“Our background check law has stopped over 40,000 people in Washington State—felons, domestic abusers, you name it—from getting guns,” says former Bellingham Police chief Don Pierce in the first TV ad from I-594 sponsor Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility.
“But there’s a dangerous loophole in the law,” Pierce explains: “Criminals who fail a background check can simply go online, or to a gun show, and buy a gun from a stranger, no questions asked. 594 closes that loophole, helping keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Close the background check loophole,” Pierce urges, “vote Yes on 594.”
Hard to argue with that.
The problem NRA folks will have with truthfully refuting I-594’s message is that at their worst, background checks are little more than a nuisance. But it’s a nuisance that most gun owners have already gone through to purchase their current firearms, so it’s not like the prospect of closing this loophole is all that scary.
So don’t expect a truthful response.
[Full disclosure: I’m biased!]
You’ve got to wonder what they’re afraid of. You get a hint when they compare background checks to the Holocaust. The NRA seems to have rounding up people in mind. But are they afraid we’ll round them up, or do they intend to round us up?
@1 The latter. “Second Amendment remedies” has always been the far right’s Plan B.
Ok, so you close the gun show loophole and add a $50-200 fee for a dealer to do the background check. That screens just under 2% of the guns used in crimes (and that may be further reduced by the amount of people who will pass a check because they’ve got no flags in their record yet).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
If we’re going after the little stuff can we ask Pete Holmes about if those individuals smoking weed in public had other things on their record when they were being cited ?
@3 Okay, so if 98% of guns used in crimes were stolen, bought in the black market, or obtained on the street, and only 1% were purchased from gun stores and another 1% from gun shows, does that mean gun stores shouldn’t be required to do background checks? If your answer is “yes,” then my next question is, “would more criminals obtain guns from gun stores if background checks weren’t required in gun stores?
Saw the ad. During the voice-over they type a URL of a site where one it appears one can go to set-up an “outside the background check” gun purchase.
Helpful advertising within the advertising for the uninspired criminal.
I-594 requires a background check on any transfer of a firearm, not just sales. If you let a friend borrow your gun for five minutes at a gun range, or hand a family member a gun while your home is being invaded, even if there is no money transferred, you are required to undergo a background check under this law, or you could be committing a felony.
Vote no on I-594. Even if you agree on more background checks, this is not the proper method of implementing them.
I-594 would prohibit handing a gun to a friend (defined as a temporary transfer) at the local rifle range to shoot, unless they obtained a background check first or the gun was kept at the range at all times.
I-594 would require a bkgd check that dealers are under no obligation to provide. Supporters of 594 like to tell us about the large number of dealers but are unwilling to reveal how many of them are willing to allow private sales to cut into their business. There is no actual limit to what dealers can charge to facilitate the transfer other than the vague “fair market” price.
The above facts are in general ignored by supporters of I-594.
Ranb40@yahoo.com
@6 “If you let a friend borrow your gun for five minutes at a gun range, or hand a family member a gun while your home is being invaded, even if there is no money transferred, you are required to undergo a background check under this law, or you could be committing a felony.”
This interpretation brought to you courtesy of a mail-order law degree that cost the purchaser $29.95 plus $4.95 shipping.
@7 What facts?
@ 8 RR
That interpretation likely coming from the same lawyers that go to court on behalf of the Police to argue that the 4th Amendment guarantees their right to search.
Wow. Full bore Fear Fever Arguments. Be terrified. Be Very Terrified
Love this little gem
“hand a family member a gun while your home is being invaded” cause that is such a problem in this state. Who is likely invaders? Zombies? Cops?
I know, I know, these are people who have been filled with the hate and the fear of the “others” coming to take their stuff, kill them, do terrible things to their family members and of nobody is going to come to help them or protect them, After all, any level of government is powerless, or corrupt or the enemy, in their world view. Civilization is collapsing, Americans are being beheaded on the other side of the world, gays are getting married and brown people are again demanding they be treated equal to white people. Jobs are harder to get and pay less, taxes are just going up and being given the lazy people. They cannot trust their neighbors to watch out for them cause the neighbors don’t share the same values. so they have to be able to do it all on their own. So they need lots and lots of guns and the god given right to use them as they see fit.
@7, good point about the transfer definition being way too broad. Yes, it could be enforced as you suggest. Would anyone enforce it like that? Well, if you look at the broad exclusion of law enforcement from 594.
Rhetorically, why should law enforcement not be subject to background checks when transferring deadly weapons ? Do you not want strong records of where the firearms are so no AR-15s go missing ?
Oh, sure, law enforcement was probably subject to background check before hiring so they’d probably pass.
Does that mean that someone who can provide proof of having bought a gun with a background check performed in the past 5 years should be exempted ? It would save a lot of hassle/expense for legal owners.
Still confused about why the pdf of the 594 initiative is labelled 483…. come on guys, no changes?
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elec.....xt_483.pdf
If you let someone drive your car, they need to have undergone a background check (in the form of having a valid driver’s license). If you hand your car keys to you 13-year-old to drive you to the emergency room after you’ve shot yourself cleaning your rifle, your 13-year-old could be charged with a crime if she drives you.
So maybe we need to abolish driver licensing.
@7 “I-594 would prohibit handing a gun to a friend (defined as a temporary transfer) at the local rifle range to shoot, unless they obtained a background check first or the gun was kept at the range at all times.”
@12 “Yes, it could be enforced as you suggest.”
The text of the initiative actually says:
“NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
…
(4) This section does not apply to:
…
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm … (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; …”
While the language “and the firearm is kept at all times” is latently ambiguous as it could mean either
(1) the firearm must remain at the shooting range while in possession of the friend who hasn’t had a background, or
(2) the firearm must be one that’s stored at the shooting range whenever it’s not in use,
the second interpretation is fanciful and not what is intended. As legal interpretation is based on intent, not literal wording, it’s extremely unlikely that it would be interpreted by a court in the manner you suggest, although I suppose we can’t totally rule out an ignorant or pigheaded cop interpreting it that way.
@15, I figured that section was talking about the “rental guns” at shooting ranges. Hence, no background checks before being able to rent the gun.
@14, that might be an apt comparison if you had to be re-tested by the DMV every time you drive a different car. Buy a new car, go get re-tested. Want to rent a car for a weekend, be sure to go to the DMV for testing before you get behind the wheel.
If they gave a “a prior background check is valid for 5 year period” window, I’d support this. As it stands now, I’m either voting No or for 591 (which basically says “we’ll respect what the feds enact nationwide”).
“@15, I figured that section was talking about the “rental guns” at shooting ranges. Hence, no background checks before being able to rent the gun.”
That would be included, but it’s broader than that.
“@16 I’m either voting No or for 591 (which basically says ‘we’ll respect what the feds enact nationwide’).”
In other words, you’re for Republican Gun Control. No thanks, not me, it isn’t working.
@17, nah, I’m not opposed to background checks for private party sales, I just think it could be streamlined so as not to put significant burden or expense into every purchase. Add in the criminalization of two friends swapping or being loaned a gun for a few months prior to a decision to purchase and I think this is just too over-reaching. Unfortunately, initiatives aren’t open to compromise solutions.
The Federal regulations are crippled by NRA republicans. We can do better, just like our minimum wage is higher than the federal level. So far, I’m for I-594
@18 What if one of those friends just robbed a convenience store?
Do any of you own firearms currently?
@21 I am borrowing a musket from a buddy.
@21 My teeth and claws suffice in most social situations. I kick, too.
Yes.so?
Curious.
15 what if that interpretation will only be applied by republicans to brown people with guns?
@26 My personal opinion is that liberals must arm. They’ve said more than once they intend to round us up, put us in concentration camps, and execute us. Ann Coulter asserts she was only joking, but I don’t quite trust her.
@26, 27
Yes.
I want to see how the cops behave differently when a black guy, or organized club of black folk decide to exercise their god-given 2nd Amendment rights and parade through a town with AR-15s slung over their shoulders. We’ve seen film after film of cops pleading with stupid white guys with guns in places they shouldn’t have them, or menacing people, or being drunk. The New Black Panthers need to arm and do public drills.
I’ve had the thought lately, particularly with the Supremes just recently eviscerating the buffer zones around women’s health centers (where some of what they do is abortions)….to keep away the Fundie shrieking protesters…is to organize Dykes with Guns (a la Dykes on Bikes)….women protecting women….lesbians organized, trained, carrying rifles, wearing boots…a militia to safeguard the movement of vulnerable women seeking legal healthcare, to make sure they get from their car or the bus stop to the clinic, without some yahoo Bibul-thumper or Crisis-shelter charlatan getting in her face.
It’s unfortunate that we need such groups but the right-wing is eviscerating government, and we good people need to come up with privatized solutios.
It’s a load of #1 bullshit. More feeley good nonsense that will spend $$$ and accomplish nothing. Nothing the left comes up with anymore is competent or effective.
@29 If you have a better idea, let’s hear it. The right can’t expect to be listened to when all they do is say “no” to everything.
@30
That’s the puddibigot’s entire repertoire.
One way cops can keep guns out of criminals’ hands is to stop losing theirs.
http://fusion.net/news/story/f.....ns-1019632
Registration creates a record of people linked directly to personally owned firearms. It sure looks like 594 is registration under the guise of “safety.”
And I notice 594 does not (cannot) force firearm dealers to perform background checks to facilitate private transactions. Only a small fraction do – makes sense because they’re in the business of selling their own inventory.
Wow , must have a real prob. with full prisons in Washington
40,000 more people in prison where are they putting them?