Great Arguments Against I-594

[pianoman9701]

One of the members of the wildlife commission called me last night to ask about the implications for Hunter Education. He plans to bring his concerns to the commission by phone today. Their next meeting isn't until after the election.

[Bob33]

One of the members of the wildlife commission called me last night to ask about the implications for Hunter Education. He plans to bring his concerns to the commission by phone today. Their next meeting isn't until after the election.

As I read the bill, temporary transfers may be made at "an established shooting range". Transfers may be made to individuals under 18 for "educational purposes."  Transfers to adults may not be made unless at a shooting range. Class locations such as Cabelas should not allow anyone to touch a firearm.

[pianoman9701]

One of the members of the wildlife commission called me last night to ask about the implications for Hunter Education. He plans to bring his concerns to the commission by phone today. Their next meeting isn't until after the election.

As I read the bill, temporary transfers may be made at "an established shooting range". Transfers may be made to individuals under 18 for "educational purposes."  Transfers to adults may not be made unless at a shooting range. Class locations such as Cabelas should not allow anyone to touch a firearm.

That is correct. All of the classes I've taught have been at a donated union hall and the test day at a WDFW hunting area, both of which preclude the instructor's ability to transfer a firearm to an adult student.

[Bob33]

This should be lots of fun for spouses of dead gun owners. The grieving spouse has 60 days to register a handgun, or she becomes a criminal. And if the spouse is not legally able to own a firearm....

(4) This section does not apply to:
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal andstate laws.

[pianoman9701]

The exception for kids under eighteen means that those under eighteen will no longer be able to hunt without an adult. Here's the wording:

 (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;

In a state where hunter retention is of the utmost concern to the WDFW, this should raise huge red flags.

[Bob33]

The exception for kids under eighteen means that those under eighteen will no longer be able to hunt without an adult. Here's the wording:

 (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;

In a state where hunter retention is of the utmost concern to the WDFW, this should raise huge red flags.

I believe this other exception might allow it, although as written the transfer must occur in an area and during a time when hunting is legal.

(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;

[pianoman9701]

At the very least, this seems to be a conflict within the initiative. And, because the section to which I referred specifically requires those under eighteen to be under direct adult supervision and the one to which you referred doesn't mention age, I would think they'd need to be supervised. The fact that this is unclear with seemingly mixed messages is another reason to oppose it. Like we need more reasons, right?

[Stein]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

If he shows up and asks to take it for a test drive, do you ask to see his Drivers License and insurance or just hand him the keys?

IMHO, it's that kind of attitude, where gun owners don't seem to want to take any responsibility, claiming willful ignorance in the name of freedom and rights, that results in those rights being taken away. With rights comes responsibility, and when that responsibility is lacking, society/the government comes in and tries to legislate it, which is a very messy solution. 

If he has money, he gets the keys.  Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver?  After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.

Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?

[Bob33]

At the very least, this seems to be a conflict within the initiative. And, because the section to which I referred specifically requires those under eighteen to be under direct adult supervision and the one to which you referred doesn't mention age, I would think they'd need to be supervised. The fact that this is unclear with seemingly mixed messages is another reason to oppose it. Like we need more reasons, right?

It's bad law. What's unfortunate is that many of the good reasons for opposing it are not being stressed by gun owner organizations. Most of our gun-ignorant public doesn't see a need for "assault weapons" to be sold to anyone without any background check, and that's how the pro 594 effort is selling it.  What the public probably wouldn't support is a law that makes hunting and gun safety education much more onerous, puts a burden on law enforcment, and makes criminals of a large number of good citizens. The anti 594 messages are preaching to the choir. The choirs' votes won't matter.

[Stein]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

If he shows up and asks to take it for a test drive, do you ask to see his Drivers License and insurance or just hand him the keys?

IMHO, it's that kind of attitude, where gun owners don't seem to want to take any responsibility, claiming willful ignorance in the name of freedom and rights, that results in those rights being taken away. With rights comes responsibility, and when that responsibility is lacking, society/the government comes in and tries to legislate it, which is a very messy solution. 

If he has money, he gets the keys.  Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver?  After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.

Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?

[pianoman9701]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

If he shows up and asks to take it for a test drive, do you ask to see his Drivers License and insurance or just hand him the keys?

IMHO, it's that kind of attitude, where gun owners don't seem to want to take any responsibility, claiming willful ignorance in the name of freedom and rights, that results in those rights being taken away. With rights comes responsibility, and when that responsibility is lacking, society/the government comes in and tries to legislate it, which is a very messy solution. 

If he has money, he gets the keys.  Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver?  After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.

Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?

There's a big difference between car ownership and gun ownership. First, one's a right and the other isn't. Secondly, if you sell a firearm to a felon, you can lose your rights. If your sell a car to a felon, you don't lose anything. Prudence might dictate that we create a law which doesn't infringe on our rights but which does take into account that there are definitely people who shouldn't own firearms. Not only should we push for stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, but we should do what we can to make it tougher for criminals to get hold of our guns. I ask for a CPL. If you think gun ownership is your right and you don't need a CPL, then you won't be buying any guns from me. If there were a way i could check someone out online before selling them a firearm, I would because gun ownership is not only a right, it comes with responsibilities. Don't leave them around kids. Don't point them at things you don't want to destroy. And don't sell them to bad people.

If we continue to give nothing, our support will dwindle and we'll eventually lose our rights. Although I see I-594 for what it is - a gun grab - I also see that the people on the fence want to know if there's anything we're willing to agree with regarding the sale of firearms and the reasonable wish to make it harder for criminals to procure them.

[Stein]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

If he shows up and asks to take it for a test drive, do you ask to see his Drivers License and insurance or just hand him the keys?

IMHO, it's that kind of attitude, where gun owners don't seem to want to take any responsibility, claiming willful ignorance in the name of freedom and rights, that results in those rights being taken away. With rights comes responsibility, and when that responsibility is lacking, society/the government comes in and tries to legislate it, which is a very messy solution. 

If he has money, he gets the keys.  Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver?  After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.

Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?

There's a big difference between car ownership and gun ownership. First, one's a right and the other isn't. Secondly, if you sell a firearm to a felon, you can lose your rights. If your sell a car to a felon, you don't lose anything. Prudence might dictate that we create a law which doesn't infringe on our rights but which does take into account that there are definitely people who shouldn't own firearms. Not only should we push for stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, but we should do what we can to make it tougher for criminals to get hold of our guns. I ask for a CPL. If you think gun ownership is your right and you don't need a CPL, then you won't be buying any guns from me. If there were a way i could check someone out online before selling them a firearm, I would because gun ownership is not only a right, it comes with responsibilities. Don't leave them around kids. Don't point them at things you don't want to destroy. And don't sell them to bad people.

If we continue to give nothing, our support will dwindle and we'll eventually lose our rights. Although I see I-594 for what it is - a gun grab - I also see that the people on the fence want to know if there's anything we're willing to agree with regarding the sale of firearms and the reasonable wish to make it harder for criminals to procure them.

The CPL isn't failsafe, the guy could have committed a crime or be charged with one after it was issued and failed to give it back.  If there was an online check I could do that doesn't create a permanent government database, I would do that.

What I don't like is the Trojan Horse approach where lies are told and rights are infringed.  If it is an infringement on one's voting rights to have to pay $10 for a driver's license and bus fare, it is an infringement on that same person's right to have to pay $20 for a background check and have to ride a bus to the FFL twice.

This isn't a simple measure as is being advertised.  From my point of view, we should pass laws that solve problems.  I have yet to see anyone quote any facts about how many crimes are committed with weapons purchased from legal owners.  I simply won't play with the choice of garbage or nothing.

[Bob33]

I have yet to see anyone quote any facts about how many crimes are committed with weapons purchased from legal owners.  I simply won't play with the choice of garbage or nothing.

Certainly more than zero, but less than the pro gun control ads imply. Here's some inconclusive data.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/

[pianoman9701]

Requesting a CPL isn't fail safe but it does show positive intent. That's very important in a criminal trial. A judge or jury is far less inclined to convict someone of a crime when they actually took prudent steps to avoid committing it.

I agree that I-594's intent is to do way more than close some gaps in gun purchasing. The problem is that the gun side won't propose any alternatives. They haven't properly educated the public on what a farce the supposed "gun show" loophole is and are seemingly unwilling to come to the table at all. Remember that more than two-thirds of our population don't own guns. Remember that most of those people watch the news and think that gun violence is growing faster than ebola, when it clearly isn't. The success of the antis to garner support from the media and the politicians has people asking why gunners aren't concerned about what seems to be horrific gun violence in the US.

We have to be better at educating people. We need to be approachable in our attempts to do so. If someone is ignorant to the facts and I treat them like they're ignorant, they'll remain ignorant and no longer listen to my reasoning. If my approach is non-combative and reasonable, I'll have a much better chance of bringing a fence-sitter to my line of thinking. In like manner, if we don't come up with reasonable safeguards against private sales putting the guns into the hands of criminals, the antis will push their agenda. You might say it's a slippery slope to gun control. I would say that giving nothing to the majority of voters is the slippery slope. Until the Supreme Court rules that any restriction on the sale of guns is unconstitutional (which I doubt will ever happen), we'd better be approachable and willing to at least come to the table. My 

[lamrith]

The reason many refuse to give ground or make any compromises is that the 2A has been giving ground for decades, little by little, inch by inch.

This is the same sort of thing that started in NY, NJ, CA. 
1st register, then  background checks, then the Govt passes a law to limit X, then Y.  Suddenly all you are allowed to get is a 9mm revolver that you are not allowed to carry or have loaded outside of your home or a gun range.  And you have to go buy a special permit in advance to buy the gun, and can only buy one gun every 30days.

It just gets to the point were you have to say enough is enough.  Go prosecute the criminals for the laws they are ALREADY BREAKING and leave the legal gun owners alone.  Be nice if we could initiate lawsuits for false advertising and lying during campaigns too, some of the adds I have seen are just blatant.