Initiatives 594 and 591

[luvmystang67]

While we sat here... BILL GATES DONATED $1 MILLION MORE.

This... is just infuriating.

For anyone watching this thread that thinks this won't pass, you're wrong.  I'm sorry, but this is going to pass with flying colors.

 

[npaull]

I know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls.  If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.

BINGO. The NRA's idiot policy of "no regulations on anything!" CREATES these kinds of problems, which in turn enrages gun owners, who then given money to the NRA as they surrender their minds to its fear tactics. It's almost like they are using fear to make $....

Also, the "only law abiding citizens will comply!" argument is ludicrous - it applies to EVERY law. Should we not have laws against speeding because only the non-speeders won't speed? How about murder?

It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, when better arguments exist.

[vandeman17]

I know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls.  If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.

BINGO. The NRA's idiot policy of "no regulations on anything!" CREATES these kinds of problems, which in turn enrages gun owners, who then given money to the NRA as they surrender their minds to its fear tactics. It's almost like they are using fear to make $....

Also, the "only law abiding citizens will comply!" argument is ludicrous - it applies to EVERY law. Should we not have laws against speeding because only the non-speeders won't speed? How about murder?

It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, when better arguments exist.

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
- St. Augustine

[Bob33]

BINGO. The NRA's idiot policy of "no regulations on anything!" CREATES these kinds of problems, which in turn enrages gun owners, who then given money to the NRA as they surrender their minds to its fear tactics. It's almost like they are using fear to make $....

Also, the "only law abiding citizens will comply!" argument is ludicrous - it applies to EVERY law. Should we not have laws against speeding because only the non-speeders won't speed? How about murder?

It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, when better arguments exist.

1. Please educate me what the NRA did to create a problem of people buying guns without background checks.
2. The data I've read indicates that the vast majority of firearm related crime is committed with illegally obtained guns. What data do you have that refutes this?
3. What is your better argument?

[SCRUBS]

It's simply wishful thinking on my part. I have no idea if it will pass or not. I just hope that most people are smart enough to actually read and research the true repercussions of this instead of only going by what the ad on TV says.

I wouldn`t hold your breath on it, sure hate to lose you....

[turkeyfeather]

  A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill.  Makes a pair of felons at a time.

See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.

[bradslam]

I know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls.  If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.

Brad, Brad, Brad....do you NOT READ HISTORY!??  Nor LEARN from it???

"Reasonable" is just another word in the Anti's lexicon for "Some for me and none for you".

Do you REALLY want to give away your RIGHTS in penny packets?

COME ON FOLKS>>>WAKE THE HELL UP---Divide and conquer?  heard of that? 

Stop quibbling about degrees and get with the program....if we dont hang together...we most certainly will hang separately...one at a time.

Sorry, but I stand by what I said.  I'm all for gun rights, but there are obviously some controls that need to be in place.  With all the shootings that have happened by people who slipped through the mental health system cracks in recent history, the general public is getting very tired of the NRA's stance.  I would rather gun rights groups be at the table assisting in finding solutions that have minimal effect on legal gun owners, than have antis coming up with the laws without our involvement.  Yes, I learn from history and I will tell you now that, like it or not, I-594 will pass.

[Special T]

Funny what i think is reasonable and what you do don't match up... I think its reasonable that if they want to take something away from me the state needs to compensate me.

[bradslam]

It's funny that I never defined reasonable or said anything about the state taking anything away from anybody, but you are making assumptions.  One of the solutions I think needs to be worked on is fixing our broken mental health system and has nothing to do with gun control itself.  In my profession I see people everyday that shouldn't be out among the general public in their current condition.

[woodswalker]

It's funny that I never defined reasonable or said anything about the state taking anything away from anybody, but you are making assumptions.  One of the solutions I think needs to be worked on is fixing our broken mental health system and has nothing to do with gun control itself.  In my profession I see people everyday that shouldn't be out among the general public in their current condition.

I will agree with you on the HOPELESSLY broken mental health system. I too see folks who REALLY need to be somewhere that their needs can be attended to, NOT wandering about on the streets.

Not the rest.

[woodswalker]

  A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill.  Makes a pair of felons at a time.

See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.

Here is the text from the bill...

Definitions:
"Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment

including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.   

the Act provides:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 3.  A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW

to read as follows:

(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser  or  seller  or  transferee  or  transferor  is  in  Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state   or federal law.   
The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through  a  licensed   dealer,  at  gun  shows,  online,   and   between unlicensed persons.         

(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:

(a) The person is a licensed dealer;

(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or

(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.

(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a

licensed  dealer,  the  parties  to  the  transaction  shall  complete  the

sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the  firearm  from  the  business  premises  of  the  licensed  dealer  while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.  Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete


This section does not apply to:

(a)  A  transfer  between  immediate  family  members,  which  for  this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;

<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.

(f)   The temporary transfer of a firearm
 
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;

(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;

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or

(v) while  hunting  if  the  hunting  is  legal  in  all  places  where  the
person  to  whom  the  firearm  is  transferred  possesses  the  firearm  and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)).  If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG.  the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)

Maybe you want to be the test case?  I dont.

[woodswalker]

Whole text attached, with markups from my gunsmith friend.

My gunsmith's comment: Based on this I would have to raise the cost of doing background checks to $100.00 per firearm due to all the work that a dealer would be required to do to run one and the paperwork I would have to keep and submit

And it would not stop one bad sale from happening

Again, read the whole bill, CAREFULLY and in a 'what could be done with the unmentioned bits" view and see where this could come off the rails really fast..

[snowpack]

Think of all the inventory/safes that FFLs would have to keep on hand while waiting on these extra long background checks.  Talk about a major attractant to criminals wanting to steal guns. 

[rim_runner]

Woodswalker, I think you’re on the right track. Even people who want background checks on face to face sales should look at this bill and see that it is seriously flawed. There’s a lot more to this bill than the promoters of it are letting on.  I would like to see what a few lawyers have to say about the writing of I 594.

[bobcat]

I was just reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility.  From reading this, I'd guess most people who live in the major cities and are afraid of guns, will surely vote in favor of Initiative 594. For those who have guns you might want to eventually sell, you might want to do it before initiate 594 passes.

Just a sample: