'Thoughtful' messages lead to Wash. gun bill changes
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - In order to ease the concerns of gun owners, Washington lawmakers seeking to expand background checks for gun sales have made a series of changes to their proposal.
Under a revised bill considered during a committee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers say agencies that conduct background checks would have to destroy records of the search once it's complete. Opponents of the bill had expressed concern that the transaction records would essentially provide a foundation for a registry of gun owners.
Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said he received hundreds of emails related to the bill. Some were generic emails or form letters, but he said others included reasonable suggestions.
"There are quite a few people who were very thoughtful," Pedersen said. "Those comments resulted in the changes."
The new bill also allows private parties to bypass the background check if the buyer already has a concealed pistol license. People involved in a transaction can also skip the background check if a request for such information goes unanswered for three days, responding to concerns that the federal system could be unavailable for periods of time. The new measure also removes a provision that allowed a state agency to request that more detailed information be submitted as part of the background check process.
At its core, the bill is designed to require background checks for private gun transactions. People already have to undergo a background check if they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer, but supporters of the measure are concerned that criminals and mentally ill people can simply seek out a private transaction in order to acquire weapons.
Opponents, however, said criminals will still find ways to get guns.
Despite the changes, Brian Judy, the Washington state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said he still had concerns about the bill. He believes that local law enforcement would be unable to conduct background checks and that gun dealers may lose money on the proposed $20 fee for conducting the checks, essentially freezing private gun transactions.
He argued that it would disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens.
"This is a misdirected program," Judy said. "It's not going to work."
House lawmakers are looking to move ahead with the measure next week. It has support on the committee of Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer previously supported by the NRA. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.
Watered down, we will go with it and improve it over time, progress is a worry to the paranoid dolts who fancy apocalyptic nonsense ,busy themselves with bunkers, listening "to the voices", fear mongering only tactic left to such, who think Moses chipped out 2ond amendment, it's an amendment! times change and we change with them growing toward peace, by practice, fewer guns, more peace.
What this new law will say is that if I want to sell my gun to my neighbor, he will have to get a background check first. That is a deplorable invasion of privacy. While the idea appeals to anti-gunners, and the media has everyone bamboozles that this is a good solution; it is in fact, a huge govt grab of the individual's freedom and rights to privacy. Now the individual is on record for whatever future purpose the govt. may deem to investigate. So what if the bill says the background records are to be destroyed. What proof are you going to have that they were actually destroyed? It will be just their word we must rely on, and these situations have always proved out to show coverup and conspiracy. Don't believe it? Then why do they require the guns information for a person's personal background check? It's for the RECORDS. We can't trust that. Background checks are the wrong avenue towards a safer public.Â
Well, if they destroy the records, how is anyone to know they are actually conducting the checks?
I LIV IN WASHINGTON. Â i WILL JUS BY MY GUNZ IN ORGUN.
The web name says it all.
Why is the make, model, and serial number even on the background check form? That information is not needed to run a check on whether a person has a criminal or mental health history.
At least this bill wont prevent me from buying that PS90 I've been eyeballing. Just waiting on the ammo situation to be resolved.
Those high capacity thoughts will get ya every time. By the way, background checks can change quickly depending on any recent arrests!
ACLU = American Criminals Lawyers Union
@oldcouvguy That reminds me, how does the ACLU count to ten? 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
@ChrisJ82Â @oldcouvguy
*sigh*Â http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
@JTesla That dog pile seemed already well handled. Instead I chimed in with a joke about them that was relevant to the topic at hand.
@ChrisJ82 Funny, I thought they were the "American Criminals Lawyers Union", it's interesting that you let that slide, in an article that has nothing to do with them, just because they don't meet your standards on the 2nd.
@JTesla Except it's the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union, not the First Amendment Union, not the Fourth or Fifth Amendment Unions, but Civil Liberties, all inclusive, even of the unenumerated rights. The ACLU is like PETA saying they're against the abuse of all animals, except cats, they don't really count as animals.
@ChrisJ82 I see where our disagreement is. I don't care much about what they say when it isn't a position that they are pushing, I care about where they put their money. PETA could say all the right things about the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't mean I'll like them because what matters to me is where they spend their money. Same with the NRA or ACLU
@JTesla If the NRA disavowed the 1st amendment, cited the Cruikshank ruling as the only proper ruling on it, and said the right only belongs to professional journalists and the state, then yes they would have done wrong and should be rightly criticized for it. Except they haven't, where as the ACLU has.
@ChrisJ82 So they've done wrong because they've done nothing. Does that mean that the NRA is bad because they haven't worked to protect our 1st Amendment rights. No. I don't expect the NRA to focus on anything other than gun rights and I see them working on that in more than lawsuits. Both groups are lobbies and most of their power comes outside the courts.
@JTesla @ChrisJ82 You're first question doesn't make any sense. That's their stance, anti-2nd-amendment. Well err, actually they strangely believe that it gives the state the right to bear arms. Not sure how they get that from, "...the right of the people..."Â
Why does the ACLU need to defend the 2nd amendment? You're joking right? Maybe because it took other organizations to make the breakthrough in Heller and McDonald before the NRA woke the f-up and started doing something other than Negotiating Rights Away. No one doubts where CATO and the SAF stand on civil rights, they support all of them, and not just the politically correct ones either.
@Diogenes @ChrisJ82 Pray-tell what alternate version did Madison ever say it was a right of the state to bear arms? Every version indicates the right belongs to the people.Â
Miller has long since been misread by both sides, but worst by the anti's. It decided that a short barreled shotgun was not an arm suitable for militia use and remanded it to the lower court. They never said ANYthing about it being a collective right, that is entirely a figment of the left's imagination.Â
Now as for the century of stare decisis that was overturned with Heller, are you sure you really want to bark up that tree? You want to argue that Cruikshank was a good and correct ruling? If that's the case lets unincorporate the 1st amendment as well, as that was part of the original Cruikshank ruling.
@ChrisJ82Â And the ACLU has done what regarding the cases they "misread" and disagree with? We already have the NRA which, by all measures, are a very effective lobby, so why does the ACLU need to encroach on their turf?
@ChrisJ82Â
They didn't "intentionally misread Miller," that was how Miller has been interpreted by every judge in the country for 70 years. Â The Second Amendment has ALWAYS been considered a collective right. Â Hell, several Madison's early drafts of it made it explicit that it was a state's right, not an individual right.
As for Heller, a really wide swathe of Constitutional scholars on both the left and the right disagree with it. Â It overturned nearly a century of precedent, and for a Court that said it respected stare decisis, it was a stunning misstep. Â However, the ACLU is committed to ensuring that issues such as registration and licensing don't encroach on civil liberties, as they always have.
@Diogenes @ChrisJ82 @oldcouvguy *sigh* and that's supposed to be a refutation how? They intentionally misread Miller and disagree with Heller.
@oldcouvguy Considering that this isn't a story about or involving the ACLU, I have to think that maybe you're a bit paranoid.
when someone steals the gun from their mom and goes to school and murders 200 kids.. how is this going to stop it?
@iamright555Â
It won't. Â That's why we need other bills to mandate mental health screenings for gun owners and the permanent residents of their homes. Â No household with a potentially violent mentally ill resident should have a gun in it because that's dangerous for everybody in the community.
@iamright555Â It won't. Â But it might stop the next Laughner from buying his gun at a sporting goods store. If we're going to set the level of utility for any law at 100%, there's little point in doing anything at all.
@Festivus @iamright555 I will absolutely resist any attempt to confiscate property from law-abiding citizens (none of my guns appears to be on Feinstein's list...wtf, I'm doing it wrong?!) ...
But I'm cool with a red-flag system as long as people realize that if it gets out of control, civil disobedience will be rampant, and the gun-owning Americans will undo all of it if it gets cumbersome or ridiculous. It will be a fatal blow to the anti-gun movement if all of this fails. But if they try to take somebody else's stuff, I'm not going to go for any of it.
Clerk: [Homer grabs for his gun, but the cashier holds onto it] Sorry, the law requires a five-day waiting period. We've got to run a background check.Â
Homer: Five days? But I'm mad now!Â[the cashier pulls the gun away from him]Â
Homer: I'd kill you if I had my gun.Â
Clerk: Yeah, well, you don't.Â
Share this quote
remember this episode,very funny
Of course it's going to disproportionally impact law-abiding citizens, that's the entire point of this garbage. Criminals on the other hand will simply continue to deal privately without the checks, use straw purchasers, etc...
@ChrisJ82Â You do realize the straw purchasers buy guns from gun dealers, correct? That's the problem with destroying the records after the search. If Joe Blow is buying a gun a week, it would be good to know that in order to see if he might be a straw purchaser. Though, if he's smart enough to get a CHL and deal with private buyers, sounds like all will be well for him.
@ChrisJ82Â After reviewing the proposed CO, NJ, CA, and of course the already instituted NY gun laws, I don't really feel like "cooperating" with the left on anything.Â
@NotAChance @ChrisJ82 And this is a change in your attitude?
@Diogenes @Max Quinn @NotAChance @ChrisJ82 The weird thing is, nobody has ever asked me. I don't care about polls.
You can't wave some dubious internet poll at us and claim to tell us that it's how we think, especially when I can't seem to find anybody who has ever been asked the question for this poll. Have you? Honestly? Salon published something somebody else did, and, you read it on the internet, and now it's posted here, and, soo.... it means I believe something that I don't?
I'll be voting against the left pretty much across the board in the next elections. Never done that before. I'm tired of people waving around some ridiculous poll telling me how me and my friends think like there was some sort of referendum. It's nonsense.
@Max Quinn @NotAChance @ChrisJ82 I was figuring it was a promise.
An arrogant liberal will ignore that. A wise liberal will realize that a lot of people are really mad about this, and maybe what they say--given how obsessed they are--is worth consideration instead of flippant snark and dismissal.
I have lost patience with my liberal friends who call the NRA terrorists or who belittle gun owners. Guys like that make me want to support their opposition. They're not solving anything for you. The Republicans, perhaps, have yet to learn this lesson too.
@Max Quinn @NotAChance @ChrisJ82
By "the left," NotAChance apparently means pretty much all of America (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/poll_finds_strong_support_for_gun_regulations/). Â Wouldn't that make him the lunatic fringe? Â Yes it would.
@Max Quinn @NotAChance @ChrisJ82 No, it's now called affirmation.Â
The only people this will affect are those buying guns legally.
@RalphCramdenÂ
So, the fact that most criminals get their guns from "people...buying guns legally" doesn't at all concern you or the NRA? Â You think that the so-called "gunshow loophole" should remain open? Â If so, maybe you could make your case a bit better, because right now it sounds like lunacy.
@Diogenes @RalphCramden Oregon doesn't have a gun-show loophole, does it? When you freak about about things happening in your community and how they ought to be stopped, what happens when you find out that these things aren't actually happening in your community and that they have already been stopped.
The last time I went to a gun show in Portland there were about six cops in the entrance, and there are undercover BATF agents who pretend to be citizens trying to buy illegal weapons, pretty much the way the cute college girl wants a pull of your beer at Burning Man.
Lunacy is demanding laws that already exist, and not enforcing them when crimes are committed. Did you hear about the serial rapist they just re-arrested after being arrested and released SEVEN TIMES since 2011? That's lunacy.
I support background checks at gun shows but not one-on-one private sales,dont support a ban of any type.
@Diogenes
There is no gun show loophole in Oregon. Oregon has required background checks at gun shows for years and gun crime is increasing.
Let's see how you justify that.
The following states require background checks at all gun shows.
The four states requiring background checks for only handgun purchases include:
If you look at those states they have some of the most violent cities in the nation. In DC where it is extremely difficult to get a gun it is more dangerous than Afghanistan.
12 of the top 25 most dangerous cities in the nation have background checks on all guns show sales.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2012-10?op=1
Justify how background checks are not working in those cities and states.
You talk but don't look at the stats or the laws.
@Diogenes
The tests have shown them to work for over 100 rounds and still worked. In a battle field scenario magazines are throw aways for the most part.
It depends on the type of printer. A good high quality plastic printer will hold up nicely.
I am excited for just about anything that makes it harder for government to control.
@Diogenes @scoreboard @RalphCramden @Diogenes The fact remains there's no gunshow loophole in Oregon. You don't seem to have realized that, but you're obviously well-versed on the national talking points.
@RalphCramdenÂ
Pretty sure the Federal government could track who's printing what, if they feel like it. Â Not that you can ACTUALLY print working gun parts, now. Â The only group that's tried it had it fall apart on them after, what, 10 rounds? Â So you print a 30-round magazine and it breaks 10 rounds in? Â Kind of ironic, isn't it?
@NotAChance
Blow me.
@RalphCramden @DiogenesÂ
So, you don't know me.  We've never met.  And you're not remotely psychic.  I'm not an "antigunner."  I'm actually smack dab in the mainstream.  You're not.  The overwhelming majority of Americans, hell, the overwhelming majority of NRA members, supports enhanced background checks.  They support banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons.  The only gun control measure not supported by a huge majority of your fellow Americans is an outright ban of all guns.  So...you keep on donating to "fight states that try to ban guns."  You and the other NRA dupes who keep giving money to fund Wayne LaPierre's extravagant salary have had a good run, but we're done with you.  Sensible legislation is coming, and there's nothing you can do about it.Â
@NotAChance @DiogenesÂ
You are right. He will not change his mind, ever, and I will never change my mind. So it really is pointless.
Thankfully I have all the guns I need with plenty of ammo so no matter what happens I will have my protection against criminals and tyrannical government if that ever comes to pass.
One of the benefits of modern technology is that we can print our own high capacity magazines.
%s
@RalphCramden @Diogenes I consider it pointless to debate with this loser all together. Snide, condescending, arrogant, and all around dirtbag.
Sorry to sound irritated, but I couldn't give a damn what he, and others like him believe.
@Diogenes
Keep in mind that guns are a right. And that antigunners like yourself are trying to take that right away.
Chipping away at gun rights in one state will eventually affect all states. For this reason I donate a lot of my money to fight states that try to ban guns. I also give money to politicians that are pro gun. I am not wealthy enough to buy my own politicians but I can make a difference combined with others.
And of course if push comes to shove the progunners have a lot more guns and ammo than the antigunners.
@RalphCramden @DiogenesÂ
So, I'm not sure where you guys come from, but somehow you all skip reading the articles and go right to saying incredibly irrelevant things. Â This story is about a bill being proposed in the State of Washington. Â Ever heard of it? Â Big place, just to the north of Oregon, but not under Oregon jurisdiction?
@scoreboard @RalphCramden @DiogenesÂ
Chicago has the 18th highest rate of gun homicides in the country, not the highest; New Orleans has the highest.  And the city with the strictest gun laws in the country is New York City, and they have a gun violence rate comparable to Portland's.  The difference between NYC and Chicago, as any expert could have told you, is that NYC's laws closely mirror NY state's laws, which makes it harder to bring guns from outside the Metro area into the city; Chicago is plagued by the opposite, and guns sold in Illinois jurisdictions with looser gun regulations are what they're finding in Chicago street crime.  Your argument is literally a cry for stricter gun control across the entire country, so thanks for that....
Also, would you like to know the funny thing about your claim regarding Chicago? Â Any serious person knows that a crime statistic can't be applied without proportion. Â All crime rate statistics in the developed world are calculated per 100,000 residents. Â So, knowing that, and knowing that anyone familiar with this topic would know that, why do you think the Washington Times (AKA The Moonie Times) would so badly bungle the reporting on that story?
@RalphCramden@DiogenesNot to mention Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet it has the highest rate if gun deaths among any city in the country:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/chicago-gun-deaths-confiscations-belie-claims-gun-/
@Diogenes Will you give up on this whole gun show loop hole BS thing already? Theirs like 5 states that still do that and SURPRISE Oregon isn't one of them. Don't believe me? Go to a gun show and try and buy a firearm. If you can I will personally buy it off you for 100 times what you payed for it.
@Jeepers @DiogenesÂ
Well, first obviously, is the problem that this story isn't about Oregon, genius. Â It's about Washington. Â You should read the articles to which you respond, don't you think? Â Second, I gave a source. Â I gave two different sources in two different posts.
@Diogenes @RalphCramden Most criminals don't get their guns thru private sales, they either steal them or get them from someone who stole them...........
@scoreboard @Diogenes @STEELHEADÂ
So, no they can't. Â Your argument reflects the same dynamic that had you geniuses swearing up and down that Nate Silver and the polls were all wrong because some blogger had "unskewed" the data for you. Â But please do keep hammering away at that winning message. Â I can see it now, "Math: It's for Democrats."
@flyroy @DiogenesÂ
Oh, you have a close relationship with the ATF, but you didn't know that criminals aren't stealing their guns, they're buying them? Â Interesting....
@Diogenes @STEELHEAD Anyone can skew data to make it read what they want it to read.
@Diogenes Wow, name calling? No sense of civic responsibility? Actually I do gunsmithing and have a close relationship with the ATF! Did you actually read what you linked? Corrupt gun dealers were the largest diverters of guns into the illegal market! Talk about backing up their own argument (such as it was)! There is a huge difference between a corupt dealer and an unlicensed person selling weapons!
@flyroy @Diogenes
So...that's not 20-year old data; the Frontline program is backed up by a 2009 Johns Hopkins study (http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/research/gun_trafficking.html) that says the same thing. Â The difference is, Frontline's writeup is easier to read (and it's also striking that this problem hasn't changed AT ALL in 20 years). Â And that agent was "frustrated," not disgruntled; as in, the ATF is perpetually fighting against people like you who have no sense of civic responsibility and are willing to lie about how guns get to criminals. Â If you want some cooperation, learn how to read English and not be an ignorant hack who can't back up their own argument (such as it was).
@STEELHEADÂ @DiogenesÂ
I cite the ATF and Johns Hopkins. Â You cite a blog. Â Bravo.
@Diogenes Your using 20year old data, and from a disgruntled agent, really? This is before a lot of the checks were even required, if you want real data try the FBI who is a little more current. This is the same BS that Piers tries to do. If you want cooperation, try to stay on subject and be truthful.
@Diogenes It all depends on who you want to listen too, anyone can find to the contrary.....
http://extranosalley.com/?p=12198
@STEELHEAD @Diogenes @RalphCramden
That's not true. Â At least, it's not true according to the ATF and Johns Hopkins. Â According to them, some 80% of all criminals who used a gun BOUGHT their weapons from non-licensed dealers, many of them at gun shows. Â Only about 10-15% of all guns used in crimes were stolen. Â (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html)
@RalphCramden True, but I think that's the point; to stop crazies from buying guns legally.  Nothing will stop the hardened criminal element from conducting "business" except cops and armed citizens.
OK if you do some actual reading almost ALL the school shooters were NOT the legal owners of those guns,they were stolen FROM the legal owner's due to irresponsible gun owners NOT locking their guns effectivly to keep their PSYCHO kids from getting them,NEWTON would not have happen if the retarded mom wouldve locked them away from the mental case of a son,and what about the other brother in this case did he have an ounce of brains to say"mom I think wee should keep the guns away from the moron shooter
@Nuclear-XÂ
Lots of legal gun owners have carried out mass killings. Â The Columbine kids bought their guns through a straw buyer who used a gun show because she didn't want to do a background check. Â That dude in Colorado, the other one in Seattle, there was a shooting at some Bible college last spring. Â Hell, the Virginia Tech shooter was a legal gun owner. Â Not sure why you would say that without checking your facts. Â