Post by: Dave Workman on April 30, 2013, 09:59:49 AM
YES
YES, provided in exchange the state abolishes the pistol registry and record keeping is prohibited, and there are exemptions for CPL holders, transfers between family members, and loans to friends
NO under any circumstances
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on April 30, 2013, 10:10:02 AM
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2013, 10:19:50 AM
Post by: Atroxus on April 30, 2013, 10:21:53 AM
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
Do you keep loaning that suposed "friend" of yours money when he has faild to pay you back, after you have loaded him several times and he has failed you?
Point out to me how this state, and its majority leadership has acted that should earn my trust on this issue... THE ONLY reason why we still have decent gun rights in this state is BECAUSE our states founders did NOT trust The FED gov. WE are very fortunate that our state founders spelled out many of our rights (despite them being a natural as breathing) otherwise we would have already fallen like CA or more like OR. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 30, 2013, 10:27:05 AM
Post by: DRENALINJUNKIE on April 30, 2013, 10:27:33 AM
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2013, 10:29:25 AM
Post by: Huntboy on April 30, 2013, 10:35:05 AM
The problem is what does it do. Will it really stop a criminal from getting a gun? Last I checked they don't follow laws we already have.
Nope it won't.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on April 30, 2013, 10:52:28 AM
Post by: lokidog on April 30, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
I know I might get blasted for this but why would it be a bad thing to have a universal background check for firearm purchases? I know it would prevent some folks for bearing arms but in most cases weren't those people not suppose to have guns to begin with??? How many guns get sold at gun shows to felons i bet a lot. :dunno:
The fault to that idea is that studies have shown that less than 1% of firearms used in crimes are obtained at gun shows, but I guess, if it saves one life.... :bash:
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2013, 10:59:31 AM
My local sheriff office will run numbers for you. I have had them do it a few times.But its not people from your area pushing this kind of nonsence either. :twocents:
Post by: Shooter on April 30, 2013, 11:17:26 AM
This measure for universal backround checks was all political and will be used as a wedge for the 2014 elections. Their goal is to ban all weapons, don't be fooled by this baby step measure to get to the next bigger step(s) they don't even believe people should hunt, why do those hunters need guns to kill animals when we raise cattle for them..
I say no, punish the criminals and spank bad people hard and leave us alone and work on the big problems facing our country.
Post by: Bofire on April 30, 2013, 11:24:30 AM
Carl
Post by: Gringo31 on April 30, 2013, 11:31:28 AM
I have thought about this a bit and what do you guys think of this?
The "right" to have/own/etc a firearm is given to everyone. IF you are guilty of a felony, assault, mental status changes etc.....when convicted, you would have your drivers license punched. You would require to have with you paperwork that says your right to carry, or own has been reinstated (if it was) to get a normal looking license the next time you got a new one.
This way, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms unless you've done something which has removed that right from you. It would be easy to verify by a quick ID check and no list of gun owners or list of what guns you have would be required.
This way......its NOT about the guns, but about the people who have them.
:dunno:
Thoughts?
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2013, 11:43:24 AM
Post by: flinger on April 30, 2013, 12:32:27 PM
Sure
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 12:35:58 PM
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?
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 30, 2013, 12:41:24 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 12:43:44 PM
But without a registry there is no way to prove a buyer has undergone one, and once again this will only effect those that don't need to be checked anyway.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.
Post by: Gringo31 on April 30, 2013, 12:48:35 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 30, 2013, 12:53:55 PM
But without a registry there is no way to prove a buyer has undergone one.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.
Let’s say the background check form is a government provided document. The first page is the form and the second page is two post card like sheets that have a serial number on them. The serial numbers on the cards match the serial number on the first page. The background check is processed and approved, then the data is dumped except for one line that says “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” Then the buyer and the seller both take a card and keep it for their records. If legally compelled, either the buyer or the seller can produce the card and the serial number can be fed to the database that will say “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” In that way, it’s not that different than what happens when you buy a gun from a shop now.
Again, I’m not saying it’s way it will go. Only that it can be done.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 12:56:06 PM
Um...............this is a great idea............maybe that's why it's already in place. :chuckle:
This way, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms unless you've done something which has removed that right from you
This way......its NOT about the guns, but about the people who have them.
Thoughts?
Post by: Gringo31 on April 30, 2013, 12:58:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 01:06:19 PM
Your effort is commendable Mags but as I've stated many times it will only effect you and I, the criminal intent on his actions will not be effected or deterred.But without a registry there is no way to prove a buyer has undergone one.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.
Let’s say the background check form is a government provided document. The first page is the form and the second page is two post card like sheets that have a serial number on them. The serial numbers on the cards match the serial number on the first page. The background check is processed and approved, then the data is dumped except for one line that says “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” Then the buyer and the seller both take a card and keep it for their records. If legally compelled, either the buyer or the seller can produce the card and the serial number can be fed to the database that will say “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” In that way, it’s not that different than what happens when you buy a gun from a shop now.
Again, I’m not saying it’s way it will go. Only that it can be done.
The other potential problem it presents is a liability issue, should you or I ever lose the documentation we are supposed to now be responsible for for the rest of of our lives. It's just a added burden that we, as law abiding citizens, should not be subjected to, since we are not the problem to begin with. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right? :rolleyes:
Post by: CP on April 30, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right? :rolleyes:
Everyone that is ineligible could have CRIMINAL or LUNATIC tattooed on their forehead. No tattoo = good to go. Simple.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 01:12:55 PM
:chuckle:Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right? :rolleyes:
Everyone that is ineligible could have CRIMINAL or LUNATIC tattooed on their forehead. No tattoo = good to go. Simple.
Now you're getting deep, maybe we should begin discussing Revelations :o
Post by: SGTDuffman on April 30, 2013, 01:13:23 PM
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 (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?
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 01:17:24 PM
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 (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?
BINGO!
Post by: Shooter on April 30, 2013, 01:19:59 PM
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?
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Gringo31 on April 30, 2013, 01:21:18 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Atroxus on April 30, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
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 (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?
:yeah: :yeah:
Mind if I steal that quote and re-post it? You said it a heck of a lot better than I would have.
Post by: brokenvet on April 30, 2013, 01:22:16 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 01:25:40 PM
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"?QuoteAnd 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.
I'm Not!!!
Post by: SGTDuffman on April 30, 2013, 01:28:17 PM
Quote
:yeah: :yeah:
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.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 01:36:00 PM
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2013, 01:56:30 PM
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on April 30, 2013, 02:08:00 PM
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.
:yeah:
Post by: gaddy on April 30, 2013, 02:10:50 PM
Post by: Smossy on April 30, 2013, 02:16:27 PM
He said it for me. :yeah: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?
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. :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 30, 2013, 02:32:45 PM
He said it for me. :yeah: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?
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. :bash:
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?
Post by: gaddy on April 30, 2013, 02:45:41 PM
Post by: SGTDuffman on April 30, 2013, 03:14:52 PM
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 (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.
Post by: gaddy on April 30, 2013, 03:31:42 PM
Post by: TheHunt on April 30, 2013, 03:38:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 03:41:57 PM
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.
Post by: Gringo31 on April 30, 2013, 03:56:20 PM
Quote
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!
:tup:
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2013, 04:21:29 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 05:00:40 PM
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.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.
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.
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. :twocents:
Post by: haugenna on April 30, 2013, 05:09:05 PM
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.
Post by: furiouzgeorge on April 30, 2013, 05:19:45 PM
Post by: furiouzgeorge on April 30, 2013, 05:21:39 PM
Post by: Bofire on April 30, 2013, 05:40:08 PM
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
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 05:41:07 PM
:) :) 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.:tup:
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
Post by: HighlandLofts on April 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on April 30, 2013, 09:00:13 PM
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 would still keep a running total on the number of weapons you have, which is none of their business IMO.
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.
Post by: bearpaw on April 30, 2013, 09:07:16 PM
Post by: rtspring on April 30, 2013, 09:11:37 PM
Post by: Turner89 on April 30, 2013, 09:20:11 PM
Post by: CoyoteChuck52 on April 30, 2013, 09:21:04 PM
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.X2
Post by: sled on April 30, 2013, 09:22:25 PM
Post by: Hermannr on April 30, 2013, 10:54:53 PM
I know I might get blasted for this but why would it be a bad thing to have a universal background check for firearm purchases? I know it would prevent some folks for bearing arms but in most cases weren't those people not suppose to have guns to begin with??? How many guns get sold at gun shows to felons i bet a lot. :dunno:
Fundamental principle of Law...we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. ANY BGC assume you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.
You are obviously not old enough to remember when the IRS could say you owed taxes you had not paid, and it was up to you to prove they were wrong. It can, has been, and will be abused.
Post by: washelkhunter on April 30, 2013, 11:43:09 PM
Post by: hrd2fnd on April 30, 2013, 11:47:10 PM
Somehow I doubt our founding fathers wanted us to bargain away any part of the 2nd Amendment. I had to vote NO.....:yeah:
Post by: scoyoc5 on May 01, 2013, 10:48:26 AM
Somehow I doubt our founding fathers wanted us to bargain away any part of the 2nd Amendment. I had to vote NO.....
:tup:
Post by: alwaysontop on May 02, 2013, 08:55:19 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 02, 2013, 09:05:32 PM
Post by: nocklehead on May 03, 2013, 11:46:15 PM
weve lost enough already....
the constitution is easy to understand,
people=people.........arms=armaments or weapons
how can the stated enemy decide who bears arms?
Post by: furiouzgeorge on May 04, 2013, 09:38:11 AM
our forefathers "just had muskets" but they had warships, cannons and trebuchets as well, too
weve lost enough already....
the constitution is easy to understand,
people=people.........arms=armaments or weapons
how can the stated enemy decide who bears arms?
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Dave Workman on May 18, 2013, 04:44:39 AM
http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-of-n-w-gun-owners-shows-background-check-opposition (http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-of-n-w-gun-owners-shows-background-check-opposition)
My thanks to all on the forum who took the time to click a vote and also leave their thoughts.
Post by: nocklehead on May 19, 2013, 05:39:56 PM
Post by: csaaphill on May 30, 2013, 01:49:43 AM