Post by: luvmystang67 on January 06, 2016, 07:46:02 AM
In 2014 voters approved a Washington initiative that requires buyers to undergo a background check when they purchase a gun from another private citizen.
Initiative 594 was designed to close the so-called "gun show loophole."
But analysis of federal data by the KING 5 Investigators raises questions about how effective that law has been.
Only 2% of background checks in Washington in 2015 stemmed from "private party" sales of guns, according to data in the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check – or NICS – system.
That number is surprising to researchers Philip Cook of Duke and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who study gun violence.
They say that their own research – and studies by others – have shown that up to 40% of gun sales nationwide are between private citizens. They're skeptical that the 2% reported to the FBI is an accurate picture of the private gun market in Washington state.
"I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on," Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.
In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.
"Jonathan" – who asked that we not reveal his real name – is one of them.
"People knew there was a threat to our rights," he said of I-594.
Jonathan says he's bought or sold several guns since the law went into effect.
"As far as following the law, roughly 50% of those (sales) I followed the law," Jonathan said.
Jonathan says many gun owners connect via private websites and meet up to buy and sell guns without the background check.
"If you hit me up on Facebook and say 'I'd like to buy your pistol', I can go through your Facebook right then and there and look at the kind of person you are right from your pictures," Jonathan said.
He says he uses his own means to determine if a buyer is a reasonable gun owner and doesn't believe that I-594 in constitutional.
Many others may be following suit.
NICS data shows that 170,876 background checks were conducted in Washington state between April and October of last year. The FBI started collecting the data from Washington in April.
Of all those background checks, only 3,290 of them – less than 2% -- were conducted for private party sales.
The data is entered by federally licensed firearms dealers. I-594 requires private buyers to report to a licensed dealer who conducts the background check – usually for a fee.
Firearms dealer Kelly Bachand, who owns Kelly's Gun Sales in Tukwila, say the low number may also be attributed to firearms dealers incorrectly filling out federal paperwork.
"It's not very obvious or easy to find the information as far as how it should be filled out," said Bachand.
It does not appear that anyone has ever been prosecuted for violating I-594. The Washington Administrative Office of the Courts says it does not have any record of anyone being charged under the law in 2015.
I-594 has stopped some felons from getting guns.
A firearms enthusiast in Snohomish County, who did not want to be identified, told KING 5 that he backed out of a deal when a background check identified the buyer as a felon.
Even so, the Snohomish County man feels I-594 is more of a hindrance on law-abiding citizens instead of criminals.
Even though he follows the law, he says there is much resentment in the gun community.
"I would say the majority of people who are buying and selling guns aren't following the law," the man said.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/2016/01/05/gun-buyers-may-not-be-following-background-check-law/78323388/?csp=nbcnews
Post by: h20hunter on January 06, 2016, 07:46:54 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 06, 2016, 07:52:38 AM
Post by: luvmystang67 on January 06, 2016, 07:55:18 AM
There is no way they can control that unless someone actually used the gun they bought in a crime and was caught ...How can they ?
They're only now beginning to realize it... they thought it would be so easy. It is really cute.
I'm going to propose an initiative that mandates that everyone is nice. If people are not nice it is a gross misdemeanor. I assume we'll get a lot of votes. :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on January 06, 2016, 08:05:45 AM
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.Civil disobedience. Look up the numbers on New York's safe act. Something like over 90% of all guns in New York haven't been registered like they were supposed to be.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on January 06, 2016, 08:16:24 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 08:23:01 AM
Also, the Lewis County sheriff has stated that they will not be enforcing I-594. So how many people do you think are paying the fee to do background checks on a private sale in Lewis county?
Will the State Patrol enforce the law? I don't know. They didn't at the I-594 protest in Olympia. Lots of people there were blatantly "transferring" firearms and nothing was done.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2016, 08:29:56 AM
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.
It's certainly nowhere near 40% of gun sales.
Post by: luvmystang67 on January 06, 2016, 08:37:41 AM
I have some liberal friends (I know, not many, some of them just aren't bright enough to know any better and their heart bleeds) who want to shoot and I always use that they're not allowed to shoot my gun in the woods because of 594. It serves 2 purposes, 1) I dont really want to take them anyway and 2) I want them to know how ridiculous the law they supported is.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2016, 08:41:39 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 08:45:34 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2016, 08:48:09 AM
If a hunter is selling a gun to another hunter, who ALREADY has guns, what's the point of doing a background check? Come on, it's common sense.There are some felons who have WA rifle hunting licenses and legally cannot possess firearms. WDFW's licensing system does not check criminal records.
So just because someone has a hunting license doesn't mean they can legally possess firearms.
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 08:51:34 AM
If a hunter is selling a gun to another hunter, who ALREADY has guns, what's the point of doing a background check? Come on, it's common sense.There are some felons who have WA rifle hunting licenses and legally cannot possess firearms. WDFW's licensing system does not check criminal records.
So just because someone has a hunting license doesn't mean they can legally possess firearms.
I said if they already have guns. So say I know someone with a safe full of guns, that they hunt with every year. I have an extra bolt action 30/06- why shouldn't I sell it to them without a background check?
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2016, 08:56:27 AM
I know what your saying. Every year WDFW busts felons hunting with guns who have a rifle hunting license, and most have more than 1 gun sitting at home.I said if they already have guns. So say I know someone with a safe full of guns, that they hunt with every year. I have an extra bolt action 30/06- why shouldn't I sell it to them without a background check?If a hunter is selling a gun to another hunter, who ALREADY has guns, what's the point of doing a background check? Come on, it's common sense.There are some felons who have WA rifle hunting licenses and legally cannot possess firearms. WDFW's licensing system does not check criminal records.
So just because someone has a hunting license doesn't mean they can legally possess firearms.
I'm not pro-594 but simply assuming that since a guy hunts with a gun and thus must be legally able to possess a gun is flawed.
Now obviously you would (or should) know if your buddy is a felon. But if it's a random guy you meet on craigslist who is looking for a new hunting rifle you never know...
Post by: ipkus on January 06, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
The more stupid, emotion based laws you pass, the more 'criminals' you create (because people with common sense won't adibe)...which is why they pass more laws...it's just a viscous circle with no end.
If you took every person convicted of first degree murder using a gun and hung them, in public, on television during American Ninja Warrior episodes, I GUARANTEE the murder rate in this country would plummet (ANW ratings would also break records).
Stop punishing 75% of the citizens for what 0.1% does.
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 09:04:43 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 06, 2016, 09:05:29 AM
Now obviously you would (or should) know if your buddy is a felonNot always, I've found out that more than one person I am and was friends with got assault III many years ago. I knew both of them at the time, and I think they just kept the whole thing private.
Post by: krout81 on January 06, 2016, 09:36:28 AM
There is no requirement to have proof of purchase on you at all times is there?
People will continue to pass guns back and forth to save the cost of the check right? :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 09:42:08 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on January 06, 2016, 10:11:12 AM
I know what your saying. Every year WDFW busts felons hunting with guns who have a rifle hunting license, and most have more than 1 gun sitting at home.I said if they already have guns. So say I know someone with a safe full of guns, that they hunt with every year. I have an extra bolt action 30/06- why shouldn't I sell it to them without a background check?If a hunter is selling a gun to another hunter, who ALREADY has guns, what's the point of doing a background check? Come on, it's common sense.There are some felons who have WA rifle hunting licenses and legally cannot possess firearms. WDFW's licensing system does not check criminal records.
So just because someone has a hunting license doesn't mean they can legally possess firearms.
I'm not pro-594 but simply assuming that since a guy hunts with a gun and thus must be legally able to possess a gun is flawed.
Now obviously you would (or should) know if your buddy is a felon. But if it's a random guy you meet on craigslist who is looking for a new hunting rifle you never know...
I also believe the statue states that a person found guilty of a Misdemeanor Domestic Violence charge in WA state cannot legally own/handle firearms until they meet all the criteria to have their gun rights resorted in court. So, I am assuming that many people who hunt who maybe had this happen to them in the past may not know that they cannot posses firearms, therefore selling/giving/transfer under 594 is a crime.
Post by: jstone on January 06, 2016, 10:18:22 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 10:20:14 AM
So i bought a hunting rifle from my sister 20 years ago and never registered it to my name. Am i a criminal?? Do i have to pay money to do it?
No such thing as gun registration in this state, at least not yet!
Post by: Hi-Liter on January 06, 2016, 10:20:58 AM
So i bought a hunting rifle from my sister 20 years ago and never registered it to my name. Am i a criminal?? Do i have to pay money to do it?
In My Opinion No because it was before 594 took into law last year. Also, I believe under the 594 provision you can buy/sell/transfer to immediate family member w/o transferring the rifle thru an FFL dealer.
Post by: Hi-Liter on January 06, 2016, 10:23:36 AM
So i bought a hunting rifle from my sister 20 years ago and never registered it to my name. Am i a criminal?? Do i have to pay money to do it?
No such thing as gun registration in this state, at least not yet!
I believe when you buy a pistol from a FFL dealer the pistol is registered thru WA state, but not positive on that one. I think since about 1994 this has been the case. Funny, how when 594 was pushed to vote for it, the people pushing the initiative didn't even talk/state this to the public.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 06, 2016, 10:24:45 AM
So i bought a hunting rifle from my sister 20 years ago and never registered it to my name. Am i a criminal?? Do i have to pay money to do it?
You really should know that the answer is no.
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 10:31:47 AM
A lot of people now have this misconception that since 594 passed all guns need to be registered.
Simplest thing is to tell them there is NO gun registration in Washington state.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 06, 2016, 10:47:16 AM
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.
That and there are plenty of sales/transfers that would have occurred but for the need to get yourself or your firearms "registered." I could have plenty of off book firearms that I might consider trading stock or want to use to experience other firearms/cartridges/etc.
All that is in the past for me.
I will only sell on book firearms, and I will not bother buying in the used market unless the deal is too smoking hot to pass up. There is just not as much benefit over buying new as there used to be without all the mandatory FFL nonsense.
Post by: Stein on January 06, 2016, 11:08:11 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 06, 2016, 11:18:56 AM
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.
I think that the recent moves by Obummer and our governor this week will increase a black market for guns. Where otherwise legal gun owners are selling to each other , for no other reason than to keep the government in the dark. Because of mis-trust. When you get a guy making up rules on his own, its a little scary.
Sooner or later they are going to get around to FORCED BUY BACK OR CONFICATION. There simply is no other way to achieve what they want.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 06, 2016, 11:29:36 AM
Sooner or later they are going to get around to FORCED BUY BACK OR CONFICATION. There simply is no other way to achieve what they want.
That's why off book firearms are so much more valuable to me now. I won't consider selling or transferring them now, until I move out of state.
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 11:35:29 AM
How many people don't even know about the law or requirements?
I would bet plenty.
Post by: wooltie on January 06, 2016, 12:41:37 PM
594 attempts to implement traceability by requiring people to perform background checks. The background check form is actually the record of sale/transfer. ATF requires FFL holders to submit A&D records, so I think AFT uses those records to determine to whom a firearm was first sold.
There is no 'registration', only a record of who 'drove the new car off the lot'.
Real question is: if you sell a mean black rifle to another person who unbeknownst to you is prohibiting from possessing firearms, who then uses the weapon to commit a crime, can the .gov charge you as being an accessory to that crime?
Think about it. The law requiring background checks was implemented to prevent certain people from possessing firearms because .gov decided that those people will likely use those weapons to commit crimes, e.g. felons, wife beaters. A person actually circumvents a valid State interest (keeping guns out of wrong people's hands) by not ensuring that the buyer is allowed to possess firearms. I can see .gov charging someone with a crime based upon that rationale.
Just look at how the .gov has charged that friend of those idiots in San Bernadino.
FWIW 594 was poorly written but I do think keeping guns out of felon's hands is a valid State interest.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 06, 2016, 12:48:52 PM
There is no 'registration', only a record of who 'drove the new car off the lot'.
True, but you are required to return to the lot to resale or transfer the "car" each subsequent transaction. Plus I-594 had the DOR reporting requirement as well, IIRC.
If you sell to a prohibited possessor, you are guilty of that crime, if you knew or had reason to know the purchaser was a prohibited possessor. If you avoided I-594 checks to sell to the prohibited possessor, whether you knew or not, I think, is circumstantial evidence that you knew, suspected, or had reason to know.
The subsequent criminal acts are merely reasons for LE to investigate that person/act/firearm, and may not in itself be enough for an accessory or conspiracy charge. That doesn't mean you cannot be charged with it.
Why even take the risk?
Post by: wooltie on January 06, 2016, 12:58:59 PM
Why even take the risk?
That's what I'm saying. I mean, I just bought/exchanged funds for a pistol from a friend I've know for over 10 years. We know each other very well. We both have CPLs.
I still plan to do the transfer. In the event that I have to use the pistol, I don't want that additional charge of 'no background check' to be used as leverage against my character for defending myself.
I mean, as sad as these mass shootings are, I think the overall volume of guns in delinquent hands is a bigger problem. How many guns per day do cops pull off the street in places like Chicago or Detroit?
Laws like 594 will not touch the people who sell guns to delinquent hands.
So while I can accept background checks, I think gun control hype and rhetorical fails to address other causes of greater gun violence.
Why?
Because the libs do not want to acknowledge the who and the where around which this greater gun violence occurs.
Post by: wooltie on January 06, 2016, 01:00:24 PM
I also ask them when we're done if they now feel inclined to go out and murder people.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on January 06, 2016, 01:02:49 PM
Quote
"I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on," Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.
In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.
Oh, you mean like the transactions between felons/criminals that don't follow the laws anyway?
What's funny is these college geniuses actually believed their "study" would represent real world statistics.
I wonder how much tax payers got soaked for that "study"?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2016, 01:06:13 PM
Quote"I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on," Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.
In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.
Oh, you mean like the transactions between felons/criminals that don't follow the laws anyway?
What's funny is these college geniuses actually believed their "study" would represent real world statistics.
I wonder how much tax payers got soaked for that "study"?
Our taxpayers get soaked for a $30-50 fee every time they follow the law because of idiots like these guys not being able to understand how criminals don't follow laws.
Post by: huntnphool on January 06, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
I still plan to do the transfer. In the event that I have to use the pistol, I don't want that additional charge of 'no background check' to be used as leverage against my character for defending myself.
Why even take the risk?
Without any paperwork, how would they ever know that you didn't do the transfer "pre 594"?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 06, 2016, 01:10:26 PM
Why even take the risk?
That's what I'm saying. I mean, I just bought/exchanged funds for a pistol from a friend I've know for over 10 years. We know each other very well. We both have CPLs.
In that instance, where the firearm was pre-I-594 purchased, I might be tempted to avoid the FFL checks. The burden to prove that you ran afoul of I-594 for an additional misdemeanor charge is probably not worth the time or potential additional punishment to a prosecutor. Doesn't mean you cannot be charged.
Shorter: What huntnphool said.
Post by: Hi-Liter on January 06, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Why even take the risk?
That's what I'm saying. I mean, I just bought/exchanged funds for a pistol from a friend I've know for over 10 years. We know each other very well. We both have CPLs.
In that instance, where the firearm was pre-I-594 purchased, I might be tempted to avoid the FFL checks. The burden to prove that you ran afoul of I-594 for an additional misdemeanor charge is probably not worth the time or potential additional punishment to a prosecutor. Doesn't mean you cannot be charged.
Shorter: What huntnphool said.
on the topic of obeying 594, The main reason why the 594 lawsuit was thrown out of court, the Plaintiffs had no standing, no case against the state for harm. There needs to be a "lamb"
I am surprised no one has been thrown out there to be charged for a 594 violation yet. Once someone is charged and/or convicted they will have standing to bring the claim thru federal court. It would be really nice if a claim stayed in state court our right to bear arms in this state is must stronger than the federal floor.
Post by: Shank on January 06, 2016, 06:07:57 PM
So when I sell or purchase a firearm it needs to go through FFL, but dad/grandpa's old 30/30 that's been handed down through the years doesn't because those hand- me-downs took place before 594?....so confused
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 06:21:21 PM
However there is an exception if you're related:
Quote
(4) 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;
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 06, 2016, 06:40:12 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 06, 2016, 06:44:11 PM
It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.
However there is an exception if you're related:Quote(4) 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;
Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.
Post by: Lucky1 on January 06, 2016, 06:58:10 PM
When you buy a new gun is there a record kept of what you bought ? Or is it just background check? Does the FFL info include the guns serial #?
The FFL does keep a record of the weapon that you bought. That information is supposedly not sent to the federal gov.
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 07:45:47 PM
It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.
However there is an exception if you're related:Quote(4) 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;
Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.
One thing to keep in mind- the exception only applies if it's a "bona fide gift."
So you can't sell a rifle to your cousin without a background check, but you can give it to him.
Post by: huntnphool on January 06, 2016, 08:56:21 PM
It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.
However there is an exception if you're related:Quote(4) 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;
Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.
One thing to keep in mind- the exception only applies if it's a "bona fide gift."
Yeah, and even then, if the gun is being transported from one state into Washington, you have to pay a "use" tax on the gun. :o
Post by: Lucky1 on January 06, 2016, 09:01:00 PM
[/quote]
Yeah, and even then, if the gun is being transported from one state into Washington, you have to pay a "use" tax on the gun. :o
[/quote]
So when I moved here was I required to pay use tax on the guns I brought with me?
Post by: huntnphool on January 06, 2016, 09:17:18 PM
Yeah, and even then, if the gun is being transported from one state into Washington, you have to pay a "use" tax on the gun. :o
[/quote]
So when I moved here was I required to pay use tax on the guns I brought with me?
[/quote]
Not that I know of............however, I know of one member here who's father passed away in a different state a year or so ago and left him several guns. He had to pay tax on those guns to bring them home.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 10, 2016, 04:43:13 PM
Post by: Bofire on January 10, 2016, 05:33:00 PM
I have some guns that are insured as investments, my lawyer says I am covered for loss but not "privacy" protected. :dunno: :dunno:
Carl
Post by: dscubame on January 10, 2016, 09:02:13 PM
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.Civil disobedience. Look up the numbers on New York's safe act. Something like over 90% of all guns in New York haven't been registered like they were supposed to be.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Fantastic. Interesting indeed. We the people can harmlessly protest by not participating here in WA like those in NY. I am in. :tup:
Post by: DaveMonti on January 10, 2016, 10:05:50 PM
Nobody is "tracking" anything. There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached.
The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis. And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping. How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc? The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there! And that was the ATF! The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws! That's how good the feds have their crap together.
This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it. It's a political "Look what I did! I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone. This is no "attack" on gun owners. No way to enforce this law. It's simply politics. 'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it. Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law. To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen.
It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database. Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for. Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do.
Post by: dscubame on January 10, 2016, 10:13:30 PM
While there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners. If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable.
Nobody is "tracking" anything. There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached.
The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis. And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping. How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc? The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there! And that was the ATF! The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws! That's how good the feds have their crap together.
This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it. It's a political "Look what I did! I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone. This is no "attack" on gun owners. No way to enforce this law. It's simply politics. 'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it. Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law. To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen.
It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database. Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for. Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do.
Wow. I see that now after reading your post. Never thought it through like that. Very profound. Makes me feel even that much more comfortable with this nonsense.
Post by: smittyJ on January 11, 2016, 07:58:23 AM
Post by: Skillet on January 11, 2016, 08:21:31 AM
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.
2% of total gun transfers is way too low to accurately reflect the actual number of exchanges between private sellers. While often quoted as "up to 40%" as a scare tactic, I believe it is more in the 25% range as per this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html)
The other 23% are simply exercising civil disobedience. :tup:
Post by: ghosthunter on January 11, 2016, 08:22:59 AM
While there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners. If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable.
Nobody is "tracking" anything. There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached.
The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis. And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping. How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc? The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there! And that was the ATF! The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws! That's how good the feds have their crap together.
This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it. It's a political "Look what I did! I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone. This is no "attack" on gun owners. No way to enforce this law. It's simply politics. 'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it. Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law. To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen.
It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database. Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for. Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do.
Wow. I see that now after reading your post. Never thought it through like that. Very profound. Makes me feel even that much more comfortable with this nonsense.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that they keep coming up with this crap. There is never a end to it. More mud in the water. I wish we could just shut them down with some legal option once and for all.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 11, 2016, 08:27:45 AM
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !
Post by: huntnphool on January 11, 2016, 10:41:40 AM
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !
And even then, how will they know? If you sold a gun to a guy today, and 5 years from now it was used in a homicide and recovered, how will they know that it was sold person to person today? Unless you guys document it, there is no way to prove the transaction happened today, or the day before 594 was implemented.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 11, 2016, 10:49:01 AM
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !
And even then, how will they know? If you sold a gun to a guy today, and 5 years from now it was used in a homicide and recovered, how will they know that it was sold person to person today? Unless you guys document it, there is no way to prove the transaction happened today, or the day before 594 was implemented.
. . . except when the first trace is to you, post I-594, and the gun is recovered in WA to your buyer, in WA. If there is no subsequent trace data, then it is reasonable to charge that you did not conduct an I-594 check. It is a misdemeanor, so BFD, sorta. But still. It is really only harassment of law-abiding gun owners, because it will never have any meaningful effect on crimes with firearms, and that is not just because some gun owners decide not to comply, as we all know.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2016, 10:54:50 AM
Increasingly, these power brokers will support more stringent laws and increasingly, will fail to produce "public safety" with their passage. At some point, we should be able to expose them for what they are: Powerful people who are afraid of the American citizens' ability to exercise their rights as written in the Bill of Rights of our beloved Constitution. It's too bad that the sleeping public is so far, satisfied with the trinkets and bobbles that the power brokers dole out to them. One day, hopefully, those won't be enough to pacify the huddled masses.
Post by: huntnphool on January 11, 2016, 10:54:55 AM
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !
And even then, how will they know? If you sold a gun to a guy today, and 5 years from now it was used in a homicide and recovered, how will they know that it was sold person to person today? Unless you guys document it, there is no way to prove the transaction happened today, or the day before 594 was implemented.
. . . except when the first trace is to you, post I-594, and the gun is recovered in WA to your buyer, in WA. If there is no subsequent trace data, then it is reasonable to charge that you did not conduct an I-594 check. It is a misdemeanor, so BFD, sorta. But still. It is really only harassment of law-abiding gun owners, because it will never have any meaningful effect on crimes with firearms, and that is not just because some gun owners decide not to comply, as we all know.
I understand that. My point was, I have purchased several guns over the years, didn't document any, and there is no way (getting old) I could tell you which day or week any of them were acquired back then. Even if they come to me and ask, I honestly do not know.
Post by: huntnphool on January 11, 2016, 10:56:29 AM
We shouldn't support the talking heads in their delusions about background checks. Hit them with the facts. We told everyone that the so-called gun show loophole represented such a small number of sales as to be immeasurable. That's how it turned out after a year. It's not that people broke the law. It's that the gun control people proved that gun control does nothing to make us safer. Not one person arrested, tried, and convicted under the new law.:tup:
Increasingly, these power brokers will support more stringent laws and increasingly, will fail to produce "public safety" with their passage. At some point, we should be able to expose them for what they are: Powerful people who are afraid of the American citizens' ability to exercise their rights as written in the Bill of Rights of our beloved Constitution. It's too bad that the sleeping public is so far, satisfied with the trinkets and bobbles that the power brokers dole out to them. One day, hopefully, those won't be enough to pacify the huddled masses.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 11, 2016, 11:12:56 AM
I understand that. My point was, I have purchased several guns over the years, didn't document any, and there is no way (getting old) I could tell you which day or week any of them were acquired back then. Even if they come to me and ask, I honestly do not know.
:tup:
I could on some, and for many others, probably, by reference to electronic comm's only. But I would not be compelled to testify against myself, even if I could. My point was mainly that I don't believe that I-594 was ever considered to be anything more than a harassment of law-abiding gun owners - all propaganda aside - and a further ratcheting of restrictions on the 2A, toward the ultimate goal of registration and confiscation.
You don't need any costly prosecutions to already achieve that objective.
I also don't think anyone wants to spend scarce resources on prosecution for a misdemeanor offense. So it would have to be a truly egregious case involving multiple transfers and/or bodies, before I-594 ever even got raised as an issue.
Look at the MPHS shooting. The only reason the father was prosecuted for being a prohibited possessor lying on the 4473 is because of the body count. You almost never hear of routine 4473 violation prosecutions, even though it is a major felony and a somewhat straightforward case to make. Heck, even the feds are turning a blind eye to the marijuana/firearms possession issue.
We are CA ten years or so years ago.
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on January 11, 2016, 11:30:46 AM
How can they not be smart enough to see the end result of their arguments? Oh well, I can only say lock and load because this isn't going to end well, whether it is in the next few years or 50 years... something has to give.
seriously, how dumb can you be to not know background checks are a gun registry? I just shake my head every day.
The 2nd Amendment is dead in America. Just like most of our freedoms, their time is limited. No way we can keep our freedoms for long with it being this easy to talk people out of their common sense.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 11, 2016, 11:34:03 AM
It worked and they will be back with worst stuff.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 11, 2016, 12:32:01 PM
I think I-594 was a test by the anti gunners to see if they could get their way through the our I system.I believe that.
It worked and they will be back with worst stuff.
Also, I thought it was intended to be confusing and burdensome, such that those wanting to follow the law or even err on the side of caution would get tired of jumping through hoops. At some point they would say, "it just isn't worth it to go do XYZ anymore". Then another segment of the population would grow up distanced from firearms and likely to support future erosions.
Post by: smittyJ on January 12, 2016, 08:01:09 AM
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.
2% of total gun transfers is way too low to accurately reflect the actual number of exchanges between private sellers. While often quoted as "up to 40%" as a scare tactic, I believe it is more in the 25% range as per this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html)
The other 23% are simply exercising civil disobedience. :tup:
:tup:
Post by: smittyJ on January 12, 2016, 08:07:38 AM
I think I-594 was a test by the anti gunners to see if they could get their way through the our I system.I believe that.
It worked and they will be back with worst stuff.
Also, I thought it was intended to be confusing and burdensome, such that those wanting to follow the law or even err on the side of caution would get tired of jumping through hoops. At some point they would say, "it just isn't worth it to go do XYZ anymore". Then another segment of the population would grow up distanced from firearms and likely to support future erosions.
:yeah:
I do store guns for my son and a friend, talked to the local sheriff about it when the law passed. He said I would not be transfering "ownership" and besides, how would he know what I did!
Post by: luvmystang67 on January 12, 2016, 08:19:26 AM
If people were doing what they wanted it could make their 40% number look small. I should file paperwork before I leave my gun in a buddys truck to open the gate! and then again when I get back.
Post by: bobcat on January 12, 2016, 08:29:19 AM
Quote
OLYMPIA
Gun-rights activists rally in Olympia to protest new law
Rachel La Corte / Associated Press
Dec 13, 2014
About 1,000 gun-rights advocates, many openly carrying rifles and handguns, rallied Saturday outside the Capitol to protest a new expanded gun background check law in Washington state.
Organizers of the "I Will Not Comply" rally promised to exchange and sell firearms without conducting background checks during the daylong rally in opposition to the state's voter-approved universal background check law.
"We're going to stand up for our rights," rally organizer Gavin Seim said. "Our rights are not up for negotiation."
Initiative 594 passed with 59 percent of the vote last month. Geoff Potter, who served as a spokesman for the pro-initiative campaign, said that the rally was "a very loud, but very, very narrow and unrepresentative view of what the people of Washington have clearly demonstrated they want on background checks and gun laws."
At an I-594 "violation station" people posed with rifles that weren't theirs, and a wedding party unaffiliated with the protest that was taking pictures on the Capitol steps got into the spirit.
Rally participant Brandon Lyons of Spanaway handed his AR-10 rifle to the groom, who posed with the rifle and his bride, then the best man held the firearm and mugged with the couple. The bride and groom, who were to be married later in Tacoma, wouldn't give their full names.
"We've all just broken the law," Lyons said after they took pictures with the rifle.
However, Washington State Patrol Trooper Guy Gill said "we're not convinced that handing someone a gun is a violation of 594."
The law, which took effect Dec. 4, requires background checks on all sales and transfers, including private transactions and many loans and gifts.
Opponents have taken most issue with the language surrounding transfers. I-594 defines a transfer as the delivery of a firearm "without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans." Exceptions include emergency gun transfers concerning personal safety, gifts between family members, antiques and loans for hunting.
Capitol officials were preparing for up to 6,000 protesters, and Washington State Patrol troopers were seen on the periphery of the crowd.
Gill said there are no plans to arrest people for exchanging guns or even selling weapons, but they could forward violations they see to prosecutors.
"Our Number 1 priority is to just make this a safe environment for people to express themselves," he said. "Most of these folks are responsible gun owners. We probably will not have an issue."
Norma Johnson of Enumclaw said the law isn't going to stop crime.
"You're targeting the wrong things by going after law-abiding citizens," she said.
Washington has joined six other states - California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York and Rhode Island, plus Washington, D.C. - in requiring universal background checks for all sales and transfers of all firearms, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
About a dozen other states have varying laws on expansion beyond what federal law requires.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/olympia/2014/12/13/olympia-gun-rights-rally/20360249/