Universal background checks.

[SleightOfHand]

As a Californian living behind the curtain and not in a "free state" let me tell you first hand that background checks are the foot in the door to screwing gun owners.

I would support a BIDS system over our current mess in CA, but a pre-emptive check done by the potential buyer like what Koda suggested in post #22 with verification by the seller seems to be the least intrusive while still providing verification on both sides.

 

[Tom Servo]

Just because your state is lost doesn't mean the rest of us are - it may not play in Peoria, but it flies in Phoenix!

Sure, until there's a mass shooting or until the political winds change.

Plenty of people ignored the Assault Weapons Ban because it was just about machine guns. Bill Clinton was an OK sorta guy, and he wasn't going after our hunting rifles, right?

Let's not forget that the Manchin-Toomey bill only failed by six votes. That's far too close for comfort.

Last week saw a change in the political balance in Washington DC. Schumer and Feinstein may not care what the NRA thinks of them, but I can guarantee many of the folks taking seats in January do. We need to start getting in touch with them now and making it clear we plan on holding their feet to the fire on RKBA issues. None of these guys wants to be a one-termer.

If you have state-level organizations, now is the time to get them proactively involved in educating legislators on this issue.

 

[AKexpat]

Washington’s I-594 To Be Protested By Mass Felony Civil Disobedience


http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...ntend-to-engage-in-civil-disobedience-129444/

 

[TimSr]

Background checks are just another one of those "compound laws" to make innocent people suffer the consequences for not stopping those who cannot lawfully own or posess a firearm from breaking laws that are already on the books. If a felon buys a gun, we would all agree that he should be prosecuted. Background checks force an innocent seller to investigate a potential buyer so that we can prosecute the seller if he is duped into making a sale to a felon, often with penlaties greater than the felon will suffer.

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but millions were checked with NICS. Hundreds of thousands were denied. Hundreds of thousand were also improperly denied. A couple dozen were prosecuted for attempting to illegally purchase, and I believe convictions were in the teens.

If you are checking a 1,000,000 people, and you are getting 12 convictions out of 1,000,000, I think you are wasting an awful lot of law enforcement dollars, and getting very little return.

There is no constitutionl presumption of guilt when exercising the Bill of Rights. The burden of proof is on the state to prove your guilt, not on you to prove you are innocent.

One common sense, non-intrusive idea was prposed years ago. Not that it would solve anything, but it wasn't a burden on the law abiding.

When someone is convicted of an offense that puts them under disability, that information is sent to the states Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and the disability status is noted in some way on their state ID or driver's license. Register the felons, not the innocent.

 

[jrwhitt]

The problem with any of the "Instant Check" provisions for Person to Person sales is not the method of the initial check, but the proof of the fact the check took place later when Law Enforcement is investigating.

Any provision that provides proof, implies registration of the transaction and will most likely then require some personal details to be kept in a database (for futher verification of the transaction). If no details are kept, we could all use the same transaction number for any transaction.

This is where I have a problem with the UBC chants. Living in CA I already know what a pain a "Verified" transaction can entail.

The FFL's have no incentive to process the PPT transactions without a sale, or significant costs for the check being added as fees.

 

[dayman]

I imagine I'd define a loop hole about the same way anyone else would - a method or circumventing an undesirable rule.

Assuming one accepts the idea that some people should not be allowed to own guns, and accepts that background checks at firearms dealers as the most obvious way to enforce that, then a prohibited persons ability to go onto the local online classifieds, choose one of the hundreds of available guns and purchase it without having a background check is pretty much the definition of a loophole.

Maybe that never happens, but it seems unlikely.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying I support any of the universal background check bills that have come through. However, I'm not at all opposed to the basic premise that all advertised gun sales require some sort of a background check.

But as long as we leave the book writing up to "everytown" we're never going to get anything like that.
And I suspect that - if they're not given a third option - a fair number of voters will be more concerned about making it harder for a wacko to buy a gun then they will about making it easy for me to loan a gun to a friend, or give my guns to my kids.

I suspect after Washington state were going to see more ballot initiatives, and I'd hate for the choice to be limited to no ubc, or everytown ubc.

 

[2ndsojourn]

Dayman,

"...then a prohibited persons ability to go onto the local online classifieds, choose one of the hundreds of available guns and purchase it without having a background check is pretty much the definition of a loophole."

A lot of folks will probably agree with you. But, private sales were specifically exempted from background checks in the federal statute. A loophole is a flaw in the law that allows someone to skirt the intent of the law. Some states already require all sales, including private FTF sales, to be done through a FFL, which will include a background check.

 

[carguychris]

One common sense, non-intrusive idea was prposed years ago. Not that it would solve anything, but it wasn't a burden on the law abiding.

When someone is convicted of an offense that puts them under disability, that information is sent to the states Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and the disability status is noted in some way on their state ID or driver's license. Register the felons, not the innocent.

Another idea is to broadly exempt people who hold CHL's (or CPL's), LEO's, officers of the court, and licensed armed guards from the transfer requirements.

It's altogether too easy for folks from gun-friendly states to dismiss these ideas ("ZOMG LICENSING BLACK HELICOPTERS PANIC AAAAGH!"), but IMHO in cases like NY, CT, MA, and WA, it's the lesser of two evils- by a wide margin.

 

[2ndsojourn]

From carguy:

"Another idea is to broadly exempt people who hold CHL's (or CPL's), LEO's, officers of the court, and licensed armed guards from the transfer requirements."

Even New Jersey has that! As long as the potential buyer has a FOID card, you're good to go (for long guns, anyway).

 

[Bella]

The problem with gun laws is their enforcement, or should I say lack of enforcement. I do believe that is part of the anti's strategy. They keep pushing for ineffective and unenforced gun laws. When they don't work they will then decide there is one last solution... Guess what that is?

 

[armoredman]

Sure, until there's a mass shooting or until the political winds change.

Yes indeed, something like a sitting US Congresswoman shot in the head by a lunatic killer in a Safeway parking lot in broad daylight on the north side of Tucson, that would certainly change all the political winds in Arizona....didn't it?

I see the winds of compromise blowing through so cold on a day we celebrate those who didn't compromise their way to victory. I will bow out of this conversation to avoid cluttering it up with any more of my "drivel" and "uncompromising standards". I wish all of you the finest of days, gentlemen, ladies.

 

[Tom Servo]

Washington’s I-594 To Be Protested By Mass Felony Civil Disobedience

First off, they don't seem to understand the law as written. The first offense is a gross misdemeanor, not a felony.

Second, how do they think this will change perceptions? Passers-by are unlikely to understand the message if they just see a bunch of folks shuffling guns.

Third, they seem to be overestimating the potential turnout. According to the article, they got 5500 RSVP's, but "a rally against I-594 that took place in downtown Seattle last month only attracted around 300 people."

How about supporting lawsuits against the law rather than confusing and dangerous public displays?

If you are checking a 1,000,000 people, and you are getting 12 convictions out of 1,000,000, I think you are wasting an awful lot of law enforcement dollars, and getting very little return.

Yes, but those 12 prosecutions will have a chilling effect on everybody if they're publicized. Supporters of I-594 only need to generate an "it could happen to me" mentality to give it teeth.

The FFL's have no incentive to process the PPT transactions without a sale, or significant costs for the check being added as fees.

Or they can simply refuse to do the checks at all. I've heard this out of Colorado. Some folks are having to drive hundreds of miles to find a dealer willing to do the transfers. The result is a serious impediment to exercising a right.

This sounds absolutely awful, but one means of fighting the law would be to have all dealers in the state refuse to perform the checks. This will place such a burden on the right as to irreparably damage it. If you're not familiar with the 7th Circuit's decision in Ezell,, they agreed with that when they found Chicago's ban on shooting ranges unconstitutional.

Assuming one accepts the idea that some people should not be allowed to own guns, and accepts that background checks at firearms dealers as the most obvious way to enforce that

I don't accept that. It's not true. There's no evidence that the Brady Act has reduced crime in any category. We've come to accept the idea that background checks "make sense," despite the fact that we got along just fine for over 200 years without them.

They do not reduce crime. They are simply a wedge strategy for further infringements.

 

[Jim Watson]

If we can replace NICS with something that might actually work, cost less money, and be overall less invasive, I don't see why anybody wouldn't be for it.

They started out with a five day waiting period for background check, also Statist Defined as "cooling off period." (This superceded my state's long time two day wait complete with notification to local LE that I was buying a pistol.)
The "instant check" by phone to a clerk contracted to the FBI was acclaimed by most for its "convenience."
I maintain that a right conveniently infringed is still infringed. Maybe worse.

As one income tax revisionist stated, if you had to pay your income tax in a lump sum instead of having it conveniently deducted from your salary over the year for interest free use by the government, you might pay more attention to government spending.
Most people just think of it as a convenient savings plan, though, kind of an Uncle Sam's Christmas Club.

 

[ATN082268]

Fight to the end !!!

Here's the problem. If we think we can win, we need to pull out the stops to try to defeat things like UBC. But if winning all the marbles is doubtful, we need to be at the table to try to help craft something the least obnoxious.

I think that stuff like the Universal Background Check (UBC) should always be fought against regardless of its chances of passing.

If something like the UBC is likely to pass, then I doubt they would allow the opposition any meaningful input to the bill. If passing something like the UBC is a close call, then I still think it is worth fighting against because any passage will result in more infringement on gun rights; if the advocates pass something like the UBC but had to capitulate in some areas, they'll just come back later to finish it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If something like the UBC is likely to pass, then I doubt they would allow the opposition any meaningful input to the bill....

You'd be surprised what effective political advocacy, with sufficient numbers behind it, can accomplish.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 had tremendous political support, and nothing could have stopped it. But the original bill contained a number of particularly repugnant provisions, including: a requirement that persons buying certain types of ammunition show ID; a national gun registry; and a requirement that anyone carrying a gun be licensed. Through its lobbying efforts the NRA was able to keep those provision out of the final law.

Clinton's AWB had great support, but the NRA was able to get a sunset clause inserted.

As has been being discussed, Washington State's I-594 is seriously flawed from our perspective. Could at least the worst of those flaws have been avoided if the matter were handled through the legislative rather than the initiative process? It's certainly a possibility. California has UBC, but the California law was enacted through the legislative process and has sufficient exceptions of the right sort to be much easier to live with than I-594 is likely to be.

 

[Bella]

Is it as easy to live with as one handgun a month?

 

[AKexpat]

Quote:
Washington’s I-594 To Be Protested By Mass Felony Civil Disobedience

I am a WA State resident. I will not comply.

First off, they don't seem to understand the law as written. The first offense is a gross misdemeanor, not a felony.

It matters not. Would you want to be charged with a gross misdemeanor? I am assuming you have no criminal record. If you do have one, a gross misdemeanor is nothing if you have a felony record. If not, you now have a criminal record insofar as an arrest and you are on their radar for awhile.

Second, how do they think this will change perceptions? Passers-by are unlikely to understand the message if they just see a bunch of folks shuffling guns.

It is NOT about changing perceptions for the somewhat informed public that voted for I-594 that did not read the initiative and felt it was a feel-good law. It is all about making a physical statement concerning the constitutional right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

Third, they seem to be overestimating the potential turnout. According to the article, they got 5500 RSVP's, but "a rally against I-594 that took place in downtown Seattle last month only attracted around 300 people."

You [don't understand] WA politics or Seattle logistics. If a conservative rally is held in Seattle, the traffic and parking problems would stop anyone from outside the Pugetropolis area from attending. The Capitol in Olympia is much more accessible.

The percentage of gunowners in WA State is about 30%. That includes all of the very rural areas outside King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties, which live upon fast food and have no clue about owning SD firearms. Your dog don't hunt.

How about supporting lawsuits against the law rather than confusing and dangerous public displays?

What in the hell is a dangerous public display when the protest has been announced several weeks in advance, the cops will be there?

 

[Evan Thomas]

We're all on the same side here. Let's tone it down a bit, OK?

 

[dayman]

And that's basically the attitude I was talking about...
If a person shows any signs of being able to make rational compromises, or disagrees with any one of the myriad of bad ideas put out by any one of the thousand or so active gun rights groups, they're instantly labeled as being "pro gun control".
That kind of limits any pro-2a legislators ability to get involved and move things in a favorable direction.

Doesn't seem like an effective way of getting what we want.

 

[Tom Servo]

If a person shows any signs of being able to make rational compromises, or disagrees with any one of the myriad of bad ideas put out by any one of the thousand or so active gun rights groups, they're instantly labeled as being "pro gun control".

I don't believe anyone here said that.

That said, I'd like to hear your definition of "compromise." Please tell me exactly what it is Washington gun owners gained from I-594.

This is a central problem with the gun debate: the other side wants to take things from us, but they offer nothing in return except perhaps the promise they're not going to make it worse. Yowza.

Of course, they have every intention of breaking even that feeble promise as soon as the political situation is right.

As soon as the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban were signed into law (in some cases, that very night), their supporters went on the talk-show circuit to tell everyone this was only the first step. I can pull quotes from all of them talking about more severe restrictions, up to and including total bans. That includes the current Vice President and all of the sponsors of last year's two attempted federal bills.

This is not a new game. It's been going on for a long time. They can trot out the "compromise" rhetoric to make us look like we don't care about violence, but some of us remember history enough to know better.

That kind of limits any pro-2a legislators ability to get involved and move things in a favorable direction.

Actually, it has nothing to do with pro-2A legislation. If you think the gun-control lobby cooperated one iota with us on Stand Your Ground and concealed carry laws, guess again. We did that despite them, not with their help. Same goes for FOPA and the Tiahrt Amendment.