HB 1588 - Universal Background Checks

[HahnsXD]

So what of the recent statement made by Alan Gottlieb of the SAF?



Source: <broken link removed>

Almost sounds like if they pass a "compromised" version that he has some slam-dunk lawsuit in the works that will crush it. Therefore we get rid of the handgun registration and then universal background checks gets killed too.

Maybe I'm way off base here.

 

[HuckFin]

So what of the recent statement made by Alan Gottlieb of the SAF.

Source: <broken link removed>

Its my understanding that the current state data base only keeps records of the original pistol purchace from a FFL.....So would be obselete once the pistol was resold...However if we wind-up with the state "universal back ground check"....The registration would remain intact from sale to sale... For ever and ever.

 

[HuckFin]

Its my understanding that the current state data base only keeps records of the original pistol purchace from a FFL.....So would be obselete once the pistol was resold...However if we wind-up with the state "universal back ground check"....The registration would remain intact from sale to sale... For ever and ever.

So if I got this right...Destroying the current database, so we can have the state "universal back ground check"... Would be taking a big step backwoods.

 

[Browning55]

And for those in his district - we definitely need to get rid of state senator Paull Shin. He's all for the gun laws being kicked around. (Not to mention every new tax they can think of.)

 

[Bushman]

And for those in his district - we definitely need to get rid of state senator Paull Shin. He's all for the gun laws being kicked around. (Not to mention every new tax they can think of.)

So he is for taking guns away and enslaving us, basically?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

So he is for taking guns away and enslaving us, basically?

Sounds 1775ish.. they knew what to do

 

[HahnsXD]

You're not off base. Gottlieb is a flat out Genius.
A chess player for sure!

Just checking. Seems like a huge gamble and goes against my typical "not one more damn inch" rule.

 

[Bushman]

Isn't Gottlieb a felon?

Looked it up. He underpayed his taxes by 17K in 1984. I find it interesting that everything is slowly causing us to lose our rights. Get PTSD? Lose your rights. Depressed? Lose your rights. Don't pay all of your taxes? Lose your rights.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/mof.htm

 

[kumabear17]

Here's where I disagree with Gottlieb and his attempt to negotiate with the Left. After the Kline/Murray debacle how can anyone trust the Democratic side of the Legislature this quick. My District Senator had given me a heads up on what was being proposed yesterday, leaving out the part about the handgun registry being destroyed. Below is part of the letter I wrote back to him asking where did he read "Rights" were something the State had the ability to "allow"? And No I never received a response. When I called, his people had no answer. They simply acknowledged they never thought of it that way.

Again, I appreciate your response and the effort you really appear to be making in reaching out. Here's the "but" part of my response. You mentioned "clarifications" and "amendments" to "allow" one to swap firearms with friends, and eliminate background checks if we had a CPL or were selling within our Family. Do you see the word "allow"?
The Democratic Party of this State is considering it might "allow" me to exercise my "RIGHT" to acquire a firearm with "the States approval"? Why do you believe the State has any authority to "allow Rights"? We're not talking about "privileges" such as buying and registering a car. "Gun rights" are"Rights" acknowledged to have existed prior to this Country being established and, in the case of our State Constitution, prior to the State be established. Firearm ownership is not a "privilege" the State should believe it has the authority to "allow".

If the handgun registry in place is illegal per our State and the Federal Constitution, I say sue the State. Don't try to be clever because you're dealing with snakes.

 

[slingshot1943]

Isn't Gottlieb a felon?

Looked it up. He underpayed his taxes by 17K in 1984. I find it interesting that everything is slowly causing us to lose our rights. Get PTSD? Lose your rights. Depressed? Lose your rights. Don't pay all of your taxes? Lose your rights.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing | Alan Gottlieb: The Merchant of Fear

This is one of the reasons I think all gun laws should be declared unconstitutional

 

[Nimh]

Almost sounds like if they pass a "compromised" version that he has some slam-dunk lawsuit in the works that will crush it. Therefore we get rid of the handgun registration and then universal background checks gets killed too.

Maybe I'm way off base here.

This is how I understand it too, but I'm carefully optimistic. While I loathe the term compromise in any way when it comes to 2A (we give and they take) I can't help but pause. I'm looking for downsides and trap doors from a legal standing at this point.

 

[Kevatc]

Hey, Hope... How's that conscience of yours going to be if your crap bill passes, and the FACT that bad guys will still get guns and people keep getting murdered by bad guys, and you did nothing about the bad guys? You phony!

THIS!!!! Why can't they understand that universal background checks will only affect the law abiding good guy and not have one iota of a chance of preventing a bad guy from getting a gun???? Sheesh, this isn't rocket surgery.

While I don’t like the state involved in private fiearm sales – it’s a slippery slope – here is a surprisingly supportive letter from State Senator Mark Mullet, who is the 5th District Democrat Senator:

I still think this bill is a good idea in helping to curb the extremely easy access that criminals have to firearms. It is not a silver bullet which solves all problems, but I think it will certainly help. I also do not think that it infringes upon the Second Amendment, but I appreciate that my views are at odds with your belief on this subject. If you’d like to discuss this issue further, please feel free to contact me by email or over the phone.

Best regards,
Mark
Senator Mark Mullet

I would love to talk to this guy in person and ask exactly how this bill will curb criminals from getting guns. Would they not just ignore this law like they do others? This bill will not solve a single problem but rather creat thousands upon thousands of them over time. I am so frustrated that these "common sense" gun laws will only affect law abiding folks. How in God's green Earth is this bill going to keep a gang banger with a 3 foot rap sheet from getting a gun? This knee jerk emotional "we have to do something" mentality causes politicians and the Brady crew to completely abdicate their critical thinking skills.

 

[kumabear17]

Sharp guy, slick guy, well intentioned? I don't know. He is willing to communicate and he stays in control, but I agree with both of you he is wrong. It's almost like these people believe that somehow they have to do something to show they care about the emotional response the Left generated with Sandy Hook. They don't seem to get it that none of their efforts affect criminals or maybe they do and that was never their intent. It was to dismember the 2nd Amendment a little more.

 

[HahnsXD]

Also, I have attached a graph showing the results of a poll in which 600 people in Washington were asked their opinion on a law requiring everyone who buys a gun to undergo a background check.

Ahh, that Ceasefire poll of that was no doubt taken in downtown Seattle?





Sounds legit

 

[kumabear17]

Justice used to be blind, but it appears that the Liberals and RIONO's have given her vision based on whatever crack pot poll they can come up with. I don't know what motivated Hope to be twisted by the information he seems convinced validates his point of view. I guess I really don't care. Gun owners aren't criminals who should have to reguster "in case" they some day commit a crime. That is East Coast, NYC, type thinking. Criminals are the ones who should be being registered, but I guess that means our State Justice system would have to prosecute them fully for the crimes they commit and not let them pleabargain their way to lesser charges to get a conviction. Regardless Hope and the Liberals going after gun owners will do nothing to lower the crime statistics and one would have to be a moron (I like that word) to think it would.

 

[garguren]

Let me run an idea pass all of you. I think everyone unanimously agrees that any kind of registration would be a bad thing. And a universal background check would essentially be doing just that. That being said I think at least most of us agree we need to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. We all know if the bad guys want a gun they will get it one way or another.

I've been thinking about a way that we could attempt to please both sides of the spectrum. My idea is this; we require a background check on private sales. However not in the manner which is being proposed. Let’s say “Guy 1” wants to buy a gun from “Guy 2”. “Guy 1” goes to the Sheriff’s office and completes a background check for the purpose of wanting to own a gun. Assuming he does not have anything that would prevent him from possessing a firearm, the Sheriff gives him a paper which essentially says “Guy 1” completed a background check with the –insert local law enforcement agency here- and is legally able to possess a firearm. “Guy 1” takes the paper with him to meet “Guy 2” he shows him the paper and proceeds to buy the gun.

Now what have we accomplished? “Guy 1” received a background check and is legally able to own a gun and “Guy 2” verified this by the paper which the Sheriff provided to “Guy 1”. The sale remains private and no one other than “Guy 1” and “Guy 2” is aware of the sale. However “Guy 2” can at least have a warm and fuzzy that the “Guy 1” isn't a convicted felon or something else of that nature. While this is would be a slight inconvenience to the buyer, it would have a major impact on the sales of guns to criminals.

I know some would argue that we have no way of knowing/proving that “Guy 1” and “Guy 2” actually did this, and they would be right. However outside of a complete gun registration we would never know anyways. There will be people that ignore the legislation regardless of what it is. I do however believe that most law abiding gun owners would agree to this because it does not really have any major impact and does in fact help reduce the amount of gun sales to criminals.
Anyways I’m curious what people think about the idea. Also I think that the “pass” from the Sheriff’s office should be good for say 6 months (time limit to be determined). This way we do not have to get one every time we want to do a private sale.

 

[Redcap]

Let me run an idea pass all of you. I think everyone unanimously agrees that any kind of registration would be a bad thing. And a universal background check would essentially be doing just that. That being said I think at least most of us agree we need to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. We all know if the bad guys want a gun they will get it one way or another.

I've been thinking about a way that we could attempt to please both sides of the spectrum. My idea is this; we require a background check on private sales. However not in the manner which is being proposed. Let's say "Guy 1" wants to buy a gun from "Guy 2". "Guy 1" goes to the Sheriff's office and completes a background check for the purpose of wanting to own a gun. Assuming he does not have anything that would prevent him from possessing a firearm, the Sheriff gives him a paper which essentially says "Guy 1" completed a background check with the &#8211;insert local law enforcement agency here- and is legally able to possess a firearm. "Guy 1" takes the paper with him to meet "Guy 2" he shows him the paper and proceeds to buy the gun.

Now what have we accomplished? "Guy 1" received a background check and is legally able to own a gun and "Guy 2" verified this by the paper which the Sheriff provided to "Guy 1". The sale remains private and no one other than "Guy 1" and "Guy 2" is aware of the sale. However "Guy 2" can at least have a warm and fuzzy that the "Guy 1" isn't a convicted felon or something else of that nature. While this is would be a slight inconvenience to the buyer, it would have a major impact on the sales of guns to criminals.

I know some would argue that we have no way of knowing/proving that "Guy 1" and "Guy 2" actually did this, and they would be right. However outside of a complete gun registration we would never know anyways. There will be people that ignore the legislation regardless of what it is. I do however believe that most law abiding gun owners would agree to this because it does not really have any major impact and does in fact help reduce the amount of gun sales to criminals.
Anyways I'm curious what people think about the idea. Also I think that the "pass" from the Sheriff's office should be good for say 6 months (time limit to be determined). This way we do not have to get one every time we want to do a private sale.

No.

 

[Kable]

Let me run an idea pass all of you. I think everyone unanimously agrees that any kind of registration would be a bad thing. And a universal background check would essentially be doing just that. That being said I think at least most of us agree we need to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. We all know if the bad guys want a gun they will get it one way or another.

I've been thinking about a way that we could attempt to please both sides of the spectrum. My idea is this; we require a background check on private sales. However not in the manner which is being proposed. Let's say "Guy 1" wants to buy a gun from "Guy 2". "Guy 1" goes to the Sheriff's office and completes a background check for the purpose of wanting to own a gun. Assuming he does not have anything that would prevent him from possessing a firearm, the Sheriff gives him a paper which essentially says "Guy 1" completed a background check with the &#8211;insert local law enforcement agency here- and is legally able to possess a firearm. "Guy 1" takes the paper with him to meet "Guy 2" he shows him the paper and proceeds to buy the gun.

Now what have we accomplished? "Guy 1" received a background check and is legally able to own a gun and "Guy 2" verified this by the paper which the Sheriff provided to "Guy 1". The sale remains private and no one other than "Guy 1" and "Guy 2" is aware of the sale. However "Guy 2" can at least have a warm and fuzzy that the "Guy 1" isn't a convicted felon or something else of that nature. While this is would be a slight inconvenience to the buyer, it would have a major impact on the sales of guns to criminals.

I know some would argue that we have no way of knowing/proving that "Guy 1" and "Guy 2" actually did this, and they would be right. However outside of a complete gun registration we would never know anyways. There will be people that ignore the legislation regardless of what it is. I do however believe that most law abiding gun owners would agree to this because it does not really have any major impact and does in fact help reduce the amount of gun sales to criminals.
Anyways I'm curious what people think about the idea. Also I think that the "pass" from the Sheriff's office should be good for say 6 months (time limit to be determined). This way we do not have to get one every time we want to do a private sale.

Very similar to an idea I had where you could go get a background check card similar to a CPL but it wouldn't grant you concealed weapons status but would be free to get CPL you would still have to pay the 60 bucks so there is still encouragement for revenue generating background checks. I think this should also be voluntary and not mandatory I think most people would only sell to someone with this card voluntarily I honestly believe setting up aFREE voluntary system would be just as effective as its already against the law to sell to someone you know or suspect would be a felon and they would find a way around the system even if it were mandatory so why infringe on our rights... but it's not infringing you say? well how is requiring a background check different than warrantless search and seizure. Do we let law enforcement search our property whenever and when we object they say well if your not doing anything illegal then you have nothing to hide NO we don't. And aren't we allowed due process to be denied a right and in order to go through due process you have to have evidence against you that you've committed a crime requiring universal background checks is like saying everyone is a felon unless YOU prove otherwise by completing a background check. I agree we shouldn't let felons and DANGEROUSLY mentally ill posess a firearm but 1. Why are we letting people we don't trust with a gun out of prison, shouldn't we be pushing for stricter punishments on violent crimes and crime committed with a firearm instead of wasting time and money pushing for something that is only going to affect law abiding citizens anyway and 2. I think the vast majority of gun owners selling a firearm only sell to people with a CPL or at a gun show that requires members to pass a background check