Great job, Washington State

Washington State had two ballot measures concerning firearm background checks. The first would have removed all requirements (other than federal) for background checks. The other imposed background checks on ALL firearm sales and transfers, including gun show sales and private transactions. Washington chose the second, a common sense law that the NRA has fought tooth and nail. They are the first state to do so and I applaud them for it. I’m sure that it will end up in front of the SCOTUS, of course.

I don’t think it will end up in front of SCOTUS. I agree that it’s a common sense law, and it doesn’t unduly burden the right to bear arms.

I’m even more glad that Washington voters didn’t approve both measures. The polling for awhile was showing that enough WA voters might be er, illogical enough to support two contradictory measures.

I don’t fault the NRA for fighting the law though. They are a gun rights organization and its their job to fight ANY encroachment on that right, just as NARAL fights any burden to abortion rights, no matter how reasonable. And the reason these organizations do that is because there are groups who want to end those rights entirely and use the common sense, popular stuff as a way to chip away at those rights. When the Democrats responded to Newtown with a major offensive on gun control, I thought it best to stop them and at the federal level they were stopped cold, and at the state level it cost some politicians in Colorado their jobs. But a ballot initiative is stand alone, so it’s cool IMO. There’s no potential slippery slope.

It will also do nothing to thwart gun crimes:

John buys a gun from Joe, goes through an expense adding background check. 6 months later Dick breaks into Johns home and steals the gun. 2 weeks later Dick shoots Joe at a local bar.

How did Johns background check prevent this?

Scenario 2:

Joe has owned a gun for several years. He sold it to John before the background check law went into effect. 6 months later Dick breaks into Johns home and steals the gun. 2 weeks later Dick shoots Joe in a local bar.

How did lack of background checks cause this?

SCOTUS? Doubtful. It probably won’t need to go higher than the state courts to get disassembled under the Washington State constitution.

Anyway, I voted against I-594. Not because I oppose the idea of requiring background checks for private transfers, but because there were a number of serious problems with the initiative as written.

First, it imposes an undue burden on gun owners because there is still no way to perform a background check except by going to a licensed dealer during business hours and paying whatever fee they choose to exact. If you want background checks for private sales, you need to open up NICS to the public.

Second, it defines “transfer” far too broadly – even temporarily handing a gun to someone else counts as a transfer that would require a background check. It provides specific exemptions for certain temporary transfers, including those to immediate family members, those occurring at an established shooting range, those where the transferee is under 18 years of age, and those while actually engaged in hunting. But if you’re on your own land and let your buddy put a few rounds through your rifle without going to a gun store and having them run a background check on him first, you’ve just broken the law.

These flaws virtually guarantee strong opposition and a very long, expensive period of litigation against the state; not to mention a probable backlash against Democrats next election cycle. Certainly this is nothing to give congratulations about.

It sounds like Joe should probably stop buying guns from Australians.

I wouldn’t congratulate us until we see how the law is actually implemented.

One reason that people opposed the law is that a literal interpretation could make it difficult to do some very basic things with firearms. Like if I say to my friend (or father, brother, etc.) “I want to go hunting. Can I borrow your gun?” A literal reading of the law says that we have to both go down to a dealer to do a background check. Now I can go hunting for a weekend. When I get back, we have to do another background check to transfer the gun back to the original owner.

In fact, some think we have do this double-transfer even if we’re both on the hunting trip and I just want to use your gun for the afternoon. (Which would obviously be impossible since we’re both out hunting.)

I’m inclined to discount this argument. Plenty of laws have potential weaknesses if they’re implemented unreasonably. I hope our law won’t suffer from that problem… but I do see the potential there.

I also wouldn’t congratulate us if this drives all the gun shows to Oregon and Idaho. I guess these are not a major percentage of economic activity in the grand scheme of things, but every little bit adds up.

But it is encouraging that the voters understood that the two laws conflict.

That’s a goofy argument.

Larry robbed a store. He was wearing gloves.

Well, I guess by your logic, police fingerprint kits are worthless. :rolleyes:

This law won’t help in *all *situations. It will help in *some *situations. Which is what most laws do. Coming up with examples of when it wouldn’t help, doesn’t mean it isn’t going to help at all.

The new law actually has practically no effect on this, since nearly all gun shows in the state already required background checks for all sales. Sales from licensed dealers were already required to include background checks under federal law, of course.

Not sure where you get this idea. I mean, let’s be real: I doubt most voters understood either initiative. :dubious:

No, you’re ignorant.

A large number of guns possessed by those that can’t have them are acquired via theft or by buying them from somebody that stole them.

This notion that a significant number of gun related crimes would not have happened if there were universal background checks is a myth.

This is just another gun law on the books to make the antis feel better and take another step towards their ultimate goal of complete disarmament. And like other panaceas (Brady law, assault weapons bans, etc.) this will do little to nothing and when there are no changes the antis will come up with something else. In my observation if no gun control laws anywhere had ever been initiated, gun related crimes today would be no more or less than they are.

Okay, show me.

And a large number aren’t. So?

It depends on your definition of significant.

I’m not anti-gun. And I’d feel better if this law were in place.

Your observation is pretty silly.

If the argument is “it makes no sense to pass this law because people will still break it”, well that logic can be applied to every law, everywhere.

Nowhere did I make this argument.

My argument is, the vast majority of crime guns are acquired in such a way that mandated background checks will not prevent them. IF this law is implemented I challenge you 10 years from now to show me a significant decrease in gun related crimes in the state of Washington.

Most illegal guns were once legal guns. If this law has the slightest chance of preventing one of those guns from making that transition, it’s done its job.

All you need is just one for total justification?

And there we go. The rational behind every draconian law ever imagined.

If having everybody on electronic bracelet monitoring prevented 1 crime…etc.

I think your argument doesn’t pass any kind of smell test. Seriously. I get that right now, when enacted, it’s swimming against the tide. But if it is enforced, it’s going to slowly make a difference. I would throw out DUI’s and seatbelt laws that if you thought they would make a difference when I was a kid, you’d be a laughingstock. 0.8 is a DUI and it’s enforced - get the fuck outta here bwahahahaha.

As a Washington voter that voted for the registration. I have to say that the two ballots were interesting. I had to look up both to make sure I understood what each one stood for (especially the one that didn’t want registration).

pkbites - I’m a simple guy and grew up in rural gun country. You’re responsible for your piece. Full stop. You want to sell it to someone - that’s great and your responsibility ends when title passes to someone that is legally allow to buy it (and not to your cousin’s friend down by the river unless she can buy a gun and is registered for your piece). You secure it any way you want in your home, but you’re also civilly and criminally liable if a kid has an accident in your home. Your piece get’s stolen or “stolen”, it’s your responsibility until you report it (and assuming common sense and you weren’t backpacking in Nepal with no internet for 4 months while chuck manson jr is out shooting up LA). I am sick of hearing 2nd amendment means no responsibility. Man up and be a “responsible gun owner.”

You’re comparing background checks for gun transfers to outfitting everyone with electronic monitoring bracelets while using the word “rational” in the same post?

I don’t think our polling is very good. The latest polls showed Initiative 1351, and unfunded initiative about reducing class sizes, winning in a blowout. It’s currently losing a squeaker (though we vote by mail, so there’s still probably around half a million uncounted ballots, so it could still win.)

I thought half the point of owning a gun in the first place was to protect your home from all these people.constantly breaking into it.

He’s just giving an extreme example. The point is valid – you can’t justify a policy by ignoring the detriments and focusing on the possible good, however small.

Hard to shoot a burglar when when you’re not at home. I’m a good shot but not that good.