Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Background check blocks gun sale to wanted man at Spokane show

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Koda, Dec 24, 2014.

  1. Koda

    Koda Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    3,022
  2. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    486
    Not being a WA resident I may be wrong, but I think it is only the Washington Arms Collectors gun shows that had that requirement.
     
  3. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    Wa Arms collectors wouldn't even have let him in without a Bg check. Other gun shows, that's not the case.

    Congrats, the gun grabbers caught ONE guy. Out of 3 million LAWFUL gun owners in this state. Woopdeedoo.
     
  4. donaldc

    donaldc Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    124
    I'm not familiar with the gun show in question, but Washington Arms Collectors gun shows do require a background check to become a member. Regardless of I-594, all firearms sold by a FFL at a gun show require a background check.

    This case is being used as an example of I-594 being a huge success - without knowing all the facts. I'm betting the MSM will never publish an article showing the failure of the law when an innocent person is arrested and jailed because some prosecutor goes by the letter of the law rather than by the spirit of the law as we were assured.
     
  5. Koda

    Koda Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    The article didnt say anything about the guy being arrested! Id be curious if anyone knows if he was...
     
    parallax likes this.
  6. Koda

    Koda Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    well there’s the answer right there. I-594 didn’t stop this guy there was already a law in effect that required background checks at all Wa. gun shows.
     
    BoonDocks36 likes this.
  7. donaldc

    donaldc Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    124
    Actually, that is not correct. Technically, prior to I-594, someone could buy a firearm from a private seller at a gun show. All firearms sold by a FFL require a background check.

    I do find it very interesting that all the articles about this case lack a significant amount of detail, leading readers to assume things that may or may not be true - which is exactly what I think the anti-gun types want.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  8. Koda

    Koda Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    ok, then they got one. The linked article indicates the sale was a private sale as well.

    yeah, the article is vague... maybe his warrant was for outstanding speeding tickets.
     
  9. donaldc

    donaldc Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    124
    It very well could have been. One of my buddies sold his junker on Craigslist and got a bill of sale but didn't fill out the DMV paperwork. He ended up getting tickets for this car he didn't own anymore and they couldn't/wouldn't transfer the title without paying all the tickets and finding the guy (who wouldn't answer his phone) to sign the paperwork and it ended up being a huge mess. So I can definitely see how something like that could have happened.

    Or the guy could have been wanted for murder - the point is we don't know important details. But, I bet we won't hear much about it or see a widely published correction if the warrant turns out to be for parking tickets.
     
  10. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Prior to 594 NO private sales required a background check. Did not matter the location, gun show, parking lot, church, your house, etc. WA followed Federal Law when dealing with private transfers.

    ONE "gun group" in Washington has taken it upon themselves to be more restrictive then both state or federal law. They require you to be a member and pass a background check to even touch a gun at any gun show they sponsor. All of the others supported state and federal law......

    You always hear about people failing background checks, but you never hear about anyone being charged with anything....... Kinda odd.....

    Also there is the fact that not all denials are accurate, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf it appears in 2010 about 25% of denials were reversed due to "errors".
     
    mjbskwim and Caveman Jim like this.
  11. 308

    308 ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ Platinum Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  12. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,649
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    There wasn't.
    You may be thinking about Washington Arms Collectors policy.

    The WAC policy is/ and was / that all prospective members would pass BG screening before granting membership; then a current membership badge would be required for both buyers and sellers to transact FTF sales at the WAC events.

    Non-WAC gun shows (such as those in Centralia) had no such policy of which I'm aware.
     
    Nwcid and The Heretic like this.
  13. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    6,982
    This^^

    I was a WAC member before I moved back to Orygun.

    You could into the gun show without a BGC, but you could not buy or even handle a firearm in the show without being a member, which required the check. Also, you could not bring in or sell a firearm without being a member.

    There were a few instances where someone broke the rules.

    One was a son of a member who used his father's badge and forged it to show his photo IIRC - or maybe it was his name - I forget (IIRC they didn't have photos on the badges).

    Another was a seller was witnessed selling to someone who wasn't a member.

    Both were caught. The seller was expelled from the club permanently.

    As mentioned, other shows were not so diligent.

    It is Oregon that requires a BGC at all gun shows for all firearm sales, private or from an FFL.

    Of course now, post 594, WA requires a BGC for all "transfer"s.

    And yes, I have no doubt that there will be a few criminals who are stupid enough to try. There are always a few that try with FFLs too. From what I hear, they are almost never arrested, they walk away before anybody comes for them, even if someone does come, which I doubt.

    Which segues to my rant of the day (Merry Christmas - here is my XMas present to you):

    It is a well known fact in law enforcement that 80% of the crimes are committed by 20% of the criminals (an interesting application of the 80/20 rule). Almost all of these criminals have outstanding warrants - usually for serious crimes.

    A few LE orgs have a special warrants team whose only job is to search for these criminals, serve the warrants and take these criminals into custody. A large percentage of these criminals have so many warrants, so much of a record, and the crimes are so serious, that they remain in custody until their trials, which often result in them being convicted and incarcerated.

    This generally decreases the crime rates significantly in the area of the teams.

    Problem is, that the teams are usually disbanded. Some local crime happens, someone gets mugged on the street, or a local band of thieves breaks into a bunch of cars, and there is a big public outcry to do something about it.



    So the teams are put on the streets to have a public presence, that usually does nothing except satisfy the public that there are more cops on the beat.

    These warrant teams are much more effective and cost less, but they are not as visible. If I was a little more paranoid, I would say that some of the powers that be prefer they not be so effective so that there would be more crime and they would in turn have more power and budget and manpower. :rolleyes:

    End of rant. Have a Merry Christmas
     
  14. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes Received:
    6,678
    There are some huge leaps of logic going on here. First off it is possible (and most likely) that this person has no criminal record. His warrant may even be for a charge that would not have prevented him from owning a firearm, however a pending criminal charge that COULD result in more than a year jail time is enough to temporarily suspend your rights of ownership even if it later restored.

    If he would have been a prohibited person do to criminal action, Its likely they would have stated that rather than he had an outstanding warrant. The warrant could have been for a traffic violation, DUI or possibly even for Tax evasion. For the news bit to imply that this somehow kept the gun out of the hands of someone who would do others harm is a stretch to say the least. Its a huge leap with no supporting basis in the bit. Its much more likely that it was a technicality grasp on by the liberal news to justify this silly law.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2014
  15. chariot13

    chariot13 Near Eugene/Springfield Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    595
    Take your pick. From the title insinuating that background checks block 'crime'. The same could be said about genocide. If the #1 crime riddled United States was to commit genocide 11.8 million crimes would be prevented from happening. If the #10 rated crime riddled India committed genocide, 1.76 million crimes could be prevented. Background checks afterall, are all about preventing crime.
     
  16. notazombie

    notazombie Hillsboro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    822
    What a useless piece of non-news. Just the simple fact that they guy went through the legal channels and had the BGC gives me pretty good reason to conclude that he either wasn't aware of any warrants or else possibly the failed BGC was a false positive. Kinda doubt he's an axe murderer. Would any of you guys run a check if you thought there was even a chance of something coming back shady? I sure wouldn't.
    ...and nice touch quoting the show's organizer at the end, implying that the new system is such a success.:rolleyes:
     
    Nwcid likes this.
  17. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,649
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Not sure if I completely agree with your logic there, @Non. We see many people go through TSA checkpoints and get caught with guns each year.

    Were they "not aware" of the prohibition against guns on planes? Who doesn't really know if they have an arrest warrant? Those do not come flying out of the sky from Mars. ;)

    And don't assume that because one person would not take a chance that others would behave the same. ('Transference', the head-docs call it.) Some states don't report crimes or mental commitments as readily or diligently as others.
     
  18. DMcGPNW

    DMcGPNW SW WA Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    78
    This has already been said but here is an example of very similar situation. I had a defendant on warrant status call my office after being denied a firearm transfer. Seems they forgot all about the case (or more likely placed it on the low priority list as the warrant was not inter-state extradite eligible and they lived out of state.) The defendant appeared in my office we pulled the warrant and resolved the suspended license charge as an infraction since they paid the fines that lead to the suspension and were re-licensed. Under that fact pattern the same story could have been written, and all we were dealing with were unpaid traffic fines and a suspended license charge.
     
    notazombie and IronMonster like this.
  19. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    6,982
    It isn't that hard to have an outstanding warrant that you don't know about. If you miss a court date, you will most likely have a bench warrant. There are other reasons; the gov. is great at mixing this stuff up. You think a matter is settled, and in truth the paperwork falls through the cracks - you never get notified, the official letters get sent to the wrong person or address or never get sent at all.

    I had the FBI come back at me wanting $10K for cutting firewood (mistakenly - we had a permit to cut on private land and we strayed over onto BLM land by about 100 yards without knowing it) on BLM land, about 5 years after they first talked to me about it. Actually, they never contacted me - they contacted someone else. They didn't know where I was (I was in the military) and my parents had moved. If the other person had not contacted me and they had not been able to contact him, I would probably have had a warrant on me until such time as I did something to find out about it later, such as a BGC.

    Fortunately we settled out of court with no charges (that I know of) for $600.

    It doesn't take much.

    I think my ex has an outstanding bench warrant or two or three - but then I wouldn't want her to be anywhere near a screwdriver or hammer much less a firearm.
     
    BoonDocks36 likes this.
  20. Simonpie

    Simonpie Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    149
    My brother once had a boat speeding ticket for 6 knots in a 5 knot no-wake zone. He decided to contest it. The court date was over 6 months out. He forgot about it and had a warrant on his head for over 2 years until he was stopped for a bad tail light. The cop just told him to clean up his paperwork. It happens to the best of us.