Major Wash. gun bill fails in state House
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A contentious proposal to expand background checks on Washington state gun sales failed Tuesday in the state House, where supporters said they were just a handful of votes short.
In a final effort to pick up a few extra votes, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, had proposed a referendum clause that would have allowed the public to vote on the measure. He initially believed that would draw enough support to corral the 50 votes needed to pass the bill but conceded Tuesday night that others had dropped their backing because of that shift.
"It was too big of a stretch for this year," Pedersen said.
Pedersen said he was disappointed by the result, and several Democrats departing for the night were emotional about the collapse of a bill they'd spent two days intensely working to finalize. The week had included lobbying from former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who was wounded in a January 2011 mass shooting, and Gov. Jay Inslee.
After years of seeking expanded background checks, supporters of gun control had seen this year as the greatest chance for major changes in state law, with the public still reeling from the December massacre of children at a Connecticut elementary school. The National Rifle Association, however, led a broad campaign in the state to block the bill, with opponents of the measure saying it wouldn't stop gun violence and arguing that it was the first step to a registry of gun owners, which opponents consider as an unconstitutional overreach.
Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Pedersen's proposal, crafted in conjunction with Republican Rep. Mike Hope, would have extended such reviews to cover private gun transactions.
Hope, a Seattle police officer, had expressed concern that criminals have been bypassing the current system of background checks and acquiring guns through private transactions. He said the proposal won't stop gun violence but would make it harder for criminals to get weapons.
Pedersen said some initial supporters of the bill opposed the idea of a public vote, concerned about running such a ballot measure during an off-year election. He said they were also concerned about setting a precedent of falling back on referendums when lawmakers were unable to agree on a bill.
A similar proposal in the state Senate never received a public hearing.
Proponents of gun control had recently formed a coalition to lobby on behalf of the background checks plan. Christian Sinderman, a political consultant who aided the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said it was a stark reminder of how hard it is to get votes on the issue.
Sinderman said the group would discuss future options over the next few days to determine whether it was best to continue with a legislative strategy or to consider going directly to the ballot with an initiative.
"One thing is clear," Sinderman said, "we're not going to give up the effort on this critical public safety issue."
___
Follow Mike Baker on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/HiPpEV
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
The fewer gun laws we have, the better our chances of defending ourselves from liberal politicians and their agenda.
@Shadow Real men don't need guns.
@TreeWizard @Shadow How many unarmed REAL men were slaughtered in the last century by their governments? I'm sure no one had a second thought about needing guns as they were stripped and marched into ovens or sent off to Siberian gulags.
@Civ @TreeWizard @Conspirator @Shadow Wouldn't have been as easy, but they still would have happened.
@TreeWizard @Conspirator @Shadow Yes if the citizens of those nations that have commited genocide ( Russia,  Germany etc) were armed , the genocide would not have been so easy.
@Conspirator @TreeWizard @Shadow A gun would have prevented that?
@TreeWizard @Shadow LOL! My grandmother wasn't a real man, but she used her 30-30 to hunt for deer for the family when they were poor.
It's fun watching people drop small-penis references and invoke "manhood" as the number of women shooting and serving in the military explodes. I know you're just trolling, but it's funny to realize that some so-called tolerant-types are actually that misogynistic and backwardass.
If real men don't need guns, go tell secret service or the people who killed Osama Bin Laden to give theirs up. P-ssies.
@TreeWizard @Playanekes @ShadowÂ
Playanekes' mind is never very far from other people's man junk.
@Playanekes @TreeWizard @Shadow Funny how people think everything is about man junk. How you got a man junk reference from what I said, I do not know.
@ShadowÂ
Derp.
This comment has been deleted
@feral This has got to be the most unintelligent and, ignorant post I have seen. You just called ALL the millions of law biding citizens in this country  terrorists. You included all Law Enforcement and military, who protect your right to post this stupidity as terrorists as well . I suggest you move to North Korea where the citizens are prohibited to defend themselves..
@feral Feel free to go live in any country that forbids it's subjects from gun ownership. Stay away from Switzerland. Virtually every adult male is a terrorist.
Dude... wake up!  It failed for a reason. Your constituents don't want it.  Are you there to represent your constituents or your own agenda?  People know that more laws don't effect criminals.  Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Enforce what you already have on the books.
@SweetpeaÂ
Actually, the constituents do want it. Â Lawmakers bought and paid for by the NRA didn't want it. Â %s. Â But do go ahead and make declarative statements that take on the character of Dudly Do Right riding his horse....
As for the breathtakingly stupid statement that laws don't effect criminals, wouldn't the corollary be that we should erase all laws? Â Dumbest. Statement. Ever.
@Diogenes
Oh, the irony ......
"Actually, the constituents do want it."
 "Lawmakers bought and paid for by the NRA didn't want it."
And then ..... "But do go ahead and make declarative statements that take on the character of Dudly Do Right riding his horse...."
That was pretty funny, there Dudly.
I suppose I could try to find the list of politicians who opposed the measure and point out the ones not receiving any money from the NRA, I'm sure there are a few, but instead I'll just take Pedersen at his word  ...... ""It was too big of a stretch for this year,' Pedersen said."  http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/12/gun-bill-proponents-secure-key-washington-vote/
Hmmm .... no mention of the NRA.
And as for laws not effecting criminals, Sweetpea is far more correct than you.  If you were right, the more laws we have, the fewer criminals we should have, but in  fact, the more laws, the more criminals. We have laws, not because we expect them to  keep people from doing bad things, but because it gives us a  cultural framework in which to define what is and is not appropriate behavior, and a system to punish those who violate those appropriate behaviors.
@Diogenes @di_da_is_alpha
No, I'm not Jesus, but you can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me ......
I want better background checks, I just don't trust the current government  to  do them without some sort of assurance that the check isn't used for registration or abused in some other way.
Look at one of the problems with the Colorado bill .... "Republicans tried in vain to stop the package, which also includes a gun ban for people accused of domestic violence crimes ...."
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2013/03/11/colorado-senate-give-final-ok-to-gun-control-bills
Or do you no longer believe in "innocent till proven guilty"? Â And when you throw in that verbal abuse is being included in much domestic violence legislation, all it would take is for for a neighbor to say they heard raised voices coming from your house.Â
And then there is Chuckie's bill .... http://www.examiner.com/article/universal-background-check-bill-is-designed-to-land-you-prison  ..... Defend that mess.
So, you're saying that 14% of the electorate were responsible for the 2010 elections, and the huge shift of power in the HoR?  Us 14%ers must be able to kick a lot of butt.  And if you'll remember, a lot of soft or left-leaning Republicans did lose in primaries. But don't let facts deter you in your effort to spread  leftist propaganda.Â
It seems to me that your side is the loudmouth side. Â How many people claim to disagree with Tea-Party platforms just to escape unwarranted attacks from the left? Let's try a typical left-wing poll experiment. Question: Would you vote for Ben Carson for President, are or you a racist? That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it does illustrate how the wording of questions can be manipulated in order to get the desired result.
No, laws don't effect criminals. Laws define criminal behavior, but criminals ignore the boundaries. That's why they're criminals. Do you really think someone intent on robbing a bank is not going to use a sawed-off shotgun just because sawed-off shotguns are illegal? All the sawed-off shotgun law does is prevent law abiding people from having one of the best and safest options for home defense denied to them.
Off topic, why Diogenes?  Why not Eratosthenes or Thales? How about Democritus? He was a bit of a rebel.  Diogenes was just kind of a jerk. Or is that the reason you chose him? Remember, the most extreme conformists are those who intentionally go out of their way  to be non-comformists. When was the last time you skewered  a progressive sacred cow, or at least admitted that sacred cow was problematic and/or unrealistic?
@di_da_is_alpha @DiogenesÂ
Jesus. Â The fact that 88% of Americans want stronger background checks elude you? Â Or is it that your ignorance can't be overcome even by your marginalization? Â A majority of gun owners and NRA members want stronger gun control. Â The only people who don't are the fringe (that would be you) and politicians who listen to the fringe because they're noisy.
This entire exercise reminds me of the Tea Party's heyday.  Even at their strongest, they only comprised 4% of the electorate.  Another 10% said they "agreed with the Tea Party," so at their strongest, they had about 14% of the electorate.  And yet, they were taken seriously by politicians too afraid of losing their seats in primaries to do the right thing.
Oh, and nice strawman on the laws v. criminals. Â I didn't say laws don't effect criminals, I said laws DO effect criminals; Sweetpea is the one who said laws don't effect criminals. Â Reading is fundamental...and you're just mental.
@Diogenes Except they don't, barely anyone showed up in Portland, http://daylightdisinfectant.com/portland-hosts-thinly-attended-anti-gun-rally/ and virtually no one showed up in Eugene, http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/04/jason-kilgore-awesome-fail-is-my-middle-name/Â
Contrast that to people showing up from out of town http://www.katu.com/politics/Hundreds-gather-for-pro-gun-rally-in-Salem-187605091.html and again this time on a work day too! Â http://www.katu.com/politics/Armed-but-peaceful-activists-pledge-to-fight-new-gun-laws-190475181.html
@Playanekes @Diogenes @ChrisJ82Â
So...nobody was taking guns, you idiot. Â And this will be put up for referendum and it will pass. Â 88% of the country, including 85% of gun owners, want enhanced background checks, and specifically want the gunshow loophole closed. Â So...how's about YOU suck it.
@Diogenes @ChrisJ82 Suck it. You don't get the guns. The anti-gun lobbyists failed to use the dead children as soapboxes for their crusade.
Thank God I joined the NRA because of people like Piers Morgan and Feinstein. Well, I should thank -them-. Or, the NRA should, I guess.
@Diogenes @ChrisJ82 That's what Caucuses are for bro.
@ChrisJ82Â @DiogenesÂ
Because people didn't show up to a rally, that somehow equates to them not wanting something? Â Awesome not-at-all logic there, Chris. Â And for your next trick....
Cho, Holmes, Loughner all passed background checks.
Harris and Klebold, and Spengler all got their guns through straw purchasers, which is already illegal.
Lanza likely would have passed (did pass?) a background check, but didn't want to wait. So in a state with 'universal' background checks, he MURDERED to acquire his guns.
So tell me again, how are 'universal' background checks are going to do anything other than punish innocent people?
@ChrisJ82Â Why don't you grow a set and just come out and say you're against background checks altogether? If making them universal is a form a punishment, then you're saying that anyone who buys a gun from a licensed dealer is being punished. That's nonsense.
When a lot a people here that Cho, Holmes, and Loughner all passed background checks, we conclude that the background checks need to be more thorough, not discarded. We can look to totalitarian countries like New Zeeland and Australia to see what more effective background checks would look like.
@Max Quinn You can tell you're losing the argument when you feel the need to get person. No need to stoop to that level, I'm more than happy to say I'm against mandatory background checks. If you were familiar with how the background check system works you'd understand that the people who are buying through dealers are being punished, doubly so in Oregon where we have to pay an extra extortion fee to OSP, and their system is so well run that it's often down, like last weekend, resulting in your rights being denied.
As for the mentally ill passing background checks, that's kind of what I've been saying all along. In Cho's case his records weren't in the system, and for Holmes and Loughner their obvious (sadly hindsight is 20/20) mental illness didn't get them before a judge, a jury of peers, and expert witnesses both for/against, to adjudicate them as mentally ill. None of that has anything to do with the 'universal' background checks you're railing for.
@Max Quinn So you're painfully unaware of how the FFL, transfer fees, form 4473, and OSP extortion fee all work. Great that means you're as qualified as the elected officials to mindlessly spout off.
So again with the straw men? I said I was against mandatory background checks. No one wants to sell to a bad guy so when dealing with strangers most would still opt to use it. Oh, except we're not allowed to use it.
@ChrisJ82 @NotAChance @Max Quinn Unless his only purpose is to put forth such a ridiculous proposal, knowing full well it will fail, but by doing so makes it appear another proposal now looks more "reasonable", and more palatable.  Same old trick they will continue to employ.
Or he's just nuts, and really means it, and would like to see an insurrection begin in this country so his good pal can declare martial law.
@NotAChance @Max Quinn The hunting 'exception' is equally bad,
"the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm"
Given most of us live where hunting isn't legal, and drive on roads where hunting isn't legal, it basically doesn't allow borrowing for hunting.
@Max Quinn @ChrisJ82 Just got a look at Chucky Schumer Proposal - Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374)
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf
Read Chuck Shumerâs proposed mandatory background check bill, this thing is ludicrous.
Thereâs a poorly worded exception for hunting and âsporting purposes,â as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. Tthis applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but donât transfer them as a gift.
Thereâs alsono exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoonon the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.
It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.
Broad much? The only exception appears to be handing a gun to a potential buyer to evaluate and lending guns at a shooting range but ONLY IF:
So, only facilities where the stated purpose in the incorporation documents is conservation (hunting) or firearms proficiency. And if youâre shooting on your own private property, or on BLM land, ANY lending of guns EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER for recreational shooting would be illegal.
As written, this bill is a trainwreck. It creates felons out of people who may not have been aware that their roommate (on their month long trip through Asia) even owned a firearm, much less that there was one in the house. It allows the government to regulate the price of background checks, enacting a mandatory fee (read tax) to be paid every time you want to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and lets the government set the fee at whatever level they choose with no recourse. It also creates de facto registration through the NICS checks as well as the paperwork preservation requirements already in place.
Can anyone say "WTF"?
Is THIS what you support MAX?
@ChrisJ82Â "If you were familiar with how the background check system works you'd understand that the people who are buying through dealers are being punished"
By that thinking, getting a drivers license is a form of punishment. And, of course, criminals might choose not to get one. A background check at a gun store might be an inconvenience, but to call it punishment is to be hysterical.
So since you want to do away with background checks altogether, it doesn't really matter what is in the system for a guy like Cho - when he walks into a gun store, all he needs is the money to buy what he wants. Baffling conclusion. If the existing system allows a Cho to buy a gun, then the existing system needs to be tightened, not discarded.
@NotAChance @Max Quinn Interesting. I didn't hear he was initially denied. I only saw that he bought an AR the day after testifying that no one needed them, but then he nor his organization had any explanation for over 48hrs.
Of course, the most hilarious part is that I bet the Tuscon police sell their surplus weapons like most other police departments do. He'd have done a better job getting the AR off the street by taking his saws-all to it himself.
@ChrisJ82 @Max Quinn I just love the whole Mark Kelly brouhaha, where he was properly denied the ability to purchase a firearm by the existing laws, and when he returned with the correct id papers, underwent a check and was lawfully allowed to buy his firearms, he then turns around only to claim he only did it to prove how easy it was to purchase a firearm.Â
He's a hypocrite.Â
@Max Quinn @ChrisJ82 Max, it's the arbitrary application of any proposed law that has so many worried.Â
Mix in âgun traffickingâ legislation, so-called âmental health screeningsâ and âexpanded background checksâ, along with Obama's Executive Order calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to âreview categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun,â the definition of âprohibitedâ could change any day.
Not going to give up, because we will prevail in reducing these tragic killings of children, women, wives and suicides, so these cartoon whackos in gun fringe, are that, cartoons, were getting the work done.
I just love the bubble you live in...pop! there is the rest of the world outside your bagger mentality, and we out number you! must be pitiful for you as you lost election and live under a liberal society,so obstruction is your only avenue, but it pales into vapors, so little faith you have, such narrow minds, and a warm gun makes you sleep better, how sad, we really do pity you as your Ted Nugent ,poster boy for guns, just sad and ugly, we stand with Mark Kelly  a person of depth and intelligence who really is a hero, tested. We welcome you to a more peaceful world, and we don't have to hold your feet to the fire to do so, real strength doesn't work that way.
@Social Glimpse "bagger mentality".
Yeah, there's a real evolved outlook. Bubble? That pretty much sums up what I think of worthless little "libtards" such as yourself.  I now despise your type.
@Social Glimpse @NotAChance I recall Germany fervently elected Hitler too.
@NotAChance @Social Glimpse But we are majority, just look at who sits in power here in Oregon, but up and down the west coast, there maybe a spot left up Hayden lake way? No we are the ones in power liberals, we elected the president, and you...oh sorry lost, so lost on many levels, but look we are not threatening you, or causing you harm, if you hear voices....well please check in for help, your paranoia has got the better of you, got to listen to something besides fox news, why are you here when you could be on a nice sun drenched oasis in the Sudan? they all proudly have lots of guns and your NRA helping them!
@Social Glimpse @NotAChance Perhaps there's another country, under different laws that you would be more comfortable in.
May I suggest Cuba? And please consider the move quickly. Like STAT.
@NotAChance @Social Glimpse Compassion is for folks like yourself, you are so forlorn and lost no real leader, certainly no governor, nor president nor senator hears your pain, perhaps there is clergy that could help?
@Social Glimpse Wow , the evil guns just jump right off the table and fire on thier own accord . God forbid we address the issues with the lack of laws already on the books.
heck in Oregon you cant even punich a murderer with the death penalty because the Obaminators lapdog, Kitzhobbler, wont allow the voter chosen punishment to be executed.
Cartoon Whackos on the gun fringe???? How very mature!!Â
 I feel so sorry for those liberal sheeple that belive that when firearms go away so will will the violence. I am sure Germany thought that too in the 1930s. We saw how that worked out.
@Civ Really you would call us Nazi? it just really is hard for you, I get that, to live in a liberal part of the world up and down this coast we outnumber you, and we offer many services for your benefit, that is a contrast you may enjoy, for while we make fun at times of grizzled commenters who espouse your version, not our reality, so please seek help, it is there, we care about all Americans and we provide.
@Social Glimpse @Civ "we care about all Americans and we provide"
Tell that BS to the ones who discovered the police showed up about 1 minute too late.
@Social Glimpse Nor will the people who support our constitutional rights,  and we will prevail in holding the gun-grabbers feet to the fire.
good on you, Washington! Â Fight the hysteria!Â
Now it's Oregon's turn. Â Look to California for all the wonderful "progress" further restrictions brings. Â Not in Oregon. Â Not on my watch.
"supporters of gun control had seen this year as the greatest chance for major changes in state law"Â
Never let a good crisis go to waste, huh.
Next up - banning lead. Then re-education camps for all those wishing to own a gun. Or perhaps Homeland "Security" could just buy every bullet on the shelf so no one can have any.
@TimBurr --- the bleeding heart liberals are sick and tired of their support base of coddled criminals dying of lead poisoning.
Lawmakers, here's a test for the efficiency of any new anti violence anti gun law. Why don't all of you personally wear a sandwich board just like Bruce Willis wore in the movie "Diehard", walk around alone in a few of the worst crime ridden cities in the country after passing your newest anti crime law. See how that works out for you. In other words, it's not your new laws that are going to change society's behavior. Change begins at home, with good families, with good parents, which unfortunately are fewer, and their importance are not supported by a majority of today's society.Â
My welcome sign.
Due to the price increase of ammunition ... due not expect a warning shot!
Thank you for your understanding.Â
@oldcouvguy "My welcome sign.
Due to the price increase of ammunition ... due not expect a warning shot!
Thank you for your understanding. "
Print me up a few of those will ya please...Â
@cwpholder @oldcouvguy Due to the price of ink consumables, I'm not sure they're even worthy of a warning.