Representative Al O'Brien
Representative Mark Ericks
Senator Rosemary McAuliffe
FAX: (360) 786-1066, (360) 786-7317, (360) 786-1999

Representative O'Brien, Representative Ericks, Senator McAuliffe:

With a lack of fanfare bordering on stealth, a wave of new and restrictive
legislation hostile to firearms rights has been proposed in Olympia. These
bills seek to:
  - further restrict where law-abiding citizens who hold valid state-issued
    concealed-carry permits may be armed. (SB 5344, HB 1489, HB 1490)
  - enact burdensome and logically inconsistent "safe storage" requirements
    with more severe punishment for "unsafe" storage than for negligence
    that actually results in a firearms accident. (SB 5342, HB 1473)
  - ban all .50 caliber BMG rifles - a class of firearm that has been used
    in the commission of a violent crime less than five times in the past
    fifteen years. (SB 5593)
  - resurrect and expand the failed and ineffective federal 'assault
    weapons" ban. (SB 5475, HB 1627)

I call on you to oppose all of these bills. They all place unduly
burdensome restrictions on and unconstitutionally abrogate the protected
rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens without realizing any significant
gain in public safety. They are unfair and exceed the powers granted to the
legislature.

When the government seeks to place restrictions on individual liberty in
the name of public safety, the tradeoff must be carefully considered and
balanced, and lawmakers must be circumspect and reluctant to reduce those
liberties any further than is absolutely necessary to achieve true gains in
public safety. It is unreasonable and unfair to seek to place severe, even
draconian, restrictions on any individual liberty in an attempt to achieve
only a small increase in public safety. Destroying individual liberties in
an effort to soothe the unrealistic fears of a vocal minority is not one of
the principles upon which the United States is founded. Please do not be a
party to doing this.

These bills seek to broadly ban arms that are not commonly used in the
commission of violent crimes. The class of arms described by the invented
and inaccurate term "semi-automatic assault weapon" was used in less than
one-half of one percent of all violent crimes in this country prior to the
adoption of the federal ban in 1994. And according to information published
in 2003 by the Violence Policy Center, .50-caliber rifles were used in the
commission of a violent crime only four times in the past decade and a
half.

The vast and overwhelming majority of those who possess these arms are
peaceful and law-abiding citizens, with no desire to commit any crime of
violence. We are not now drowning in a wave of semiautomatic and
.50-caliber rifle crime, and never have been; rather, we are drowning in a
wave of phobia, hysteria, fearmongering, ignorance and incessant trumpeting
by sensationalist media of the relatively few crimes that do occur.

These bills offer two distasteful alternatives to firearms owners: the
immediate confiscation of their property, or the requirement to annually
register the firearms, undergo a background check, and submit to an
inspection without warrant to see whether some undefined standard of "safe
storage" is being met. Given the rich history of confiscation of
properly-registered firearms by supposedly "free" countries the past few
decades, I believe the second alternative can be more succinctly and
accurately described as "deferred confiscation." I do not trust the
government to respect my Rights when it comes to firearms ownership, and it
is obvious that the Founding Fathers did not either - else why would there
be a section in the highest law of our land clearly telling the government,
"hands off!" I fully expect, in a few years, should these laws pass, that
the state will come back and say to the public: "You know those firearms we
said you could keep if you registered? Well, we've changed our mind - turn
'em all in!"

The outright ban and confiscation (whether immediate or deferred) of
weapons that are used in only a small fraction of violent crimes is a
severe restriction of individual liberty that is far out of proportion to
the gain in public safety that would be realized. A more fair, more
balanced and more effective method of increasing actual public safety while
respecting individual liberty must be sought, one which does not involve
broad preemptive bans.

The confiscation of firearms from the citizens of Washington is a violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that "No State shall ... deprive any
person of ... property without due process of law." Saying I cannot own,
and must forfeit without just compensation, my rifle because someone else
may rarely use a similar rifle to harm others does not provide due process
of law: it is not fair. It blindly punishes me when I have done nothing
wrong and I have harmed no one. If I must be punished then punish me for
what I have done to someone, not for what someone else might possibly do.

The presumption of guilt in these bills is extremely offensive. I have
never committed any violent crime in my life - in fact, I have never
committed any crime more serious than speeding - and I likely never will;
yet, with the registration and inspection requirements, the state seeks to
put me on proactive probation. Through forcing me to annually reregister
and submit to a background check (at an unknown and likely arbitrarily high
price), and to submit to law enforcement agencies invading my home without
a warrant to inspect whether I am meeting a vague standard for storage (in
clear violation of the Fourth Amendment protections against searches
without a warrant granted on probable cause), the State is treating me as
an untrustworthy person suspected of being a violent criminal who just
hasn't been caught in the act yet. I am tired of being treated as a
second-class citizen and borderline homicidal maniac merely because I own
particular firearms. I am neither.

Worse yet, I have heard rumor that these bills are an attempt by the
Democratic party to "punish" the Republican party for being in power the
past few years, and for blocking legislation that the Democratic party
wished to enact. If this is true then shame on the legislators who proposed
these bills and shame on the legislators who support them. How dare my
rights and the rights of the citizens of Washington be cynically held
hostage or sacrificed in an adolescent attempt at tit-for-tat payback! I
would hope that the legislators of our state take their responsibilities,
the Constitution and the rights of the people more seriously than that.

Finally, and far from least, neither the United States Constitution nor the
Constitution of the State of Washington grants the legislature the power to
broadly ban and confiscate firearms from the public at large. I demand that
you uphold your oath of office and oppose these unconstitutional bills that
seek to trample my rights.

It is possible to improve public safety, reduce violent crime and prevent
tragic accidents, but the way to go about it is not through treating the
public as rowdy children who are incapable of taking mature responsibility
for their own actions and lives, or by sacrificing my rights and liberty
without my consent in the mistaken belief that making it illegal to possess
firearms will keep them out of the hands of violent criminals.