Washington New Back ground check Bill HB 2467

[User 1234]

Many states have centralized background checks. What it does is enable centralized dictatorship. For example, in California, the DoJ can prevent purchases even if the law does not prohibit the purchase simply by changing the software menus that dealers are forced to use. Franklin Armory will be reportedly be suing the Cal DoJ this month for doing exactly this to block the sale of the Title 1 firearm. Most dealers and innovators do not have the money to sue and ask a judge to force the state to conform the computer system to the law.

 

[quneur]

It would also be nice if the state senates did NOT have to be apportioned by population, but were instead apportioned by county. The SCOTUS killed that in 1963, but a new SCOTUS could overturn Reynolds v. Simms if someone could figure out how to get a case up there. This basically made state senates nothing more than a second house of reps and over time, gave all power to metro areas.

Making the state senates work like the US Senate would go a long way to fixing this tyranny of the majority problem. It wouldn't do anything about initiatives but Jay and Bob's legislative agenda this year would die in the state senate if senators were allocated by county. As it is, Olympia to Everett along the I-5 corridor makes up more than half the WA senate so they get to ramrod anything they want and the rest of the state can get bent. This is not the way to create a stable system.

My understanding of Reynolds vs Simms is that the Alabama lower house did not represent the population disparity but went one representative per county. The upper house represented the lower house, ie a set number of representatives distributed amongst each senator. Therefore, the legislative districts did not represent the population.

In Washington state, its the opposite. Both chambers are population dependent and therefore less populated areas have no representation or close to getting there.

There's got to be a correlation between growth rates of urban areas vs rural areas which causes a tipping point in which rural areas will lose representation in a governing system such as Washington state and Oregon (has the same system.) That disparity can be quantified and will tell you basically how deep in the hole the state is. No rural area can compete (barring natural disasters) with the growth rate of urban areas. So, the larger the disparity, the harder it is to gain parity.

 

[quneur]

You guys realize that Oregon has done their BGCs like this for years? This will actually create an equal playing field, given the situation the state finds itself in, for all purchasers. When 1639 went into effect, each county and all the city agencies had to absorb that burden. Some counties even contracted it out. If you lived in Thurston Co., the agencies did the checks and got back in 4 to 10 days. Pierce Co. used Sound 911 and they often took so long, the paperwork expired and had to be redone. Now, everyone gets screwed equally.

Yeah, but the governing counsel are appointed by the governor. Gov Inslee could say Bob Ferguson is a gun rights activist and appoint him to the gun rights advocacy chair and there's no recourse.

Its a registry. The data should only be composed of those unlawful persons unable to own a firearm. If your name doesn't show up then you should be good to go. The fact that your name was used is irrelevant. No other information about you should be stored. If its legal to own and purchase, nobody should care.

 

[WALawyer]

Overall, this will be a good thing. I deal with NICS all the time and NICS is horrible. Having a state system would at least keep things local and more accountable. NICS has literally zero accountability or transparency.

Also, there is nothing in this bill that requires the state to keep records of purchases as part of the background check, so it is not creating a registry beyond what is already created for handgun and semi-auto assault rifle purchases.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

How can any of that be constitutional?
The BGC law in general is bad, WA new version is worse.. and this proposed one.. its just insane. When will it stop?

 

[arakboss]

This bill will likely address the frame/receiver transfer issue that was going to occur in July of this year.

 

[arakboss]

"When an applicant applies for the purchase or transfer of a firearm that is not a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle, a dealer shall comply with the application, background check, recordkeeping, and other requirements of this chapter that apply to the sale or transfer of a pistol."


This leads me to believe that frames and receivers will start being transferred under the same rules as a pistol.

Edit: Actually the language above from Section 4 (1) might mean that any firearm (except semi-auto rifles) transferred would be subject to the pistol transfer rules which should mean a waiting period if the buyer doesn't have a CPL.

Does anybody have a different understanding of Section 4 (1)?

 

[arakboss]

Theyre wanting BGC on ammo too !!!

Which section outlines that?

 

[MarshalChillN]

HB 2519

 

[quneur]

I propose the creation of a committee, with the Governor appointed leaders to replace the duties of the Washington State Bar Association. This committee willl assume all duties of who may/may not practice law, education requirements, etc.

 

[WALawyer]

"When an applicant applies for the purchase or transfer of a firearm that is not a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle, a dealer shall comply with the application, background check, recordkeeping, and other requirements of this chapter that apply to the sale or transfer of a pistol."


This leads me to believe that frames and receivers will start being transferred under the same rules as a pistol.

Edit: Actually the language above from Section 4 (1) might mean that any firearm (except semi-auto rifles) transferred would be subject to the pistol transfer rules which should mean a waiting period if the buyer doesn't have a CPL.

Does anybody have a different understanding of Section 4 (1)?

But "firearm" is defined differently in WA state than under federal law, and does not include frames/lowers/receivers/etc. Since this is a WA state bill for a WA state single point of contact, the bill as currently introduced does not account for this.

I propose the creation of a committee, with the Governor appointed leaders to replace the duties of the Washington State Bar Association. This committee willl assume all duties of who may/may not practice law, education requirements, etc.

You're in luck, something like that already exists and it's called the Washington Supreme Court. The supreme court sets all rules on practicing law, education requirements, etc. The WSBA is just an arm of the supreme court that regulates day-to-day attorney conduct and admission.

 

[arakboss]

But "firearm" is defined differently in WA state than under federal law, and does not include frames/lowers/receivers/etc. Since this is a WA state bill for a WA state single point of contact, the bill as currently introduced does not account for this.



You're in luck, something like that already exists and it's called the Washington Supreme Court. The supreme court sets all rules on practicing law, education requirements, etc. The WSBA is just an arm of the supreme court that regulates day-to-day attorney conduct and admission.

"When an applicant applies for the purchase or transfer of a firearm that is not a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle, a dealer shall comply with the application, background check, recordkeeping, and other requirements of this chapter that apply to the sale or transfer of a pistol."

What type of firearm do you believe they are referencing in this language? In your opinion does that mean the July 1st deadline for direct NICS checks on frames and receivers is still a problem that wouldn't be addressed in this bill (as written)?

 

[arakboss]

"When an applicant applies for the purchase or transfer of a firearm that is not a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle, a dealer shall comply with the application, background check, recordkeeping, and other requirements of this chapter that apply to the sale or transfer of a pistol."

What type of firearm do you believe they are referencing in this language? In your opinion does that mean the July 1st deadline for direct NICS checks on frames and receivers is still a problem that wouldn't be addressed in this bill (as written)?

This appears to be WA State's definition of a firearm:
I.Definition of a Firearm(RCW 9.41.010)A firearm is defined as a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
Source: http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/Washington Firearms Laws.pdf

11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. "Firearm" does not include a flare gun or other pyrotechnic visual distress signaling device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction purposes.

Source: RCW 9.41.010: Terms defined.

You might be right that frames and receivers would not be included in this bills transfer requirements as they don't fit that description. But it seems that most other non-semiautomatic firearms that fit WA State's definition of firearm would be included in Section 4 (1). Would you agree that most non-semiautomatic firearms will be required, based on Section 4 (1) of bill, to be transferred under WA State's Pistol transfer requirements including the waiting period for those with out a CPL?

 

[Richard H]

It is for these things that from now on I plan on almost all new guns I aquire will be as 80% builds. This way the state will not know what i have. There are some guns on the market that I would very much like to buy but if this is passed I don't feel it is worth it. Yes I can pass any background check and have a CPL but I feel no government has the right to know what I own.

 

[awshoot]

It is for these things that from now on I plan on almost all new guns I aquire will be as 80% builds. This way the state will not know what i have. ...

I applaud the sentiment but realize this is going to be hard. For example, read the complaint regarding the yahoos arrested before the VA state capital rally -- the authorities certainly had no problem knowing what non-guns these creeps bought (and in a very short timeframe, including an upper as well as ammo): https://www.wric.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2020/01/DOJMathews.pdf

Buying the upper or lower with cash locally is not so easy. Using a credit card and shipping means that information about your purchase can be had from the seller and banks without any 4A protection due to the ridiculous 3d Party Doctrine: Third-party doctrine - Wikipedia

Anything that is shipped by the USPS, will leave a "to, from" digital trail: Mail cover - Wikipedia The private carriers are probably even better at it than the USPS.

Even if you do find a local source to buy and do so with cash, your trip to the seller can be captured by automated license plate readers, either fixed position such as at intersections or mounted to police cars: Automatic number-plate recognition - Wikipedia

If You Drive in Los Angeles, Police Can Track Your Every Move

Records show police agencies tap license-plate readers hundreds of thousands of times a year.

www.wired.com

 

[arakboss]

I applaud the sentiment but realize this is going to be hard. For example, read the complaint regarding the yahoos arrested before the VA state capital rally -- the authorities certainly had no problem knowing what non-guns these creeps bought (and in a very short timeframe, including an upper as well as ammo): https://www.wric.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2020/01/DOJMathews.pdf

Buying the upper or lower with cash locally is not so easy. Using a credit card and shipping means that information about your purchase can be had from the seller and banks without any 4A protection due to the ridiculous 3d Party Doctrine: Third-party doctrine - Wikipedia

Anything that is shipped by the USPS, will leave a "to, from" digital trail: Mail cover - Wikipedia The private carriers are probably even better at it than the USPS.

Even if you do find a local source to buy and do so with cash, your trip to the seller can be captured by automated license plate readers, either fixed position such as at intersections or mounted to police cars: Automatic number-plate recognition - Wikipedia

If You Drive in Los Angeles, Police Can Track Your Every Move

Records show police agencies tap license-plate readers hundreds of thousands of times a year.

www.wired.com

Buying an upper with cash should be fairly easy here.

 

[awshoot]

Buying an upper with cash should be fairly easy here.

Lucky.

 

[Richard H]

I applaud the sentiment but realize this is going to be hard. For example, read the complaint regarding the yahoos arrested before the VA state capital rally -- the authorities certainly had no problem knowing what non-guns these creeps bought (and in a very short timeframe, including an upper as well as ammo): https://www.wric.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2020/01/DOJMathews.pdf

Buying the upper or lower with cash locally is not so easy. Using a credit card and shipping means that information about your purchase can be had from the seller and banks without any 4A protection due to the ridiculous 3d Party Doctrine: Third-party doctrine - Wikipedia

Anything that is shipped by the USPS, will leave a "to, from" digital trail: Mail cover - Wikipedia The private carriers are probably even better at it than the USPS.

Even if you do find a local source to buy and do so with cash, your trip to the seller can be captured by automated license plate readers, either fixed position such as at intersections or mounted to police cars: Automatic number-plate recognition - Wikipedia

If You Drive in Los Angeles, Police Can Track Your Every Move

Records show police agencies tap license-plate readers hundreds of thousands of times a year.

www.wired.com

I know all that is possible but unlikely unless they are investigating particular individuals or group. If it starts going to the point they are tracking everyone like this we would already be totally out of luck and totally screwed. As for the ones arrested they were most likely already being tracked because of their other activities or they did something that alerted law enforcement which is typical for most criminals. Also I have found that you do not have to buy complete uppers. With minimal tools one can build a complete upper from parts, buying the different components separately. That is not expensive and you can go as cheaply or high end as you prefer or can afford. Once you have all the parts an upper, with a little practice, can be completed in under an hour.

 

[awshoot]

... if it starts going to the point they are tracking everyone like this we would already be totally out of luck and totally screwed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover

Since 2001, the Postal Service has been effectively conducting mail covers on all American postal mail as part of the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program.

As for the ones arrested they were most likely already being tracked because of their other activities or they did something that alerted law enforcement which is typical for most criminals.

Agreed, they were likely on the radar already.

Also I have found that you do not have to buy complete uppers. With minimal tools one can build a complete upper from parts, buying the different components separately. That is not expensive and you can go as cheaply or high end as you prefer or can afford. Once you have all the parts an upper, with a little practice, can be completed in under an hour.

If you use a credit card, this exposes you more, not less because there are more transactions to be found.

 

[WALawyer]

This appears to be WA State's definition of a firearm:
I.Definition of a Firearm(RCW 9.41.010)A firearm is defined as a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
Source: http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/Washington Firearms Laws.pdf

11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. "Firearm" does not include a flare gun or other pyrotechnic visual distress signaling device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction purposes.

Source: RCW 9.41.010: Terms defined.

You might be right that frames and receivers would not be included in this bills transfer requirements as they don't fit that description. But it seems that most other non-semiautomatic firearms that fit WA State's definition of firearm would be included in Section 4 (1). Would you agree that most non-semiautomatic firearms will be required, based on Section 4 (1) of bill, to be transferred under WA State's Pistol transfer requirements including the waiting period for those with out a CPL?

Yes, I do agree with that. However, my personal opinion is that the language we're discussing should be struck completely and I have provided the sponsors of the bill with a draft with my suggested rewrites. Not only does that solve this problem of treating all non semi-auto AR purchases as pistols, but it also resolves the ambiguity currently created by this language which suggests that background checks should be different for semi-auto ARs and non semi-auto ARs. The whole point of creating a state-wide system is so that every single type of firearm or firearm component purchase which requires a background check goes to that one system and we end the current system of having local police and sheriffs doing any background checks at all (except for CPLs, but even that I am hoping changes in some future bill).