Wash. lawmakers near deal on expanded gun background checks

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington lawmakers are beginning to coalesce around a plan that would expand the state's laws on gun background checks, providing hope for supporters after years of failed efforts.
Gun measures have flooded the Legislature this year, with some lawmakers proposing that teachers have the ability to carry firearms and others looking to add new fees to gun transactions. The universal background checks plan, however, has emerged as the most surprising proposal that has bipartisan support.
Ralph Fascitelli, who leads the gun control group Washington Ceasefire, said the organization didn't believe earlier this year that the idea had a chance of passing the Legislature. That has changed in just the last couple weeks.
"We are increasingly optimistic," Fascitelli said.
While the measure is supported by many Democrats, the background checks plan also picked up support from Republican Rep. Mike Hope of Lake Stevens, Republican Sen. Steve Litzow of Mercer Island and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Democrat who has aligned himself with Republicans this year. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.
Background checks are already required when purchases are made at federally licensed gun shops. The bill would expand that requirement to sales between private parties.
Litzow said the bill would do nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.
"It's a common-sense approach to making sure that those who shouldn't own a gun aren't purchasing a gun," Litzow said.
Litzow said he also thinks there is broader support for efforts to change the mental health system, such as making sure there are counselors in schools and increasing capacity so that people can help get loved ones the care they need. Litzow also supports an effort to create penalties for people when children get their accessible guns and injure themselves or others.
The background checks bill is first getting a hearing in the state House next week.
Hope, a Seattle police officer, said the private transactions are occurring all the time and are attractive for criminals who can avoid a background check. He noted that when his employer recently held a gun buyback program, some people were on the streets buying weapons from people who were waiting in line.
"That's exactly what we want to go after. We don't know who's buying the gun," Hope said.
Don Pierce, legislative director at the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said curbing violence is only going to be accomplished through a combination of proposals and that the background checks are part of that.
"Part of the solution is to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill," Pierce said.
Hope said he expects the bill will pass the House. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jay Inslee said the office hasn't examined the specific language of the background check proposal but is supportive of the idea.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the bill would come in the state Senate, where the bill has been assigned to a committee dominated by pro-gun lawmakers. Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, expressed skepticism of whether the background check proposal would help, arguing that the state needs to focus instead on treating the mentally ill. She said she opposes bills that would limit the rights of gun users, such as an assault weapons ban or a limit on magazine capacity.
"You can be in the House and can be supporting some of the bills that will take our freedoms away, but they will die in the Washington state Senate," Roach said.
Fascitelli, the gun control proponent, said he's not very confident the bill would make it out of committee, either. But he's hopeful the Senate will be able to bypass that process and bring the measure straight to the floor.
Litzow said he hasn't yet discussed the gun bill with members of the Senate committee. He wasn't sure about the idea of bypassing the panel.
"I don't think that's necessary at this point," Litzow said.
For the " shall not be infringed" crowd: Under your logic, the following are unconstitutional: Any required background checks, any ban on fully automatic weapons, any ban on machine guns, any ban on FELONS possessing weapons, any ban on Mentally Ill persons owning weapons, any ban on armor-piercing ammunition, etc.
Â
Interesting note: The CDC and the NIH are barred from collecting any statistics on gun fatalities (legislation passed in 2002 by the Republican Congress and signed by President Bush). In 2001, the CDC reported that more Americans were killed with their own weapons in Burgleries then defended themselves with guns in such Burglaries. Since this contradicted the NRA script on "self-defense", they gave over $1,000,000 in contributions to the 13 sponsors of the legislation to prevent the information from being collected.
I am okay with background checks on -modern- firearms for sales outside of immediately family, for holding parents accountable for gun violence involving children, etc, but I want to see the fine print before I'd vote for anything like that. If they attempt to ban high-capacity magazines, AR-15s, scary-looking shotguns or pistol grips I'll refuse to support or even consider ANY of it, nor will I support anything those politicians and their supporters endorse such as public education and public broadcasting until all of those politicians are gone and we can start with a clean slate. You're not going to get people to stop buying, making and exchanging these things anyway. I respect no right you might award yourself to take things away from law-abiding people, so don't tell me what to do. That's the line. Don't cross it.
As a gun rights advocate myself I don't see how other gun rights supporters could be against this.
 @darren vandervort Well, the polls all show that the majority of people in the country want expanded laws like these ones, including the majority of gun owners. It's just there is a very vocal small population of people who seem to think any regulation is a violation of their rights. But apparently when they were reading the Bill of Rights, they missed the whole "well regulated" wording in the right that they keep pointing to.
 @Jenni S.  @darren vandervort Any regulation is considered a foot in the door; a precedent to violate further rights. I understand that. The problem is that the anti-gun lobby does not. The reason the anti-gun lobby doesn't get it is because they haven't seen the Feinstein interviews from 1995 when she says
Â
âIf I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of themâ¦. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.â
Â
Now she's decided that anything with a pistol grip ought to be illegal, and it ought to be a crime for my brother and I to swap AR-15 magazines and that we should all give them up.
Â
No. You keep bringing up "well-regulated" but what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are you wishing people would ignore?
@Playanekes@Jenni S.@darren vandervort Actually there are two parts to the Second Amendment 1 . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State  2 . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. below are the two different texts used for this.
Bottom line is Well regulated has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
Â
Â
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Â
Â
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Â
 @darren vandervort Well...we are responsible gun owners...there are two types of gun owners out there...the ones who actually would like to see something done...and the "extreme" ones, the anti-government/militia types who like to keep things the way they are.  We need to make changes and evolve with the times.
Less than 1% of firearms used in crimes are acquired via "gun show loop hole" or private transaction (outside family & friends). This should really accomplish something.
@Unknown ehhhhh, 1% of America is a lot of people..........
 @Unknown Yes, I too would like to see some link to back up your comment.....enlighten us please.
@Unknown Can you provide a link to your source for that stat?
Hey law makers...how bout we put some responsibility in the hands of the gun onwer themselves if their firearm is used in a crime? If responsible gun owners...(like myself) have their weapons secure and locked away...we wouldn't have had two of these most recent shootings. Both Clackamas and Conn. shootings were acted out with weapons that didn't belong to the shooter. If a law passes that you will be fined or charged with negligence...and even possibly have that weapon taken from you...this might get some people to start taking their gun ownership/responsibility a bit more seriously. Just a thought. Â
 @PD1202 Yes, lets charge Adam Lanza's dead mom's corpse with crimes.
 @Unknown  @PD1202 Clearly you're just out for revenge, not prevention.
Â
Mizzus Lanza has already been judged and sentenced. If you want more than that you're going to have to kill yourself and take it up with her personally.
 @Unknown  @PD1202 Yep...just the answer I was looking for coming from you.  You obviously are one of those gun lovers who leave a loaded gun in your nightstand..right?  If you had any intelligence, you would understand where I am coming from on this issue....gee, why did I take those two incidents as an example?  Yeah, unfortunately she paid the ultimate price by dying at the hands of her son with her own firearm.
 @flyingtime  @PD1202 Of course you would....hey brainiac, I do have a loaded firearm next to my bed...but, hey...it's in a safe..and it only takes one flick of the numbers to open it, so I'm well prepared thank you.  God, I hope you don't have children....one day he/she finds it and...........? How would you feel about that.
@PD1202 @Unknown   and where else are you going to leave your loaded gun for protection...unloaded, locked in a safe that takes 10 minutes to open...and it only takes the bad buy a few seconds to take you out? Why even have a weapon if that is what you think should be done. Actually, if it weren't so uncomfortable, I would wear mine just like Wyatt Earp......only 24 hours a day............................
This will make a huge difference for idiots who aren't supposed to get a gun at gun shows and punish shade gun owners who sells guns illegally to those who shouldn't own it. Â
Â
Being an avid gun owner carrier, I wouldn't trust half the people going to gun shows to have a steady job or pay taxes, much less with a gun. Â
Â
The same argument for gun control - apply it to rape, drugs, or racism.  Then why have any laws or control, as criminals will always do them.
Â
Here is one gun happy and toting dude who supports closing the loop and make it just a bit less easy for illegals to get guns.
 @Benjamin Schniffle Less than 1% of guns used in crimes are bought at gun shows (I think it is actually 0.6%).
Â
Most are straw purchases done by family or friend (already illegal) or stolen.Â
 @Unknown  @Benjamin Schniffle How are you going to regulate straw purchases?"Jethro, I need to fix my truck. You wanna by my old Ruger?"
And how much do you want to bet that it will make little to no difference.....
Say what you want, pass all the bills that make legally owning guns more restrictive that you want, it won't matter, because the bad guys will still be exempt from having to play by the rules. Why do you think they are called bad guys? Duh! Again, politicians think that their knee-jerk reactions and over-reactions will solve all the problems and save the day.
@theobserver Remember: every gun that ends up in the hands of a bad guy started out in the hands of a "good guy." I use the quotation marks to suggest that maybe, just maybe, some of the definitions of "good guy" need to be refined a bit. Like including those who can legally buy guns but who illegally sell them to criminals. And PLEASE NOTE: Very few of the guns that end up in bad hands were stolen. Most were purchased by criminals from traffickers (aka "collectors" and "hobbyists").
Looks like another screwed up law I will ignore when I buy a gun from a private party...
Â
So then, if this law passes...you will be breaking the law right? So much for that "law abiding citizen" thing huh? Why is it you har core gun lovers can't agree on this law? This is actually a good thing. Yeah, it probably won't make a whole heck of a difference in the begging...but, it's a start. I have nothing to hide on my background.....do you?
 @PD1202 Exactly !! these stupid laws are going to make criminal out of alot of currently law biding citizens. Now if you do the background checks THAT ARE CURRENTLY DONE on purchasers in the state of Oregon and Washington, and not keep the records of what was bought and where it is stored , that is fine.Â
Â
If  those records include the firearm and the address where it is stored,  that gives the feds a database on where to confiscate the firearms,  that is really bad and sets us law biding gun owners to go from citizens to patriots because all us law biding gun owner WILL NOT turn over our firearms.  I am sure us law biding gun owning citizens outnumber law enforcement and the military 50 to 1, at least.
 @Civ More Civil War talk eh' Civ...??  If you're a "law biding" citizen, then you have nothing to worry bout?  Right?  50 to 1??  That makes me just laugh...Do you have some drones hidden in your basement we need to know about?  Or how bout a tank?  Or a Fighter jet?  Go away. Â
 @PD1202 You can't figure out the difference between civil disobedience and gun violence, can you?Yeah. We're all gonna break the law. Just like pot smokers do in America. The hard-core gun lovers don't trust the knee-jerk nonsensical, hate-filled (calling the NRA "terrorists," the Stephen King nonsense) rhetoric by the anti-gun lobby and idiots like Feinstein telling people to trust the LAPD to protect citizens.
 @1911R1 Me too.