They're Back!!! WA. HB2264

Capn Jack · Feb 23, 2009

HB2264 Ban on Gun Show Sales without a back ground check. Check your latest NRA Bulletin..It's a foot in the door to ban gun shows completely and eventually ban private sales.

Here's a letter to start with...Pass it on.

Once again the anti-gun people have wasted no time in presenting bills designed to chip away and undermine, if not eliminate the peoples rights under the Second Amendment.

Im speaking of House Bill 2264

HB2264 would impose sweeping restrictions on our Second Amendment rights and set the stage for a ban on all private firearm sales in Washington State.

HB2264 would require that all firearms transactions taking place at gun shows be subjected to background checks, even those occurring between family and friends. Any violations would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison.

If passed, gun ban advocates will no doubt use this as a lever for a ban on all private sales as well, as they have in other states.

I think the basic issue we should be concerned with is the slow erosion of the rights guarantied the American People under the 2nd Amendment.

I know by voting against this issue you will be once again displaying your good sense to the voters of our state by showing that you are not to be swayed by the clamoring of an emotional few and sensation seeking media.

Please vote to enforce the criminal codes as they now exist.

When law abiding citizens are disarmed only the criminals will have guns.

Sun195 · Feb 23, 2009

It doesn't look like this has been scheduled for a hearing, and cut-off for policy bills is this Wednesday (I think). So, I'm optimistic this isn't going to make it out this year.

ghostrider · Feb 23, 2009

wow i thought we left england to avoid persicution (that may be spelled wrong since i am getting happy right now) the problem that i have is it feels like we are living in france big opinion and self rightious but not having a clue. we live in a society that needs to be ready to defend it's self against enimies foreign and DOMESTIC and any one who stands against my 2nd . amendment right is my enemy. if your are elected you were put into that JOB by me to defend me, and the words that were writen for me and all that are like me to secure certain rights. i don't want to protect my TV or computer from the bad guy's (that is why i have insurance) i only want to protect my family from the guy's that want to hurt or kill me and or my family (since there is no insurance for my pain and suffering for a loved one). who gives any one the right to dictate what i can and cannot do if i want to buy a cool pice of hardware at a gun show it's because i want to own it not cause i want to blow someones head off. the 7 day wait was a joke is there any proof that there was less crimes of passion if you waited 7 days. ???????????? i could find a pice within a couple of hours any time of the day if i was a bad guy. if i was a bad guy it would probably make the illegal gun dealer happy to see me on TV after he sold me a gun and used in a manner other than it was intended to be used. WOW the drunk ravings of a lunitic on his days off. i guess i don't want to be told what i can and cannot do in the land of the free.

Bullets were involved with our independence and have been for centuries saving the planet from A** holes like Hitler and Sadam Husain we are expected of us to stand up for the little country and blamed for everything that is wrong with the world. if you cannot pick one side to be on, GET ON MY SIDE or THE OTHER SIDE and get in my bed or eat my lead so. "F" the "F'n" "F'erS" and let me have my GUN'S

korntera · Feb 23, 2009

Am I the only person that agrees with background checks? While I don't think guns should be registered and I think you should be able to sell FTF to a resident of the state I am for background checks at gun shows. What is to stop a criminal from coming in and buying a gun and killing somebody that day? Or if a person is suicidal and wants to take their life with a gun so they go buy one that day. The reason I bring this up is because a friend of mine tried to kill himself and he said the only reason he didn't that day was because he couldn't get a gun. So im sorry but I am all for background checks at a gun show, but NOTHING MORE. After all we do them in oregon and I have never had a problem with it. Remember I don't like waiting periods I just think that if you are a law abiding citizen you should have no reason to dislike this law.

USMC1911 · Feb 23, 2009

You say you dont want to register your firearm? One reason to dislike it is the "defacto" registration of a firearm any time a background check is done. Do you think BATF just tosses your info lol?

NWMoss · Feb 23, 2009

It's all as USMC1911 said... not everybody wants to be on "the list".

Those who are going to use guns for *evil* are going to acquire guns w/o going through a background check.

So what happens, is it punishes the good citizens.

Granted, I also understand the sentiment of "what do we as good upstanding citizens have to fear" and I usually totally agree - but there is soo much legislation flying around, that it will end up being used to disarm the law-abiding citizens instead of the criminals - and that's a criminal act in itsself.

Capn Jack · Feb 23, 2009

Exerp from e-mail just received. :s0155:

"Representative Smith opposes this bill, and these types of legislation. There is no evidence showing that criminals get their guns at gun shows. Thankfully, it looks like this bill will not go anywhere this year."

BUT....They'll Be Baack.... :s0131:

Spray-n-pray · Feb 23, 2009

Why is it not possible to get a background check on a person without giving the specific details of the firearm they intend to buy? A check could be done, but no info provided about the firearm, and there would be no record of that particular weapon being transferred, hence, unregistered.....

korntera · Feb 23, 2009

Spray-n-pray said:
Why is it not possible to get a background check on a person without giving the specific details of the firearm they intend to buy? A check could be done, but no info provided about the firearm, and there would be no record of that particular weapon being transferred, hence, unregistered.....

See this is what I am for, just calling the state and making sure a person can buy a firearm, no serials, no models, not even the type of firearm if they are over 21

tionico · Feb 23, 2009

Korntera, that would be fine... IF that could be enacted into law. I suspect that, along with the false rhetoric of keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally bent, those promoting such legislation as background checks have been careful to ensure a record of every gun acquired by the applicant is kept, somewhere. Why? No idea... but I DO know how it can, and likely well, be used. One fine day someone dressed in some funny clothes will knock at my door with a list of all the firearms the sale of which was recorded in process of the "innocent" background check. If I can't produce them, and/or a record of where they went, I rather expect there will be some unpleasant consequences.

I have never been able to figure out why, instead of a new FBI phone call every time I purchase a gun from a dealer, I can't apply for, and get, a license to purchase firearms, which would include the magical background check. This permit should entitle me to purchase any number of firearms for a certain period of time, say, ninety days, easily renewable by a subsequent phone call to the FBI to make sure I've not done a convenience store since the last check. As it is, if I buy one gun today, return to the SAME STORE tomorrow, a new check is mandatory. And, of course, someone somewhere has a record. I KNOW that in Washington, a handgun purchase record goes to three places... the FFL Dealer's records, to be kept for twenty years, to the State Attorney General's office, and to a division of the Department of Licensing. This record shows the date, who bought, and what was purchased. It is a de facto gun registry, and unconstitutional, as it can, and likely will, be used some fine day to go round and gather up all the registered weapons.... part of why I am busily gathering at least a few private sale weapons, for which transfer there is no record. Politicians... sorry, but for nearly all of them, I simply do NOT trust them.

DSbur · Feb 24, 2009

Why is it not possible to get a background check on a person without giving the specific details of the firearm they intend to buy? A check could be done, but no info provided about the firearm, and there would be no record of that particular weapon being transferred, hence, unregistered.....

Recently bought an AR in Oregon, when the dealer called for the background check the STATE wanted to know make, model, and serial number, along with my personal info. If that isn't registration I don't know what is...

tionico · Feb 24, 2009

Of COURSE its registration.... whilst we all were sleeping, they worked their way round the resistance to registration, and did it by calling it something else. When you get your driving license, do they want to know make, model, year, VIN, of every vehicle you drive under that license? Of course not. That ticket qualifies you to operate ANY piece of machinery in the qualified class of vehicles. Of course, they ALSO, as a separate department, want to know who owns which vehicle, but they are not necessarily connected.

Oregon is one of the states that handles the background check through state offices. They also retain those records indefinitely. Washington does not, they simply have dealers use the direct FBI number. I've been told by some that Washington do not retain those records after the sale, though. And that the FBI do not either. Of course, I'm more than a tad sceptical on those "facts". Let's face it, lads, we have de facto registration, and have since the 1968 Gun Control Act made it through Congress and into established law. It is sitting there, waiting to be taken ill advantage of by those in power. They deny any intention of doinng, but the mechanism and potential are unquestionably in place. And, having been for so long, I've little hope we'll be able to turn this about and do away with the many long lists of what we all have bought through dealer channels. When we manage to throw some of the louts out who sit in those marble zoos, replacing them with real representatives, perhaps we'll be a bit safer.

Capn Jack · Feb 24, 2009

Amen Brother Tionico.

JumpWing · Feb 24, 2009

Why do I have to endure restrictions on my Constitutionally protected rights simply because a fraction of the population is suicidal or criminal? No disrespect to your friend, but his problems don't warrant the restriction of my 2A rights. Plenty of other people manage to kill themselves without firearms: Overdose, bloodletting, suffocation, hanging, jumping from a building, waiting on train tracks... People have killed themselves using these methods and they were all undoubtedly a friend of SOMEbody.

Should we perform background checks on anyone who wants to buy an edged utensil or a length of rope (or anything else that one could use to hang oneself)?

Access to modern battlefield firearms by law-abiding citizens is EXACTLY what the 2A is about. There will be corruption and coercion the instant you let a government interfere with that through regulations, background checks, or any other means they can use to prevent you from exercising your rights.

People in this country have lived in security and prosperity for so many generations that they have forgotten the importance of remaining vigilant for liberty. They like to think we've "evolved" as a society and we're no longer like the Old West. The truth is, society was far more restrictive in the past and the frequency of "old west" gunfights--across the ENTIRE frontier--pales in comparison to the gang activity of New York, Miami, Detroit, or L.A. We have DEvolved and become LESS civilized.

The media have done their job if they've convinced you that the restriction of the majority's rights is a necessary response to the irresponsible, irrational, or criminal behavior of the few.

tionico · Feb 24, 2009

Yet we continue to spend our cash on their "news"...... the FIRST place we should vote is with our wallets, and cease buying their politically biased propaganda.
Considering the flap over the recent arrest of the military vet arrested in Oregon for concealed carry on a university campus, WITH appropriate permits and such, and reading the insane responses to the press about it, I found myself pondering a few OTHER recent incidents involving firearms in public places.... Columbine, Virginia Tech, Seattle Center during Folklife..... now, suppose for a moment there had been people like the chap arrested in Oregon for doing what was legal and safe, who just "happened" to be on hand when those whackjobs set about their mayhem. How many were felled at VT before the guy ran out of steam and killed himself? Suppose our Oregon war hero had been in THAT classroom, doing precisely what he was doing the day he was arrested in Oregon... carrying his own firearm, concealed so NO ONE ELSE knew (until the cops asked him...). Do you think he might have been able to neutralise the insane perp before he managed to kill more than the first one or two? Or, how about the melee at Folklife? Suppose half a dozen concealed carry citizens had been in that area. I rather think the press would have had to report a rather different scenario.

But no, the general public have got accustomed to the thought that firearms are "evil" in and of themselves, and that NO ONE walks about in public whilst carrying one. Thus those bent upon mass destruction with their UNregistered and ILlegally carried weapons think, in the main, there will be no opposition when once they commence their mayhem. And so it has proven many times.

Anyone have any figures on how many "incidents" of this sort have been cut short by a private citizen carrying a weapon, and coming to the defense of the victim public? One reads very little about it, unless the private armed citizen is charged with some weapons violation whilst attempting to neutralise the criminal.

But NONE of this actually comes to bear upon the original context and intent of the 2nd Ammendment, the bearing of lethal force against tyranny in government. If one reads one's bible, one finds that God has established civil government for ONE purpose, and one only: to bear the sword against those who do (or would do) harm to others. And, in the case where harm is being done and the "civil magistrate" happens to be either absent, or the "doer of harm", it falls to the duty of the private citizen to bear that sword as deputy of the "civil magistrate" who is either absent or perpetrating harm. It is this second sense of "bearing the sword" that civil magistrates fear, but ONLY when they are about the doing of harm to others. And it is most certainly THIS sense of "bearing the sword" that the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they wrote that Second Ammendment. Read Henry Blackaby, the British lawyer/scholar whose writings are so much the basis of the Constitution.
the tyrannies of King George and his renegade Parliament (whom he refused to rein in as they transgressed their assigned boundaries of authority) pale in light of what we see our own givernment foisting upon us today. What IS that infernal noise I hear in the distance....... sounds rather like the bleating of sheep...... no, I must be dreaming.