POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

[Shooter]

This nonsense about gun show loopholes or internet sales is getting old. Any gun sold at a gun show, at least on the western half of this state, is regulated by Washington Arms Collectors. Only members may participate in sales at gun shows in western Washington. All members are backgrounded. So there are no sales at gun shows that are not already run through a background check, at least on the western half of this state. Internet sales must also pass through an FFL before transfer to the purchaser. Don't buy into the media garbage man. They like to scare people with contrived nonsense. They'll parade children and family members across the screen all day and outright lie to get what they want. Criminals by definition don't follow the law, what's one more law going to do? It's illegal for them to posses a gun, but they do it anyways. It's illegal to conceal the weapon without a permit, but they do that too. It's illegal to brandish the weapon, but they do that. It's illegal to rob/rape/murder/assault/threaten, but they do all of that. What difference is it really going to make to say it was also illegal for them to illegally buy the gun they already weren't allowed to have without a background check that is completely unenforcable?

 

[Gringo31]

And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right?

So.....it's kind of like E-Verify.  As long as the info is a real person and it's my face on the pic....I'm golden?  (With a background check)

Seems every avenue I look at I come up with the same result in the end.......

Won't do anything but infringe law abiding folks.....Yet they just can't seem to leave it alone.

[Atroxus]

As has been said this law would be completely unenforcable without gun registration. It's all based on the honor system anyways, which only works for honorable people. There is absolutely no way for them to know if I sold a gun to you before or after this law went into effect, unless they require complete and mandatory registration of all guns.

Say this passed and they say universal background checks are now mandatory, what's to say I can't just say I sold the gun before that was the case. Now prove to me how they would know if that's true or not without registration. It's easy to predate a bill of sale or the like. This law is pointless without registration, which I assure you, would be swiftly coming as an amendment if they managed to pass it.

According to the Department of Justice something like 0.7% of guns used in the commission of crimes were obtained from gun shows. The people would be far better served by enforcing current laws, than creating new ones that can't be enforced. 39.6% of criminals gets their guns from family or friends, and 39.2% get their guns from the streets or illegal sources. Maybe we close that "loophole" first, and punish the friends and family members who knowingly or negligently allowed their firearms to make it into the hands of a known criminal, and don't tell me their friends and family didn't know they were a criminal. Seems to me getting 40% of illegally possessed firearms off the street would do far more good than removing 0.7% of them.

The Department of Justice Report

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

This nonsense about gun show loopholes or internet sales is getting old. Any gun sold at a gun show, at least on the western half of this state, is regulated by Washington Arms Collectors. Only members may participate in sales at gun shows in western Washington. All members are backgrounded. So there are no sales at gun shows that are not already run through a background check, at least on the western half of this state. Internet sales must also pass through an FFL before transfer to the purchaser. Don't buy into the media garbage man. They like to scare people with contrived nonsense. They'll parade children and family members across the screen all day and outright lie to get what they want. Criminals by definition don't follow the law, what's one more law going to do? It's illegal for them to posses a gun, but they do it anyways. It's illegal to conceal the weapon without a permit, but they do that too. It's illegal to brandish the weapon, but they do that. It's illegal to rob/rape/murder/assault/threaten, but they do all of that. What difference is it really going to make to say it was also illegal for them to illegally buy the gun they already weren't allowed to have without a background check that is completely unenforcable?

 

Mind if I steal that quote and re-post it? You said it a heck of a lot better than I would have.

[brokenvet]

Here is WA state law.  We don't need any new ones

RCW 9.41.080
Delivery to ineligible persons.
   

No person may deliver a firearm to any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony, punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

[huntnphool]

And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right?

So.....it's kind of like E-Verify.  As long as the info is a real person and it's my face on the pic....I'm golden?  (With a background check)

Seems every avenue I look at I come up with the same result in the end.......

Won't do anything but infringe law abiding folks.....Yet they just can't seem to leave it alone.

Are you willing to be arrested, lose your rights or go to prison because you sold a gun to someone with a fake ID, only to have that person kill someone and have the gun traced back to you? All because you assumed everything was legit and his license wasn't "punched"?

I'm Not!!!

[SGTDuffman]

 

Mind if I steal that quote and re-post it? You said it a heck of a lot better than I would have.

Go for it. we need to spread around as much info as we can to people who don't know better. They just expect that the news outlets have done their due diligence, in most cases, they have not.

[huntnphool]

Hey Gringo, I hope you don't think I am picking on you, that is not my intention and just like Mags, I applaud your effort at a solution. Unfortunately there is no solution and people need to come to grips with it, it is what it is, and disarming or infringing on law abiding citizens rights is not going to stop those intent on doing harm to others........period!

[baldopepper]

huntnphool-again, we can chomp our gums all we want about what will work or not work, how unfair it is etc. etc. but bottom line the state is going to get legislation whether we are part of the writing or not part of the writing.  We can't keep saying the polls lie (some suggest as high as 72% of the states population wants stricter control and even the lowest still show close to 56%).  IF we don't go to our legislators with some plans there is no question a much stricter law will go to a referendum vote and we'll lose!!! What's worse is such a vote will only lead to more referendums, there's idealism and there's realism-we can stand pat on our ideals or face reality. Those of us who are legimate, law abiding gun owners will complain and moan, but we'll abide by the law-for all of our brave, big talk we always do. Lobbing our legislators to do nothing was nothing more than winning the battle, but lossing the war. 

[pendoreilleadventures]

Pianoman has it right. Withput a regestry list this is not enforceable. If they cannot prove who owns the gun now, How can they prove it was sold illegally? There are millions of guns in private ownership no agency anywhere knows who owns what.
Carl

Not necessarily. A background check is not the same as a gun registry. The purpose of a background check is to see if the person is currently legal to buy a gun. It doesn’t necessarily have to record the transaction at all. The check could be done, the buyer cleared, the seller gets some portion of the form that proves a background check was done and the record purged at some point in the near future.

I’m not saying that is what will happen, but a background check can be done without a resulting registry.

 

[gaddy]

seems to that once the foot is in the door its easier to push it open.

[Smossy]

It's completely unenforceable without maintaining a list of gun owners. This is why I oppose it. I could back gun show checks if the government could guarantee the information would be flushed once the check came back positive. But private sales can't work like that. It's not when the sale is made that's the problem. It's when there's a problem involving that gun. How would the seller be able to prove he'd had a background check pass for the person if all records had been expunged? He wouldn't be able to and it would be his word against a prosecutor.

+1, the ones committing these crimes are not going to be subject to a background check, so what is the point of making the people that are not committing these crimes go through one?

He said it for me. 
BG checks are pointless. It just makes it harder than it already is on the law abiding gun owners..
If someones going to commit a crime, They're going to buy a "throwaway" off the street gangs or tweekers, OR just go steal one themselves. Not use they're own gun, that they probably payed over a grand for - To go rob a convenience store for $50 bucks. They would just sell they're gun if they were hurting for money that bad and get 75-100% of its value, Not $50. C'mon people use your brains. 

[pianoman9701]

It's completely unenforceable without maintaining a list of gun owners. This is why I oppose it. I could back gun show checks if the government could guarantee the information would be flushed once the check came back positive. But private sales can't work like that. It's not when the sale is made that's the problem. It's when there's a problem involving that gun. How would the seller be able to prove he'd had a background check pass for the person if all records had been expunged? He wouldn't be able to and it would be his word against a prosecutor.

+1, the ones committing these crimes are not going to be subject to a background check, so what is the point of making the people that are not committing these crimes go through one?

He said it for me. 
BG checks are pointless. It just makes it harder than it already is on the law abiding gun owners..
If someones going to commit a crime, They're going to buy a "throwaway" off the street gangs or tweekers, OR just go steal one themselves. Not use they're own gun, that they probably payed over a grand for - To go rob a convenience store for $50 bucks. They would just sell they're gun if they were hurting for money that bad and get 75-100% of its value, Not $50. C'mon people use your brains. 

Well, there are criminal idiots who do go through the process and get kicked. Which brings up another problem - these felons who are going through the check process to get a gun and are being kicked are not being prosecuted by the feds. So we have a rule in place and the justice department isn't going after the bad guys anyway! Why would they be any better at it with a new law?

[gaddy]

with all the laws already on the books, wouldent it be more cost effective to enforce them than waste time & money to make new ones. maybe it would take more time as people would actually have to review them. i think alot of this crap is like the little clubs in high school. even if it has no meaning thier going to promote to make themselves feel like they accomplished something.

[SGTDuffman]

I'm reminded of VP Biden's response to the NRA when they asked all these same types of questions. When it was mentioned that there are virtually no federal prosecutions for people lying on their Form 4473's, Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." ( http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn%27t-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx ) Don't have the time or the manpower to prosecute people guilty of a Federal offense that carries a 10 year sentence? If you can't enforce the laws we have, what are you planning on doing with more laws?

Here come more of those pesky facts from the Department of Justice. Pages 4, 6 and 7.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

The FBI performed just over 6 million background investigations in 2010. There were approximately 76,000 denials. The most common reasons for denial were the person had a felony indictment or conviction 47.4% of the time, was a fugitive 19.1% of the time, or were denied by the state for some reason 10.6% of the time. Anyone care to guess how many of the over 48,000 fugitives and felons that were denied a gun sale were actually prosecuted for this felony? 62. That's not a typo. Sixty two. Of those 62, 13 were actually convicted. The rest were thrown out, pending or overturned.  76,142 falsifications and 62 prosecutions. A .0008142% prosecution rate...and a .0001707% conviction rate. Do you really think more laws are going to help when they don't enforce the laws we have? With the people they convict they couldn't field a sports team. If they convicted every person they prosecuted they couldn't have a game. If they prosecuted everyone who broke the law they could fill Century Link Field 10,000 past capacity. You don't want these people making more laws. They don't even know what the current laws are, let alone enforce them.

[gaddy]

so just like idiots some are going to spend untold mills & how much time, costing more mills,to put forth another wasted effort that will have no meaning in the end & create offenders out of ordinary folk. sensless. before any more legislation or initiatives get passed we need to get the powers that be to be educated on whats already there. all this time spent on this should include a mandatory class on existing law & effects prior to being allowed to vote. debates last weeks or more. & most don't know what they are talking about.make them take a class to learn the issues before they throw this stuff down our throats. then they can talk to the public with an informed opinion.