I-594: Success or failure?

[nehalemguy]

well I'll say that invisible blanket works.

Hey OR. hows your b/s 941working for you??? ya it's been a yr since it started.
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/SB941/

Oregon had a whopping 5 (yes...five) private party transaction denials in 2015.

E

 

[Ralgha]

Nick, you are expecting a lot from a crowd here in Washington that just gave the Democrat Primary caucus to Bernie Sanders. Hillary was really going left wing rhetoric on gun control, and I don't trust her as far as I can spit, but I think she had a lot of hot air trying to win the hearts and minds of Bernie zealots. And the facts just do not matter to the Democrats on a good day. These measures you speak of just won't happen until there is a majority of conservatives elected to Olympia and to city / county government seats along the I-5 corridor. The same can be said of Oregon.

That doesn't mean anything, one of the two was guaranteed to win unless literally NOBODY voted. That he won should be seen as a positive for guns, Sanders is far better for guns than Hillary.

 

[I594 Sucks]

I-594 hasn't affected me, at all, and I've bought and sold 6 guns in the past 2 months. Let me elaborate...

I sold 2 handguns and 2 rifles to private parties...doing background checks on none of them. I then, purchased a handgun and a rifle, from a local dealer, who DID do the standard background checks that were required before the initiative even became law.

In those instances, I-594 had no effect, whatsoever. Therefore...what, exactly, was the point?

 

[I594 Sucks]

Oh, and I forgot to mention the AR-15 rifle and 45 auto I passed around, during a get-together with my friends, yesterday. Another I-594 no-no.

 

[Koda]

My other plan is to get more D gun owners on board. Arm everybody!

this would have a huge impact in preserving our rights. What we need is the Democrats own constituents to call their legislators out but that wont happen if they don't own guns, they wont see how the laws affect them until they do.

 

[shootnscoot]

It was a success by them the moment it passed. The end result of the law never mattered, the only thing the proponents cared for was getting the gun control ball rolling. Mission accomplished.

 

[Diamondback]

this would have a huge impact in preserving our rights. What we need is the Democrats own constituents to call their legislators out but that wont happen if they don't own guns, they wont see how the laws affect them until they do.

Problem there is, too many of them fear their Seattle-chosen chamber bosses more than the voters who decide how long they get to keep their cushy featherbedded jobs...

 

[Dave Workman]

Gun control law failures in the two Washingtons

The Seattle Times is reporting this morning about the updated Seattle Police investigation into the fatal February shooting of Che Taylor while in Washington, D.C. more information about yesterday's shooting at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center is also surfacing.

<broken link removed>

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Dave Workman

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported on Monday that Washington's I-594 resulted in the NICS background checks for 50 private sales denied, because the buyer was a Felon. The way they reported it was unclear if the FBI said that those 50 rejected buyers had actual felonies or if there were only 50 denied out of the thousands of checks on private sales. Do you have any clarification on this?

 

[2A2Dend]

I never looked into it as it does not apply to me.
If you're a felon, and you're trying to buy a gun with a BGC, if denied, is the law called right then and there?

 

[Cataphract]

594 has been a resounding success as far as gun control advocates are concerned, because it proved that the supposedly more educated left leaning liberal folks were just as susceptible to fear mongering as anyone else is. It proved that with scary ads designed to scare the suburbanite set, and a huge influx of money from interests outside the state that you too can pass a gigantic steaming turd of a bill that is so poorly written that it's largely unenforceable. They have to be thinking, "if we can get this flaming bag of dog feces to pass, what else can we push through?"
If you want to fight this, and other bills like it, we're going to need both sides of the political spectrum. I personally despise the republocrats...both sides are whelped from the same vote whoring mother, and they will say anything the mob screams for when they're running for office, and then answer to the deepest pockets once they're elected.
I say the answer to this is not to elect someone who panders to the set "republicans love guns n trucks n church, and dems hate guns n trucks n church, but they love kale and soccer..."
We need to find some of the gun leaning left politicians and support the hell out of them.
Think about it. We already have the republican party's support. There are plenty of districts/counties, etc...in the northwest that will never go red. Fine. Find a dem that supports gun rights and throw your efforts behind them. Show the party that there's votes in them there guns, and let the gold rush start.
That, and educate the public where you can. Teach people that these big scary boomsticks aren't any more likely to hurt someone in responsible hands than a hammer is.

 

[Dave Workman]

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported on Monday that Washington's I-594 resulted in the NICS background checks for 50 private sales denied, because the buyer was a Felon. The way they reported it was unclear if the FBI said that those 50 rejected buyers had actual felonies or if there were only 50 denied out of the thousands of checks on private sales. Do you have any clarification on this?

No, I don't Just because somebody gets blocked from a sale doesn't mean they're a felon. I've known people who got a "false positive" on a NICS check and they'd never even gotten a traffic ticket. So, I think the 50 felons is kind of a foolish blanket statement.
Besides, as you and everyone else here understands, just because a sale got blocked doesn't mean that any of those individuals didn't go right out to "Fred's Midnight Parking Lot Gun Sales" and score a piece for some crime they wanted to commit.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I found the story here http://www.opb.org/news/article/washington-gun-background-check-law-results/ and there you are standing up for us again. Thank you Dave!

Kate Davidson on All Things Considered at Oregon Public Broadcasting added the "because the buyers were Felons" when reporting the story Monday afternoon.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I'd call it a success if the intent was to to make it harder for a law abiding person to buy a gun.
I've seen prices on used guns rise to cover the cost of the BGC.
Even if the prices haven't risen that much covering the cost of a BGC and / or finding a dealer willing to do the transfer can be difficult.
Or the hassle of finding a FFL dealer during "off" hours ,which might be the only time. the parties can meet up
While an extra $20-$25 dollars on a $600 dollar gun isn't that big of a deal , that same $20-$25 dollars can be a deal breaker on a $150 dollar or less gun.
I wonder how many people are just going to ignore this new law and sell / buy without going through a BGC?
Not saying anyone should break the law , just wondering ...

If the intent was to stop felons or other criminals from getting guns , then I'd call it a failure.
While I do not have any statistics on hand , I think most guns that end up in criminal hands are stolen in the first place.
I have no doubt that if you looked hard enough you could find that some criminals who bought guns at a show or from a private party , but I suspect that number to be lower compared to buying a gun from another criminal.
Or as I said above stolen outright.

All in all I think I-594 is a giant PITA. I cannot see where it will stop crime.
I do see where it might cause crime , through otherwise law abiding folks being non-compliant about the new law.
This is just a case of a law hurting those who do no wrong , while doing little or nothing against criminals
Andy

 

[etrain16]

I'd call it a success if the intent was to to make it harder for a law abiding person to buy a gun.
I've seen prices on used guns rise to cover the cost of the BGC.
Even if the prices haven't risen that much covering the cost of a BGC and / or finding a dealer willing to do the transfer can be difficult.
Or the hassle of finding a FFL dealer during "off" hours ,which might be the only time. the parties can meet up
While an extra $20-$25 dollars on a $600 dollar gun isn't that big of a deal , that same $20-$25 dollars can be a deal breaker on a $150 dollar or less gun.
I wonder how many people are just going to ignore this new law and sell / buy without going through a BGC?
Not saying anyone should break the law , just wondering ...

If the intent was to stop felons or other criminals from getting guns , then I'd call it a failure.
While I do not have any statistics on hand , I think most guns that end up in criminal hands are stolen in the first place.
I have no doubt that if you looked hard enough you could find that some criminals who bought guns at a show or from a private party , but I suspect that number to low compared to buying a gun from a another criminal.
Or as I said above stolen outright.

All in all I think I-594 is a giant PITA. I cannot see where it will stop crime.
I do see where it might cause crime , through otherwise law abiding folks being non-compliant about the new law.
This is just a case of a law hurting those who do no wrong , while doing little or nothing against criminals
Andy

Yep, same as SB941 here in Oregon. From what I've seen of the numbers here, they've stopped even fewer people than in Washington, and, as I recall the number of arrests was very low, less than 10. So yes, all it's been successful in doing is making it harder/more expensive to buy a used gun. And since I'm guessing that was their actual intent, then yes, the law is effective. Though not completely so.

I suspect as you have, that there are people that are simply ignoring this new law. Honestly, how hard would it be? There is no enforcement. I've not heard of a single arrest in Oregon for conducting a private party transaction without an FFL, and I don't know who, if any, police agencies are even looking for this. I suspect it would be like the seat belt and cell phone laws - they're really not even trying to enforce it. And that's evidenced by the fact that I see people violate the cell phone in a car law every single day. And, several agencies in the state have expressly said they will not enforce SB941 - any guess as to whether people that live in those areas are still doing business as usual? Yeah, I think there are plenty of folks ignoring the law in both states - you just won't see them bragging about it on a gun forum.

I truly believe I-594 and SB941 were only passed to irritate and punish law-abiding gun owners. And in doing that, yes, they have succeeded. I can only hope the voters in both Washington and Oregon will wake the F up one of these days and boot the ba$tards out of office that are screwing us over like this.

 

[tionico]

SUCCESS! Now when Washington wants to follow California and ban all semi-auto firearms, they have a list of who and where all owners are!

well, they'd like that, but the ONLY thing this law sort of did was require BGC on all face to face private sales. SO.. if you buy a semi auto either from a dealer or private with BGC, that gun, if it is new, will be fairly easily traceable to you. If its used, then its likely the trace will go to someone else, with no straightforward way to bridge the gaps in the trail to you. Further, if you bought a new such before the law passed, it won't change a thing. Only thing, if you bought one face to face before 594, or buy one now and skip the BGC requirement (we will not comply, remember? ) it won't trace to you. If you sell it on Gunbroker, and it gets shipped out of state, or across the state, to a new FFL for new BGC, nothing will show its no longer yours.

UNLESS (and we keep hearing rumblings to this effect) NICS are storing sales records for far longer then the 48 hours or so permitted, there is still no magical way to trace back to you... nor is there any way for THEM to put your name into some database and print out a laundry list of what you supposedly own.

The real bottom line is, 594 changed almost nothing except to make us spend more money to pay someone to run a NICS check when we buy at a gun show..... or from a forum like this one. But no one here is going to be pulling off some sort of shootemup anyway, right? So, once more, they're shoving feel good (for them) rules down OUR throats without changing anything signficant.

 

[tionico]

Can someone explain what y'all are talking about???

I know nothing of this 594 whatever thing...

Joe you need to adjust your sarcasm font. Its a little too obvious.

 

[tionico]

What I have never understood is WHY the gun groups in Washington never filed a lawsuit taking down 594 on the basis that it is not compliant with state laws regarding citizens' initiatives. Such ballot initiatives (remember the law making car registration $30, dumping the riduculous annual value tax?) can ONLY deal with ONE THING. 594 deals with about six different things.. it redefnies a Federal term (transfer), imposes a new requirement on citizens, it changed the state sales/exise tax law, it changes the effective minimum age for Washington residents to purchase a handgun, it requires a specific service be performed by a FEDERALLY licensed firm that have no obligation to perform that service, it adds to the practical cost of buying/owning a firearm, it makes significant changes to the Washington State Department of Licensing's Pistol Registry (which needs to be scrapped anyway), it infringes on a right protected by both Washington State and Federal Constitutioins..... they tried taking down the $30 car tabs law right away by falsely claiming it dealt with more than one issue.... but the courts decided the new law merely dealt with two aspects of the same issue. But when 594 changes so many things, it MUST be noncompliant. WHY did not any of the gun lobby groups go after it along those lines?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

well, they'd like that, but the ONLY thing this law sort of did was require BGC on all face to face private sales. SO.. if you buy a semi auto either from a dealer or private with BGC, that gun, if it is new, will be fairly easily traceable to you. If its used, then its likely the trace will go to someone else, with no straightforward way to bridge the gaps in the trail to you. Further, if you bought a new such before the law passed, it won't change a thing. Only thing, if you bought one face to face before 594, or buy one now and skip the BGC requirement (we will not comply, remember? ) it won't trace to you. If you sell it on Gunbroker, and it gets shipped out of state, or across the state, to a new FFL for new BGC, nothing will show its no longer yours.

That is why their next step is to follow California and Connecticut requiring all semi-auto firearms to be registered. Then if the police have any contact with you, they can demand to inspect your firearms to make sure all serial numbers are registered.

Have an argument with your wife and the police show up, "Are those magazines legal?" probable cause for a warrant. http://fox61.com/2016/02/26/naugatuck-high-teacher-arrested-for-weapons-domestic-violence-charges/

 

[PDX1953]

Oregon's SB-941 has been resoundingly ignored by law enforcement. The main proponent of the bill was Senator Floyd Prozanski who represents part of Lane County. After the bill was passed the Lane County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution stating absolutely no County funds could be used for enforcement. The majority of County Sheriffs in OR said they wouldn't enforce it. When the provision for transferring a gun to a relative w/o a background check was included I asked Wa Co Sheriff Pat Garrett what his thoughts were on the whole package. He said he'd rather expend his limited resources on fighting crime instead of trying to determine if the recipient in a gun transfer was the sellers third cousin.

Since it passed I've only purchased one gun privately within the state. Our mutually agreed on background check method was "Show me your CHL & I'll show you mine." We wrote a BOS & were off to the races. All of my other gun purchases have been from dealers in OR or transfers to my FFL from outside the state.

I'm now buying guns for appreciation / collection reasons because I already have plenty of others to shoot. I bought a 25-gun safe in Oct. '15 & now have to buy another one because my safe runneth over.