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

[TheHunt]

They are missing the problem.  The target is mental health.  It does not matter at all about the background.  They will get the weapon anyway.

[huntnphool]

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.

It has not got the legislation it wants yet, and I for one am not ready to roll over and let it happen. If you choose to give up then fine, its your prerogative, but I won't.

[Gringo31]

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]

I'm not talking about giving up-here's my point.  In between those who fear gun legislation and those who want a total ban on guns is that vast majority who know little about the actual situation and virtually nothing about guns, but they want something done.  Even if it's another "feel good, do no good" law, they aren't going to be happy until they get something that makes them feel like they've done something to prevent future high profile shooting incidents.  (Don't get me wrong, I hate these type of band aid laws that do nothing more than allow people to say "there, we did something". )  What I'm saying is either we come up with something we can live with (I didn't say totally like) or the extremists on the other side will write something we totally hate. If we can come up with something the legislators can pass, I believe that a lot of the wind will go out of the sails on the extreme other side.  I deal with a lot of people during the course of the day and since they know I'm a gun owner this subject comes up a lot.  Most don't believe a total gun ban is called for, but sincerely believe something has to be done.  If we put them in a corner where a hard core referendum came to a vote, they would vote for it rather than see nothing done. In other words, don't give up-just fight smarter.
We can't keep our heads in the sand and think that just because it doesn't make sense, no new laws will be passed. Heck, we'd only have half the laws on the books we do now if that was the situation. I don't think there's a prayer we could defeat a referendum vote and I'd sure hate to see it come down to having to try.

[huntnphool]

I'm not talking about giving up-here's my point.  In between those who fear gun legislation and those who want a total ban on guns is that vast majority who know little about the actual situation and virtually nothing about guns, but they want something done.  Even if it's another "feel good, do no good" law, they aren't going to be happy until they get something that makes them feel like they've done something to prevent future high profile shooting incidents.  (Don't get me wrong, I hate these type of band aid laws that do nothing more than allow people to say "there, we did something". )  What I'm saying is either we come up with something we can live with (I didn't say totally like) or the extremists on the other side will write something we totally hate. If we can come up with something the legislators can pass, I believe that a lot of the wind will go out of the sails on the extreme other side.  I deal with a lot of people during the course of the day and since they know I'm a gun owner this subject comes up a lot.  Most don't believe a total gun ban is called for, but sincerely believe something has to be done.  If we put them in a corner where a hard core referendum came to a vote, they would vote for it rather than see nothing done. In other words, don't give up-just fight smarter.
We can't keep our heads in the sand and think that just because it doesn't make sense, no new laws will be passed. Heck, we'd only have half the laws on the books we do now if that was the situation. I don't think there's a prayer we could defeat a referendum vote and I'd sure hate to see it come down to having to try.

I'm not the type to cut off my nose to spite my face, and I'm also not the type to simply roll over and compromise for the sake of it.

Just because you believe that more than half the public wants some kind of new regulation, despite its effectiveness, does not make it right to sit back and let them do it.

Bottom line, new gun regulation will do nothing to prevent crazy, and I'm not okay with "feel good" legistlation, which is what you are suggesting.

[haugenna]

I voted no.  The only way I would consider it would be and exemption from a background check when both parties have a CWP.   

I didn't read the whole thread, this may have been mentioned.  This is a money grab as well as feel good legislation.  The sheriff will be charging $35+ for the check and use tax.   

Also, the gunshow loophole does not exist in Washington.  WAC requires a background check before they issue a membership badge.

[furiouzgeorge]

I'm completely opposed to the background check system that's currently in place, let alone the one liberals dream of. I believe we should allow convicted felons to have their guns...if they're going to re-commit let them, shoot them, and then we don't have to pay to jail them again. If they don't re-commit, it's all good. How hard is that? No tattoos or failed check system, dead bad guys and armed good guys. I like them odds! Over time it'll all even out, the bad guys will catch on and start fearing for their lives a little more.

[furiouzgeorge]

Or just pull the trigger on death row and move everyone up a level...I guarantee you we won't fill the first floor EVER AGAIN.

[Bofire]

  Bottom line, If the Prosecutor cant prove "Bill" owned it on "1/1/2013, he cannot prove "Gary " owned it on 1/2/2013. Voluntary compliance has nothing to do with this, If the law cannot be enforced, why pass it.
 As far as a "compromise" law to please the grabbers, it cannot be done. They will be back for more no matter what they say.
Carl

[huntnphool]

Bottom line, If the Prosecutor cant prove "Bill" owned it on "1/1/2013, he cannot prove "Gary " owned it on 1/2/2013. Voluntary compliance has nothing to do with this, If the law cannot be enforced, why pass it.
 As far as a "compromise" law to please the grabbers, it cannot be done. They will be back for more no matter what they say.
Carl

[HighlandLofts]

When going throug the NICS through a FFL dealer they shouldn't have to list the make, model & serial number on the paperwork. No numbers, no registery. All it should be is your information, type of gun (shotgun, pitol, rifle), if you pass the NICS you can proceed, if not no deal. No paperwork saying if the deal was processed or not.
They should enforce the laws we have and stay off or our backs with this feel good legislation, no matter what the democrats will always be after our guns. Most guns used in crimes are stollen and transfered threw drug addicts and gang bangers.
 When selling guns privately we should be able to call NICSandsay John Doe wants to buy a shotgun and they provide uswith a yes he can have it or no he is ineligable and turn him in to the local law enforcement. That way no registery and it would take the guess work out of private sales. I refused to sell a couple of guns over the past few years because they didn't seam worthy of owning one of my guns.

[huntnphool]

When going throug the NICS through a FFL dealer they shouldn't have to list the make, model & serial number on the paperwork. No numbers, no registery. All it should be is your information, type of gun (shotgun, pitol, rifle), if you pass the NICS you can proceed, if not no deal. No paperwork saying if the deal was processed or not.
They should enforce the laws we have and stay off or our backs with this feel good legislation, no matter what the democrats will always be after our guns. Most guns used in crimes are stollen and transfered threw drug addicts and gang bangers.
 When selling guns privately we should be able to call NICSandsay John Doe wants to buy a shotgun and they provide uswith a yes he can have it or no he is ineligable and turn him in to the local law enforcement. That way no registery and it would take the guess work out of private sales. I refused to sell a couple of guns over the past few years because they didn't seam worthy of owning one of my guns.

They would still keep a running total on the number of weapons you have, which is none of their business IMO.

[bearpaw]

Somehow I doubt our founding fathers wanted us to bargain away any part of the 2nd Amendment. I had to vote NO.....

[rtspring]

No! 

[Turner89]

No! Bad guys will still get guns if they want them. It just punishes the good guys, and would be another step toward more anti gun BS.