loaded magazine in "public" even if you don't have a firearm! See source: Oregonian

I guess we will find out what happens in the future.

Well, I got my High Noon holster for my S&W 1066 to attach to my Galco Miami Classic II shoulder holster. It is absolutely perfect and I even wore it a couple of days to break it in.

But, I got to thinking about it...1066s are a bit hard to find, not to mention a bit heavy. Adjusting the holster for driving in a car I found that even a full size 5" (like the 1006 or a 1911) pistol is quite comfortable. I think that a pistol like the Sig P220 (alloy frame) would have been ideal for a driving shoulder rig.

I also reconsidered my previous selection of only a single stack. The pistol gets triple-locked into a hard case locked in the trunk for the duration of CA. If it was to come out of the case it would be in an emergency. If a life/death situation were to occur I would have much bigger concerns than being in possession of the "nuisance items" (as defined by CA Penal Code) high-cap mags. In fact, I am pretty sure the pistol would be confiscated regardless.

So after all that I decided to go the complete opposite route - something very small, easily worn, and that could be replaced by my local gun shop. I picked my S&W M&P 9mm compact.

I chose my BladeTech Revolution with the paddle attachment. I used 0 degree cant with the thought that I could wear it as a cross-draw to avoid seat belt entanglement. As it happens I wore it strong side. Its short length was quite comfortable even sitting 10-14 hours in a car. The paddle attachment was perfect for quick removal when stopping at the OR/CA border to lock the pistol up.

Sub-compact pistol + paddle holster for me is a perfect combo with a comfortable shoulder holster with a lightweight framed pistol as a good alternative.

Someone yesterday asked me what states honor what CCW licenses. I had to add the caveat that some states only honor licenses issued to their own residents. For example, I live in Washington but I have a Utah CFP, obviously as a non-resident. Florida honors a Utah CFP -- BUT only for Utah residents. Now, as luck has it Florida does honor Washington's CPL.

So, what states honor what is not always a quick and easy answer. To make matters worse it is not always the same. Some states add or remove other states. For example, New Mexico and Florida. First they were reciprocal. Then they were not. And now they are again. Best to check right before your trip!

The best two sites, IMO, for looking up reciprocity is Florida's site: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html
and
Utah's BCI:
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html

Both have a lot of information and links to the other states. They are also the two most common CCW licenses used for interstate carry.

To answer the original question of what states don't honor out of state (non-resident) CCW licenses I extract the info from the FL site (so you don't have to) they are:

  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Michigan
  • New Hampshire
  • South Carolina

     

  • is it just me or is this weird article? The first sentence...mayor to announce tougher federal penalties are two things that don't normally go together. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seattle-plan-to-combat-gun-crime-159415415.html

    Heads up potential Seattle visitors! Last week the "May Day Zone" became weapons banned & confiscation, authorized by the mayor's emergency powers executive order.  Makes you wonder -- what would happen in  a real and protracted emergency  Like Hurricane Katrina? Or an eruption in the Ring of Fire?)

    Anyway, article from the local news today:

    Peaceful protesters said violence perpetrated by a select few wrecked their message a week ago on May Day, but the ...

    http://cdn.localwireless.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=26&nid=529401638&cid=21216&scid=-1

    You may have heard about the Seattle "May Day Protests" and the "Black Bloc" of self-proclaimed anarchists causing mayhem and destruction.

    You may have even heard that Mayor McGinn banned "weapons" that included sticks, rocks, flag poles, etc. But, what you may not have known is that he actually banned *all* weapons and the police were allowed to confiscate them.

    Am I being alarmist? Maybe not when you consider that this is a Mayor that attempted to uphold former Mayor Nichols' illegal firearms ban -- despite being told by the Attorney General that is was illegal, ruled against in court, ruled against in Appeals, and then finally ruled against by State Supreme Court! See a trend here? What was the order called?

    ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CONFISCATION OF WEAPONS

    Now, I know of no instance where there was a problem for a legal CCW holder (a valid reason why the framers of our 70s CCW laws made it CONCEALED carry) but the order is written vaguely enough to cover licensed CCW holders.

    To the Mayor's credit the order did not apply to lawfully kept weapons in place of business or residence. HOWEVER, legal CCWers should have been exempted also!  Walking to your car or driving home could have put you in violation of the law in which your firearm would be potentially confiscated and you would face a $500 if convicted.

    You might be wondering how this order is legal? Well, actually it appears that under  RCW38.52 it is:

    RCW 38.52.020: (b) To confer upon the governor and upon the executive heads of the political subdivisions of the state the emergency powers provided herein;

    and

    RCW 38.52.070: (2) In carrying out the provisions of this chapter each political subdivision, in which any disaster as described in RCW 38.52.020 occurs, shall have the power to enter into contracts and incur obligations necessary to combat such disaster, protecting the health and safety of persons and property, and providing emergency assistance to the victims of such disaster. Each political subdivision is authorized to exercise the powers vested under this section in the light of the exigencies of an extreme emergency situation without regard to time-consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law

    Now the interesting thing is that even under Emergency Powers heads of political subdivisions are still answerable to the Governor.  This explains why the ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CONFISCATION OF WEAPONS mentions that a copy was sent to the Governor and King Co. Executive.

    The order was written to expire in 48 hours or earlier. True to his word the Mayor did rescind it today.

    I include copies of the orders here since these things tend to disappear after time and memory.

    120501PR-proclamationConfiscation

    120501PR-civilOrderConfiscation

    120502PR-proclamationConfiscationTermination

     

     

    This is  a complete tragedy: Ranger Fatally Shot at Mt Rainier.
    1/2/12 update: Law enforcement did a good job protecting the visitors and campers, although I still would be concerned about visitors  out there not necessarily in concentrated areas or numbers. Despite the 100+ LEO's out there they were still at severe risk. I don't there is much doubt they would be dead if they had run into the assailant.

     

    As someone who regularly camps at Skate Creek (just outside Rainier National Park) it is a reminder of why I carry a firearm when out there.

    Remember all the rhetoric about how the Rangers would keep you safe? Best intentions aside, when someone is bent on hurting others they will find a way, regardless of laws.

    Officials were so concerned about the safety of the Park Visitors that they actually would not let them leave because they were afraid for their safety while LEAVING.

    What about the folks in the campground, the people hiking, the people outside of the Park's boundary?

    That could have been me, or my friends and family.  That's why we camp armed.

     

    Good grief. The city of Seattle is now requesting that the state Supreme Court review if the the state's firearm preemption (RCW 9.41.290) makes city government ineffective to protect citizens.

    Gee..if that's the case then really state law can just be disregarded. Oh wait..that's what the city of Seattle does anyway. They knew their handgun ban was illegal when they first passed it. The former mayor is gone, but apparently the current administration is no different. Ironic that citizens are supposed to obey the law, while the city itself won't.

    "The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality."

    You tell me what is unclear about this?

    Article: Seattle asks state Supreme Court to allow gun ban