Gloves off in WA gun control initiative battle!

[Dave Workman]

Gloves come off in Washington gun control battle

A new 30-second advertisement featuring a Colorado police sergeant promoting the concept at the heart of an 18-page gun control measure on the November ballot is scheduled to begin airing today, and it quickly brought a gloves-off reaction from the Evergreen State's leading gun rights advocate.


<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[elsie]

I think the obvious first step is to file a complaint against the Center for Gun Responsibility with the IRS. Or a whole bunch of complaints. It is a thinly veiled attempt to influence the election.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

The really diabolical aspect of this I-594 campaign is they are promoting it as nothing more than "background checks" and implying that it's limited to sales.

The complete bill would be a 1/2 page long if it were as depicted in the TV ads. As we know, it is much more.

Edit to add:

"The initiative makes sure anyone buying a gun in Washington State passes the same background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter whom they buy it from."

 

[The Heretic]

It is obviously a step towards de-facto registration as you will not be able to sell or buy without the check.

The background check - IIRC from the last time I bought a handgun from an FFL while living in WA state a little over 3 years ago - includes the firearm serial number, make and model?

In Oregon it does - the checks done in gun shows include this info.

If this isn't true in WA state, will the new law (594 if passed) include this info?

I would guess it would.

My hope would be that outside of the liberals who would vote for 594, that those who are not pro-gun or anti-gun, would look at the simpler and more straight forward 591 and vote for it because they would understand it, whereas the the 594 they would not because it is too long and complex. Hopefully that will be the downfall of 594.

 

[Wayne]

It is obviously a step towards de-facto registration as you will not be able to sell or buy without the check.

The background check - IIRC from the last time I bought a handgun from an FFL while living in WA state a little over 3 years ago - includes the firearm serial number, make and model?

In Oregon it does - the checks done in gun shows include this info.

If this isn't true in WA state, will the new law (594 if passed) include this info?

I would guess it would.

My hope would be that outside of the liberals who would vote for 594, that those who are not pro-gun or anti-gun, would look at the simpler and more straight forward 591 and vote for it because they would understand it, whereas the the 594 they would not because it is too long and complex. Hopefully that will be the downfall of 594.

I believe it would. The law just states " sold". The law is under the RCW's for gun dealers. Read parts 9a,b.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.110

 

[Doc In UPlace]

To me, worse is that the "transfer" includes handing a gun to somebody during target practice out in the woods or passing a loaner around in a safety class. Police would not be able to loan a privately owned backup piece to a fellow officer. But that isn't even the worst of it.

I-594 adds CLEO sign-off and NCIC and DSHS screening to each transfer. Section 5, (2) a) below.

Note that there is no -OR- between (1) (a.) and (b.), below. It looks like both a CPL and CLEO sign-off or you'll wait 10 days, or 60.

Here it is, verbatim:

Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW
9.41.070 at the time of issuance;

(b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff;
or
(c) The requirements or time periods in section 4 of this act have been satisfied.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, in determining whether the purchaser meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.040, the chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either, shall check with the national crime information center, the Washington state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
SECTION 4 reads:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: Code Rev/AI:eab 10 I-2745.1/13

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer may not deliver any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until the earlier of:
(1) The results of all required background checks are known and the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal or state law;
or
(2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days.

 

[The Heretic]

I believe it would. The law just states " sold". The law is under the RCW's for gun dealers. Read parts 9a,b.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.110

That is not the text of 594

NICS does not require the serial # or make/model of the firearm - only whether the firearm is a handgun, long gun or "other".

It is state BGC systems that sometimes require the serial # and make/model - the Oregon system does (for gun shows, not for private transfers not initiated or conducted in a gun show).

I quickly searched the text of 594 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE 594.pdf) and found 27 instances of the word "background" but did not find anywhere that it specifically stated what information was required to submit to a background check.

It does state on page 12 that a "dealer" must receive an application to buy a pistol, filled out by the buyer, that contains serial number and make/model of a pistol and that the dealer must keep this for 6 years.

My guess is that they purposely left out the description of what info would go to the state BGC system to make it flexible as to what they later require. From what I understand some other state systems enumerate these information requirements, but I cannot easily find whether the FICS system in Oregon has these requirements by law, or by regulation (added later by OSP). It would be instructive to know which.

My point in this is that if firearm info is required by law, then it does amount to a legally mandated de-facto gun registration system as almost all transfers will eventually go through the systems and the data will build up (the gov will never delete the data even if required to by law). Even if only required by regulation after the fact (highly likely), it becomes a de-facto registration system. Even if neither happens, it is a pretty simple matter to slip in an amendment later in a backdoor committee, possibly in a different unrelated bill later on (this is how these things commonly happen) - or the governor or even the head of the WSP or whoever runs the system, mandates that the info is required and everybody just goes along for the ride.

The only way it wouldn't happen would be if there was already laws/regs on the books that prohibit that info from being collected - which is unlikely.

So - my question stands - what does the WA state BGC system require? What does 594 require - if anything?

IIRC, there is currently a state system in place for handgun BGCs:

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/firchart.html

I don't have authoritative info on what that requires and I don't recall from the last time I bought a handgun in WA state. But I would not be surprised that it required the same as Oregon and other states - firearm info.

 

[Wayne]

It is a separate form you sign that is sent to Wa DOL to be entered into their data base . As of the end of last year the DOL requested an additional 420,00 to hire more people because they were running about 8 months behind in entering the data. It is not the 4473.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

I have a big red flag with yellow stars on it if anyone wants it, it was given to me as a joke along with an Obama presidential plate. The gift that keeps on giving.
Where the hell is Charley Heston when we need him?

 

[The Heretic]

Where the hell is Charley Heston when we need him?

Moses is dead and buried.

He wasn't much help anyway - he didn't understand that the Second Amendment wasn't about duck hunting, even after they got him to stop saying you didn't need an AR15 for duck hunting.

We need more people like Dave Workman.

 

[The Heretic]

It is a separate form you sign that is sent to Wa DOL to be entered into their data base . As of the end of last year the DOL requested an additional 420,00 to hire more people because they were running about 8 months behind in entering the data. It is not the 4473.

Does it include serial # and make/model?

 

[balaperdida]

<snip>

Note that there is no -OR- between (1) (a.) and (b.), below. It looks like both a CPL and CLEO sign-off or you'll wait 10 days, or 60.

Here it is, verbatim:

Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW
9.41.070 at the time of issuance;

(b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff;
or
(c) The requirements or time periods in section 4 of this act have been satisfied.
<snip>

Note the "or" just before 1.(c) and the semicolons at the ends of 1(a) and 1(b).

This combination makes 1.(a), 1.(b), and 1.(c) a single, continuous expression. The "or" between (b) and (c) refers back, and is inclusive, to (a) and (b). At least that what I learned about 60 years ago.

Is there an English teacher on the forum?

 

[Wayne]

Does it include serial # and make/model?

Yes.

 

[The Heretic]

then it is de facto registration

the devil is in the details

 

[Martini_Up]

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

594 - Yet another way to control people. Unfortunately, so many people have forgotten what it means to be free, generation after generation giving up freedom's for the false sense of security, that to many 594 doesn't seem so bad.... especially after a few bong hits.

 

[Dave Workman]

Moses is dead and buried.

He wasn't much help anyway - he didn't understand that the Second Amendment wasn't about duck hunting, even after they got him to stop saying you didn't need an AR15 for duck hunting.

We need more people like Dave Workman.

Well, that's awfully kind of you, and I appreciate the compliment. You will find considerable disagreement over in the gun control camp . As for Chuck Heston, I knew him. Served on the NRA board with him for five years. Fascinating guy, and he had some interesting opinions. We didn't always agree, didn't always disagree.

Trust me on this, Heston knew what the 2A was all about. I can't recall him ever saying that about the AR15, which would have actually been fundamentally correct. You DON'T need an AR for duck hunting. Cripes, you don't even want one for duck hunting. Hell, everyone knows that. They wouldn't be much good for duck hunting, anyway. Ruin too much meat.

You need a good Benelli Super Black Eagle with No. 4 steel or Bismuth, or Hevi Shot.

Now, you might need an AR for the following:
Competition
Prairie dogs
Coyotes
Home defense
Recreation
Zombies

Or just because the 2A doesn't say anything about 10-round limits, the color of a gun or what materials are used to build it. And it sure as heck doesn't say the government has any business knowing whether you own one, or two, or three.

 

[Dave Workman]

then it is de facto registration

the devil is in the details

Bravo. Move to the head of the class.

 

[twoclones]

No discrimination in 594

 

[BigStick]

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

That is scary. I litterally just heard that phrase 5 minutes ago when I was listening to Atlas Shrugged on audio-book. So, so true.

 

[Dave Workman]

Remember: http://wagunrights.org


Looking for 'loopholes?' Check press coverage of dueling Wash. initiatives

In its latest attempt at what might be considered advocacy journalism to prop up Initiative 594, the Seattle Times last night published another story dealing with accused Seattle Pacific University shooting suspect Aaron Ybarra and how people wonder why this "suicidal, psychotic 27-year-old was allowed to have a gun in the first place."

<broken link removed>



(This ought to be fun in the 'comments' section. Keep an eye on it. The first remark right out of the chute was about the 'transfer' trap in I-594. Feel free to jump in there, too!)