Great Arguments Against I-594

[pianoman9701]

Good points. I went the online route, so my only hands-on experience for the course was at a range, same as my wife's, but I suppose the in-class training would be different.

All good questions. The general public doesn't know. Incidentally, a common misunderstanding arises from people not knowing that students can't bring their own guns to Hunter Education or gun safety classes for safety reasons. So they're confused by the education objections by thinking that the students already have firearms. Why would they need to be handed one?

[pianoman9701]

Guys and Galls, start getting in letters to the editor to your local papers. Pound home the argument that under this bill, people will be LESS SAFE, that in Hunter Education Classes and Gun Safety Classes that aren't taught at established shooting ranges, the instructor won't be able to hand a firearm to his students without performing a background check. Remind them that the students are disallowed from bringing their own firearms to class to control the chance of an accidental discharge. That with a 1/2 million hunters in WA, this would make a lot of people unsafe.

Also, ask them why they think that the largest law enforcement association in the state (WACOPS) opposes I-594 and why they should support it when the police don't. Ask them if this bill is unfunded (which it is), how the police will keep up with the increased demand for background checks without more employees to perform them. Tell them that the answer is that police will be pulled off the street to meet the demand. Ask them if that's safer for us.

[Bob33]

I watched a pro 591 commercial this morning on television. It displayed tables and tables of "assault" rifles at a gun show, and emphasized how these would be confiscated if 594 passes and 591 doesn't. 

My wife and I both had the same reaction. Don't they get it? That's what the pro 594 people want and the same message they are promoting.

There was nothing mentioned about how this regulates all "transfers" and not just sales. No mention of making someone a criminal for lending a friend a shotgun to hunt ducks. No mention of the crippling impact this will have on hunter education and gun safety courses. No mention of the onerous burden this places on law enforcement, and how it detracts from their ability to deal with other crimes.

[pianoman9701]

Both sides of this are really out of touch with reality. The sensationalism is terrible.

[xd2005]

The issue is that non-gun owners simply do not care, and the arguments made my the con-594 people play on deaf ears. They do not comprehend the issue, all they know is they think background checks should occur and that to think otherwise is to show favor for transferring to criminals.

Gun owners should have taken ownership of the issue earlier in the process with a solution, instead of simply fighting everything with a "no." I recognize that's not a popular stance, but people want solutions, not just heels dug in the ground. 

[Stein]

The issue is that non-gun owners simply do not care, and the arguments made my the con-594 people play on deaf ears. They do not comprehend the issue, all they know is they think background checks should occur and that to think otherwise is to show favor for transferring to criminals.

Gun owners should have taken ownership of the issue earlier in the process with a solution, instead of simply fighting everything with a "no." I recognize that's not a popular stance, but people want solutions, not just heels dug in the ground. 

The solution is "no."

Let's compare exercising two rights - voting and gun ownership.

SCOTUS and many other courts have said that requiring a driver's license is unconstitutional because poor people would have to ride a bus to the DMV to get one - even if they gave them out for free.

For firearms, you need a driver's license plus you now have to pay $30-50 for a background check, possibly more money for a CWP, taxes, and how many other hoops to jump through? 

What would the response be if you had to pay $30 every time you wanted to vote?  Maybe that should have been the initiative, make the rules the same for voting and buying a gun.

More damage has been done at the polling booth than will ever be done with firearms.

[Fl0und3rz]

I594 definition of "transfer" conflicts with ATF.

See ATF letter here.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/firearmconcierge/truth-gun-trusts-attorneys-lie-get-money/unnamed-5/


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/firearmconcierge/truth-gun-trusts-attorneys-lie-get-money/

[huntnphool]

Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".

[xd2005]

I am not arguing in favor of I594, I am simply saying it will pass because people that do not own firearms do not care. The arguments the opponents of I594 make do not matter or make sense to these people. All they know is they want to make sure those that cannot have firearms do not get them, and the opponents of I594 have not done a good job providing alternative solutions in the past that ensure they do not.

My fear is that it is because the opponents do not care who has a firearm (unfortunately, I know that is the case for some here). I've discussed my "proposal" ad nauseam on here (much to the frustration of many) that would simply be to change the law to make it illegal to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it. It would not require a background check, but the person transferring the firearm would have to take responsibility if the transfer occurred without one. Again, I do not know if the opposition to that proposal is based on the opponents being against taking responsibility, or whether they simply do not care who has a firearm.

Ultimately, I believe it is appropriate to limit the possession of firearms for certain individuals. I also believe that as a responsible gun owner, I am responsible for doing what I can to ensure my firearms stay out of the hands of those individuals. If others share those views, it would have been easy to move something forward that stayed true to those principals, accomplish the "stated" goals of I594, but did not go to the extremes of I594.

[xd2005]

Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".

Whether sales tax is charged or not is irrelevant as Use Tax is already due (it's possible there's an exception, which I would be willing to concede). So to argue that the state will force us to comply with the law is probably not a very strong one.

[Fl0und3rz]

Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".

Specifically excepted from WA sales tax for private transfers with checks in I594.

18 USC 922 b(3) for transfer across state lines with no WA state pistol registration.

I've discussed my "proposal" ad nauseam on here (much to the frustration of many) that would simply be to change the law to make it illegal to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it. It would not require a background check, but the person transferring the firearm would have to take responsibility if the transfer occurred without one.

It is already illegal under Federal law, and a voluntary background check is one way to ensure.  CPL checks are another mostly effective way to ensure. 

[pianoman9701]

"It is already illegal under Federal law, and a voluntary background check is one way to ensure.  CPL checks are another mostly effective way to ensure. " 

It's against the law to knowingly transfer or sell a firearm to someone precluded from gun possession. There's a big difference between transferring and knowingly transferring. I've received flack on HuntWA for saying that I require a CPL for a private purchase. I'm not advocating that is be made a law or anything close. I do feel that as responsible citizens, it's incumbent upon us to ensure we're not arming someone who shouldn't be armed. I think it would be excellent if we were able to type someone's social or other personal information into a website and get a simple yes or no without divulging any other information about that person. It would then be a first line check that could be performed when participating in a private sale. If the person were kicked out of the system, they could certainly go through the process of determining why, while the seller would know they're being responsible without creating a mess of regulation like we're looking for with I-594. I know the arguments against background checks for private sales. But I also know that standing firm for no regulation of any kind is a path of dwindling returns. I'd rather be proactive and have gun owners be portrayed in a positive light than be obstructionist and continue to lose ground. Flame away!

[Stein]

Specifically excepted from WA sales tax for private transfers with checks in I594.

How long before that "loophole" will be closed?  We have to realize 594 isn't the war, it is only the next small battle.

It isn't too hard to picture a day where you have to pay 8.8% tax on a transfer as "fair" and the amount of paperwork/money/red tape prevents sales.  Then, a company like Amazon or Microsoft or private liberal billionaires step in and creates a trust to buy and destroy the weapons as an easy alternate (no questions asked, total amnesty on any prior transfers).  The opposition is trying to get rid of private firearms and we need to remember this.  If a guy will spend $1M on a background check initiative, what would they spend to really get rid of firearms?

Also remember the unofficial handgun registry was started and justified by tax receipts.  Even if they imposed a 0.01% tax to "cover administrative costs", it would create a firearms database.

[xd2005]

Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".

Specifically excepted from WA sales tax for private transfers with checks in I594.

18 USC 922 b(3) for transfer across state lines with no WA state pistol registration.

I've discussed my "proposal" ad nauseam on here (much to the frustration of many) that would simply be to change the law to make it illegal to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it. It would not require a background check, but the person transferring the firearm would have to take responsibility if the transfer occurred without one.

It is already illegal under Federal law, and a voluntary background check is one way to ensure.  CPL checks are another mostly effective way to ensure.

Sales tax and use tax are two different taxes. While they act the same, exempting something from sales tax does not necessarily impact use tax (I haven't read the exemption to know if it covers both).

[huntnphool]

Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".

Whether sales tax is charged or not is irrelevant as Use Tax is already due (it's possible there's an exception, which I would be willing to concede). So to argue that the state will force us to comply with the law is probably not a very strong one.

 "Use" tax was my point, I used "sales" tax assuming several on here have no idea what "use" tax is.