New gun show law in Tacoma

Wayne · May 2, 2014

Not yet, but Maybe. Proposed by the Mayor. Background checks on all gun show sales.
<broken link removed>

ak56 · May 2, 2014

Wayne said:
Not yet, but Maybe. Proposed by the Mayor. Background checks on all gun show sales.
<broken link removed>

And just how do they plan to get around this?

RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Wayne · May 2, 2014

I also found this interesting.
"
When reached by email Thursday night, Knodel said his gun show is ready to provide background checks for all firearm sales if the city requires them.

"If it is not required we will make it possible for those who wish to use it," Knodel wrote. "Wes Knodel Gun Shows wishes to do all we can to promote public safety without treading on the rights or civil liberties of responsible gun owners."

Read more here: <broken link removed>

8ball · May 8, 2014

Wow, I go out of town for a few days and all hell breaks loose!

Looks like the law was passed. It may not breach pre-emption because of the landlord exemption created by the Sequim case.

<broken link removed>

Wes Knodel is used to dealing with mandatory gun show background checks in OR I assume, so it's not big surprise he is willing to do it here.

rdb241 · May 9, 2014

As a matter of principal, I will be boycotting the Tacoma Dome show becuase of the assine law the city of Tacoma thinks they can enforce.

Doc In UPlace · May 9, 2014

The AK56 cite of RCW 9.41.290 is an excellent point. It appears to me that Tacoma is in plain violation of the more restrictive State provision.

Frankly it looks like Tacoma pulled fast one on gun owners and caught us unawares. That nobody appeared in opposition to this maneuver seems indicative of the lack of public awareness.
Truth is, with W.A.C. (Washington Arms Collectors) there is no "gun show loophole" because all members are vetted before being granted membership and only members in good standing may buy firearms at the shows.

Of no surprise to anyone is the huge lack of press coverage regarding the WAC self-policing solution whenever the issue comes up. For example when this story was running about the Tacoma Dome shows, there was not a sentence spoken regarding WAC.

You'll see me in Puyallup but not at the Tacky Dome shows until this is repealed.

deadshot2 · May 9, 2014

For all of those outraged how Tacoma is ignoring 9.41.290, the courts have upheld their right to do so.

Don't loose a lot of sleep over Tacoma's actions and plan on boycotting the T-Dome shows. By this time next year Universal Background Checks will be required for ALL sales in WA state due to the Initiative on the ballot this fall. WA voters have already expressed their desire for these checks even though they don't see that it's merely the "nose of the camel in the tent". Even among firearm owners there are those that feel private sales should be subject to background checks to keep them from being sold to minors and felons.

What will be interesting is if BOTH Initiatives on the ballot pass. One requiring UBC's and the other prohibiting any regulation more restrictive than Federal Law. THAT's going to be real interesting should it happen.

BigStick · May 9, 2014

deadshot2, that is a very defeatist attitude. I am not sure I share your pessimism. Lets see how things play out in the fall before we throw in the towel.

mjbskwim · May 9, 2014

As of now,that does violate the WA constitution.
Wes will lose venders as people come to the shows to not have these checks. Not that they are felons but because it IS NOT any business of the government what we own legally

shootnscoot · May 9, 2014

I'm curious what will become of the classified section of websites such as this if Initiative 594 passes. Pay for a background check at an FFL and wait 10 days for your used gun? Hmm.. guess we will see.

Doc In UPlace · May 9, 2014

Good point scoot, and it remains to be seen what that price might be. There are other costs, too, not measured in dollars.

I also agree that just giving up and sitting in the road is a poor response. This here is a long fight, not a skirmish and surrender.

Due to security clearances someone may have, people can be flagged at FBI for "having been investigated" which causes a delay in the automated instant response at NICS.

IF the seller does not wait on the phone for 10-15 minutes waiting for the live confirmation which they are supposed to do by the way, then they'll just hang up on the system and tell the customer a nice-sounding lie which will be something like, "you are delayed and have to wait 3 business days."

This is a situation resembling hay after the bull is done digesting it.

The WACS organization has already solved this problem, and I am pretty surprised that they were (apparently) not on top of this situation as it developed. It could be that the measure was something snuck in at the last minute.

Does anyone know why we didn't know this was coming?

8ball · May 9, 2014

The WAGR gun grabbers are already crowing about this one as a win - they emailed me twice already.

How the @@@@ did nobody hear about this? It sucks that nobody spoke against it.

Unfortunately they can probably use the Sequim case to slip past preemption in the RCW.

deadshot2 · May 10, 2014

BigStick said:
deadshot2, that is a very defeatist attitude. I am not sure I share your pessimism. Lets see how things play out in the fall before we throw in the towel.

Being a realist doesn't mean they have a defeatest attitude. The "realist" will look at the poll data that has shown as much as 85% of the electorate in favor of background checks.

Yes, come November one of us will have been right and the other not so much.

mjbskwim · May 10, 2014

8ball said:
The WAGR gun grabbers are already crowing about this one as a win - they emailed me twice already.

How the @@@@ did nobody hear about this? It sucks that nobody spoke against it.

Unfortunately they can probably use the Sequim case to slip past preemption in the RCW.

Man we got bubblegumed in that case.
Maybe would have been better to not go to court.
Before reading the case I was wondering if they could make stipulations on the permitting like those in the sequim case.
It wouldn't bother me if Wes found a venue outside of Tacoma.It is my least favorite place to be

BigStick · May 14, 2014

deadshot2 said:
Being a realist doesn't mean they have a defeatest attitude. The "realist" will look at the poll data that has shown as much as 85% of the electorate in favor of background checks.

Yes, come November one of us will have been right and the other not so much.

I'm not so much worried about being right as I am giving up before the fight is over. I have not seen the polls you mention, but even if they are accurate, it doesn't mean we can't still win by November.