Great job, Washington State

[dracoi]

@Stealth_Potato

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

I’m getting the idea that voters understood the conflict mostly based on the number of votes. Early polls seem to suggest that both proposals had about 70% support even though they essentially said “extra background checks” and “no extra background checks.” But when you look at the final votes, it was something like 60/40 (for extra background checks) and 45/55 (for the no extra background checks). So one passed and one didn’t, and with pretty similar margins. If people were still confused, at least they were consistent.

I don’t have any separate information about how well people understood the two laws, but I think they were relatively simple. I’m not saying that I understand all of the finer points of each one, but as I’ve already said, nobody is sure how some of the finer points will work out until we see enforcement in action.

[Bone]

@Chefguy

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.

The bolded section is false. CA requires background checks on all sales and trasnfers including private party sales. They have for years.

I don’t think this requirement runs afoul of the 2nd amendment. I also don’t think it accomplishes anything.

[China_Guy]

@dracoi

I don’t have any separate information about how well people understood the two laws, but I think they were relatively simple. I’m not saying that I understand all of the finer points of each one, but as I’ve already said, nobody is sure how some of the finer points will work out until we see enforcement in action.

I had to read them both very carefully and do on line searches to be clear. At first, I was WTF, they are the same initiative. It was only after spending at least *a few *minutes that it became clear that one initiative was about NOT restricting gun ownership. Maybe it’s my own bias and YMMV but as a voter that had no prior knowledge, opened up the ballot and then figured out which one was up and which one was down. In fact, here ya go:

initiative 591:
This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.
Should this measure be enacted into law?

Yes

No

Initiative 594:
This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.
Should this measure be enacted into law?

Yes

No

[Nametag]

Looks pretty obvious to me.

[Chefguy]

@Bone

The bolded section is false. CA requires background checks on all sales and trasnfers including private party sales. They have for years.

I don’t think this requirement runs afoul of the 2nd amendment. I also don’t think it accomplishes anything.

I guess the article I read was mistaken.

[Gatopescado]

At least you can pump your own gas there.

[Bone]

I think there should be an exception for loaning firearms since that is rather common and is prohibited under WA I-594. This would head off museums having to scuttle WWII exhibits (though a local FFL stepped in to assist this one). Language in the text should be clarified so things like powder fired nail guns at Home Depot aren’t included.

[Robot_Arm]

A friend of mine has been posting on Facebook how this is a terrible law written by out-of-state billionaires and how he can’t do any firearms training or even make custom grips for friends because even that kind of interaction will make him a felon.

I want to ask him why they don’t just get background checks, but I don’t really want to stir things up.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@pkbites

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?

So because it might not stop every conceivable gun crime, the measure is worthless? :dubious: :rolleyes:

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Stealth_Potato

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.

These are much better arguments against this law than those offered by pkbites. Thank you for presenting them without histrionics.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@pkbites

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

Well, maybe if you didn’t leave all those guns laying around in plain sight, less people would break into your home and steal them.

[Ravenman]

@pkbites

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?

Do you think that any background check should be performed at all during any type of sale of a firearm, or that all those laws should be eliminated, in your view?

[Ethilrist]

@pkbites

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.

10-15%, as it turns out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

@quote

An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars. “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,” Wachtel said.

…

Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

[Shodan]

On what does Mr. Wachtel base his estimate?

Regards,
Shodan

[twickster]

@pkbites

No, you’re ignorant.

Watch your phrasing – to avoid personal insults, say “you’re not aware of the facts,” or “these are the facts,” not “you’re ignorant.”

No warning issued.

twickster, Elections moderator

[YogSothoth]

@pkbites

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?

In other words, murder should be legal because there’s not a 100% chance to prevent it and criminals will do it anyways so why even bother? Better to make murder legal so that the good guys can kill the bad guys before they get killed, right? :rolleyes:

[pkbites]

In my observation whenever the left wins one they start babblechattering like a community of chimpanzees.

And here we go again. Another panacea that will help solve gun crimes. Except like all the others, it won’t. In 10 years show me a significant decrease in gun related crimes. This certainly won’t stop a bullied kid from stealing his pops gun and taking it to school.

If this law has any effect it will be negative. Some poor schmuck will be unclear on the law and find himself with a criminal record when in reality he’s an honest productive member of society. If the law actually has any effect at stopping felons from buying firearms you may see an increase in burglaries and auto break ins targeting enclosed firearms.

And when this law has no positive effect, the antis will come up with another god send that, of course, will only serve to infringe on law abiding citizens and will again do nothing to thwart the criminal element.

The pro-gun people who found themselves agreeing with this law need to get their heads out of their ass. Brady and Bloomberg don’t give 2 shits about public safety, cops, kids, etc… They are part of a larger belief of absolute civilian disarmament. They don’t want you to be able to own anything. Even without a firearm they don’t care for your alleged right to self defense.

And they are using incrementalism to slowly achieve their goal. These tiny little infringements will add up.

Alright. I said my piece. Let the babblechattering resume.

[BlankSlate]

@pkbites

In my observation whenever the left wins one they start babblechattering like a community of chimpanzees.

And when the right wins, more children die.

[pkbites]

@BlankSlate

And when the right wins, more children die.

You should have wrote sound bites for Dennis Kucinich.

:rolleyes:

[tomndebb]

@pkbites

In my observation whenever the left wins one they start babblechattering like a community of chimpanzees.
. . .
Let the babblechattering resume.

Babblechatter? Chimpanzees?

If you wish to simply fling insults around, go open a thread in The BBQ Pit.
Here it just looks like trolling for a reaction and this is a Warning to not repeat this behavior in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]