Background checks for gun sales? Initiative drive announced

What the Legislature didn’t do, voters might, say supporters of criminal-background checks for gun sales – here’s their announcement of an initiative drive:

Dozens of interfaith and denominational faith leaders from throughout the state came together this morning and announced plans to pursue a 2014 initiative to the legislature requiring criminal background checks for firearm sales in Washington State. The legislature adjourned yesterday without passing similar legislation.

“Today we are announcing a statewide campaign to bring an initiative to the State Legislature calling for universal background checks,” said Reverend Paul G. Ryan of St. James Cathedral in Seattle. “Preventing gun violence is not only a political issue; it is a solemn moral obligation.”

The faith leaders initially organized following the December tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, where 20 children and 6 adults lost their lives. Joining with the newly formed Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the coalition worked to pass background checks in Olympia where it was a priority for a bi-partisan team of legislators and Governor Jay Inslee.

When it was clear that the bill would not reach a vote, the coalition decided to adopt an initiative strategy to address this urgent issue of public health and safety.

“We will no longer wait,” said Rabbi Daniel Weiner of Temple De Hirsch Sinai. We will no longer wait as another family grieves the death of a loved one, as another youth is shot down on our streets. We will not wait for another Café Racer, or another Sandy Hook. The time has come for sensible violence protection measures.”

Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick, a former legislator and longtime supporter of closing background check loopholes, gave his support to the initiative launch.

“For law enforcement, criminal background checks are essential in protecting lives and property. Closing loopholes in our existing laws is common sense and long overdue,” said Lovick. “Like many, I am disappointed that the legislature failed to take action on this issue, and Congress remains unwilling—even in the face of overwhelming loss and overwhelming public outcry— to take action.”

“This is a public health crisis,” said King County Executive Dow Constantine, who in his role as executive oversees the state’s largest public health department. “130 people die in King County every year from firearm use, more than auto accidents. The cost is not only human life but millions in medical and emergency costs, and an estimated $174 million in lost work and productivity. Like any health crisis, we can solve it, but it will take decisive action—at the local, state, and federal level—to make real progress.”

The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility will finalize language for the initiative in the coming weeks and begin gathering signatures in the summer months. Signatures on this type of initiative are due in January. If the legislature failed to take action, it will be placed on the 2014 general election ballot.

The group is planning a May 30 fundraising event to formally launch campaign efforts.

46 Replies to "Background checks for gun sales? Initiative drive announced"

  • stephanie April 29, 2013 (11:20 am)

    Where is the like button!

  • Rob April 29, 2013 (11:28 am)

    “130 people die in King County every year from firearm use…”
    How many of these were Police related or in self defense? Just asking from a strict stats point of view. And of those NOT related to those two groups, how many were shot by people that obtained their weapon through a process that is and will always be illegal?

    And finally, is murder illegal?

  • ws born & bred April 29, 2013 (12:08 pm)

    Though I do agree that criminal background checks should be required for gun ownership, I would also like to see real statistics on gun related deaths and how many were obtained by stolen or illegally sold guns vs legally owned guns vs police vs self defense as the previous commenter mentioned. Its so easy to present a statistic in a misleading way. Requiring criminal background checks, while I agree that it should be required, I have a hard time believing that it will actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I also think that concealed carry permits if not all owners should be required to have a safety course or pass a test.

  • Mike April 29, 2013 (12:19 pm)

    Yes!

  • Ray April 29, 2013 (12:27 pm)

    I will support this when we require proof of citizenship to vote as well. As a cornerstone of our entire republic, I find it hypocritical that you can support one but not the other.

    In the spirit of our political process, good luck on the initiative. I am many others will fight you the entire way, but I fully support you in your process.

  • Blinkyjoe April 29, 2013 (12:38 pm)

    Let’s hope any initiative will be crafted so it is constitutionally legal. Haven’t we seen more than a couple initiatives that have passed, only to be struck down because poorly crafted?

  • Marco April 29, 2013 (1:01 pm)

    @Rob – I think the source of this statistic is http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/data/GunViolence.aspx

    I couldn’t find a good source of how many people were killed by KC police… only found this quote:

    the report says. In a review of 15 shootings in which 11 people were hit and eight died, statements from deputies were “often truncated and self-serving

    Via http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019116250_sheriffreport11m.html?prmid=4939 and the report mentions that it looks at 15 shootings between 2005 – 2011. I don’t know, if those were all the shootings.

  • Smitty April 29, 2013 (1:01 pm)

    I think we should perform criminal background checks on high-capacity pressure cookers too.

    For the children……

    Also, would this have stopped Newtown or Columbine?

  • Wendell April 29, 2013 (1:02 pm)

    Seems to me the “no background checks” thing has been tried and it doesn’t work. So let’s try background checks? Yes, criminals will still get guns, but stats? Do me a favor… how many people die from guns in this country every year(?) No need to compare our gun deaths with any other country, just look at the numbers. And yes, I do believe in the right to bear arms. I just hope this initiative isn’t poorly written and ends up in the same place as proposals from our weak-knee’d legislators.

  • G April 29, 2013 (1:03 pm)

    Likely to have little effect on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

  • dave April 29, 2013 (1:09 pm)

    This is an attempt to create “feel good” legislation that will not change a thing.
    .
    Criminals will continue to acquire their firearms illegally.
    .
    The REAL “public health crisis” is drunk driving. Why are we allowing multiple DUI’s?

  • Marco April 29, 2013 (1:10 pm)

    Background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of all criminals, but if they keep some guns away, it was worth it.

    The 2nd amendment mentions “well regulated”.

  • K April 29, 2013 (1:25 pm)

    I was unaware that someone could buy a gun in Washington without a “background check”. Can you tell me which store is doing this or whom you know of who did this?
    Will criminals get background checks if this initiative passes? Or do you think that they will procure a gun by other means? How many lives will this initiative save? Hopefully someone can answer my questions. Thank you.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 29, 2013 (1:25 pm)

    I support gun control.
    .
    BUT the type of gun control being discussed now WILL NOT prevent another Sandy Hook.
    .
    Washington Gun Collectors, who run many of the gun shows, ALREADY requires a background check to become a member. If you go to a WAC gun show you MUST be a member in order to buy a gun. The background check is ALREADY conducted.
    .
    If you are purchasing a gun or appling for a CPL there is already a background check conducted. If you walk in to a gun shop with a CPL you can take the gun home right then. If you DO NOT have a CPL, you must pass the background check BEFORE you can take the gun home.
    .
    You DO NOT need a CPL to own a handgun in WA. WA has an “OPEN Carry” law. If the handgun is PLAINLY visible, a license IS NOT required while carrying it.
    .
    You have to be 21 to BUY or OWN a handgun in WA. Although you can be younger if you are going to a shooting range and under the direct supervision of 21 or over.
    .
    One item that doesn’t get reported, if it is even released by the police, is if in a crime involving a gun, is the person a LEGAL or ILLEGAL gun owner. This bit of data NEEDS to be released to see just where the problem lies.
    .
    It would REALLY benefit people who WANT to do something concerning gun control to read up on WA RCW 9.41.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9.41
    .
    So far ALL the gun control laws that have been proposed and/or enacted WOULD NOT have prevented ANY of the “mass shootings” that have occurred. All they do is hinder those who ARE ALREADY OBEYING the laws concerning gun ownership and purchasing.
    .
    If these people were RALLY serious about doing something about gun violence, then they should be DEMANDING that current laws be enforced and penalties/sentencing be INCREASED. If the current laws prove ineffective, THEN start contemplating NEW laws that DO NOT interfere with 2nd Amendment Rights!!!

  • dave April 29, 2013 (1:42 pm)

    Stats for the REAL public health crisis in Washington State (from M.A.D.D.):
    .
    2010: 170 Alchohol-Related Deaths
    .
    37% of all traffic accident fatalities caused by DUI.
    .
    There were 19,783 THREE-TIME DUI offenders.
    .
    DUI fatalities cost the state $935 million.
    .
    We don’t need MORE laws, we need to ENFORCE the ones we already have!

  • LivesInWS April 29, 2013 (1:48 pm)

    2nd Amendment rights — The Founding Fathers were not referring to pistols or semi- or automatic weapons.

  • Marco April 29, 2013 (1:50 pm)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Controversies

    Presently, 18 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Colorado (§12-26.1-101 and § 24-33.5-424, CRS), Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Seven states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 29, 2013 (1:50 pm)

    We don’t need MORE laws, we need to ENFORCE the ones we already have!
    .
    THIS!!!!!
    .
    Not only do we need to do this for guns, but for drinking and driving, illegal immigration, education…etc!!!
    .
    As a city, county, state and country, we have decided that laws need to be changed instead of being enforced!!!!

  • onceachef April 29, 2013 (1:52 pm)

    I didn’t want to get into this but the comment by Ex-Westwood Resident lit the fire. Here goes –

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

    So, your right (2nd Amendment advocates) to own a gun is still intact. How the state or federal governments go about limiting or “guiding” the purchase of a gun is not protected under this law. Stop whining and clinging to the preconceived notion that “my rights are being trampled”…it’s nauseating as well as an inane argument to keep hearing this. Go buy a gun if you have to. But, the government should check you out and make you jump through whatever hoops you have to in order to own one. If the NRA is concerned about mental illness (all of a sudden!) then I think you should also have to take a psychological evaluation test to make sure you’re not insane – after all the all powerful NRA is suggesting that’s the path to less gun deaths – you must obey the NRA, right? Guns are inherently made TO KILL…not defend, not to play with, but TO KILL – someone or something. Get real.

  • RB April 29, 2013 (2:13 pm)

    I don’t understand why people are so against background checks. 1) gun controls should prevent any criminal shooting, not just mass murder or columbine like events.
    2) enforcement of checks will show buyers and sellers that we are serious about gun control and not just talking about.
    3) if you think only law abiding citizen buy guns, what is the fuss about? the drug addict complains about drug testing, not the “clean” person.
    4) I agree that criminals will get guns anyways, this measure will reduce the amount of quasi criminals rather than stop the mob leader to get a gun.

  • dave April 29, 2013 (2:15 pm)

    onceachef:
    I’m confused. So guns aren’t made to defend?
    .
    Might want to pass this information on to law enforcement, because I think they might be under the apparently false impression that they are protecting and defending us with their guns…

  • Tracy White April 29, 2013 (2:26 pm)

    Guns are made to fire a projectile out of their barrel, nothing more, nothing less. It is a person’s intent that decides whether or not that projective is headed towards a person, animal, or target. I’ve shot guns before and not once did the gun I used KILL.

  • onceachef April 29, 2013 (3:15 pm)

    dave, don’t be confused- sure you can call it that….”defense” in a military sense or a police/criminal confrontation usually ends up as “deadly defense”. But we arm and employ those people to do just that. There are justified, legal reasons to own a gun and shoot it, whether at someone or something…I get that. I will stick with my statement though that guns are made with the intent to kill – the “intention” of the user has to be there, but that’s the ultimate reason for a gun’s existence. The rationalizations are endless and I don’t expect to win (or care if I do) any arguments here…it’s just how I see things.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 29, 2013 (3:46 pm)

    onceachef,

    I have forgotten much more than you will EVER know about guns and gun control. I NEVER stated that the ownership of guns should be unlimitied, and neither has the NRA. In fact the NRA DOES and has ALWAYS has supported background checks in order to ensure those who are NOT allowed to own guns DON’T get them. What they are opposing is a NATIONAL registry that is tied to the background checks. You will also find that those who are gun owners DON’T believe in UNLIMITED ownership of ALL types of guns.
    .
    The fact that it take a SPECIAL LICENSE to purchase AND own a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon is proof of that.
    .
    ALL the guns used in the “mass shootings” were “Semi-Automatic” weapons, IOW they fire a round everytime the trigger is pulled, vise a FULLY automatic where with one trigger pull MANY rounds are fired. BTW the term “Assault Weapon” is a made up term. The correct term is “Assault Rifle” and ONL:Y applies to those weapons that can fire in the FULLY AUTOMATIC mode of fire.
    .
    The weapons used at Sandy Hook CT, Aurora CO, the Giffords shooting and VA Tech were NOT conducted using AUTOMATIC weapons OR “Assault Weapons”. The weapons used were Semi-Automatic handguns, used by persons who NOT ALLOWED to own them.
    .
    Sandy Hook: Adam Lanza STOLE the guns (a shotgun, AR-15 and 4 handguns) from his mother AFTER he murdered her. He SHOULD have been in a Mental Institution, but because of CT law, the process to involuntarily commiting him was extensive and time consumming (thanks the the ACLU).
    Aurora CO: The shooter was under the care of a Psych, and he should have reported him to the authorities. he was ineligble to own guns because of that.
    Giffords: Again the issue was the mantal state of the shooter. He was not allowed to own a hand gun, but got one anyway.
    VA Tech: The shooter LIED on the application and if the LAWS were enforce and applied as required he would not have been able to get the gun. But like 98% of the background checks conducted, it was never processed correctly or acted upon.
    .
    Of ALL the failed background checks conducted since 2008, only 2% have been prosecuted. THAT is a major reason why there are people like Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Cho were able to get the guns.
    .
    It would make sense to start enforcing the current laws BEFORE going “Chicken Little” and start enacting laws that will NOT affect those that obtain guns through illegal acts or lying on the forms.
    .
    Want to make a difference and some sense? Try enacting stiffer sentencing for gun crimes. 10 years for possession of a gun illegally, 20 if you commit a crime with it. Remove the BS age restricions, if you are 14 and use a gun in a crime you are charged and sentenced as an adult. Start conducting the Background check properly and prosecuting those who are found lying or trying to circumvent the LEGAL process.
    .
    I agree with common sense laws, but there IS NO WAY I WILL EVER SUPPORT ANY TYPE OF CITY, COUNTY, STATE or FEDERAL REGISTRY OF GUNS AND OWNERS. Ask the people of 30’s Germany, the USSR under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot…etc. ALL of those countries had enacted “Gun Registry” in the name of “Public Safety”

  • WTF April 29, 2013 (4:01 pm)

    Thanks for sharing that extremely important information with us @Dave. We ALL need to know and to heed those (no pun intended) sobering statistics. We should NEVER forget them.

    However, we are are on the topic of guns and gun legislation that would make it law to do criminal background checks when purchasing.

    I have to smile a little, because I remember, albeit done in newspapers & on the evening news, when states were grappling with seatbelt laws. So, many of the sentiments here about rights were expressed then. Suffice to say, sometimes, yes I’m going to say it, sometimes laws and regulations do help to protest us and in some instances just save us from ourselves.

  • Art Critic April 29, 2013 (4:16 pm)

    I say every time Tim Eyman files an initiative, we the people should file X3 for better ideas. The Professional Right thought the initiative process was all for their fun and games. Go “interfaith and denominational faith leaders” Go! Look to the language used in the recent Connecticut law.

  • G April 29, 2013 (4:22 pm)

    onceachef,

    Engaging in badgering does not contribute to the discussion. Let’s dispense with the silly notion that the NRA is directing how each of us think about the issue – they aren’t. This sort of rant puts you in the tin-foil crowd,sorry. We’re all adults capable of looking at the pros and cons without hand-holding from the NRA.

    While most of us don’t intrinsically have a problem with universal background checks, can anyone honestly deny that this isn’t a prelude to universal gun ownership restrictions? Your tenor of your post indicates that your goal is not just background checks, but the elimination of guns.

  • Dave April 29, 2013 (4:42 pm)

    If the government wants to take anything of yours they will, and none of your guns will protect you. So let’s can that argument and have universal background checks as a start to some more responsible gun laws.

  • Wendell April 29, 2013 (4:45 pm)

    I just want to know how some folks know, for sure, that background checks wouldn’t have stopped past murderous rampages?

  • Smitty April 29, 2013 (5:11 pm)

    “2nd Amendment rights — The Founding Fathers were not referring to pistols or semi- or automatic weapons.”

    Correct. And neither did they ever imagine the interweb would be a primary freedom of speech tool. What’s your point?

  • cascadianone April 29, 2013 (6:31 pm)

    Hahaha- Smitty, you beat me to it!

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 29, 2013 (6:40 pm)

    I just want to know how some folks know, for sure, that background checks wouldn’t have stopped past murderous rampages?
    .
    Because the shooters DID NOT obtain the guns used by LEGAL means. Therefore the background check system WAS NOT used. Did they get them from gun shows? I can’t speak for other states or other shows put on by groups other than Washington Arms Collectors, but if you go to a WAC sponsored gun show, in order to purchase a gun YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ALREADY PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK.
    .
    This is the crux of the issue. How do you prevent those that obtain guns ILLEGALLY???
    .
    As long as the focus is being placed on background checks, banning certain types of guns, banning magazines…etc., the mass shooting, drive by shootings, gang shootings…etc., WILL continue.
    .
    THAT is why I continue to hope that all shootings would include information if the shooter was a LEGAL gun owner, or obtained the gun/s used ILLEGALLY. It would REALLY shed the light on what type of gun “owner” is committing these crimes.
    .
    Remember, so far ALL the ideas presented by Obama, Biden, Feinstein, this group and other “anti gun” groups will ONLY effect those of us that are ALREADY obeying the law when purchasing guns. Which IMO opinion ARE NOT the problem here.

  • ZOne April 29, 2013 (6:48 pm)

    THIS IS A NON ISSUE EXCEPT FOR SHOWS PEOPLE! Why?:
    1. Anyone who purchases a firearm from a federally Licensed dealership MUST undergo a criminal background check already! No one in WA can just go purchase a firearm and take it home that day. The criminal background check must be completed usually no shorter than 3 days and no longer than 5 days.
    2. As to PRIVATE sales between non-criminals, WA has a form that must be filled out and sent in to advise of the sale similart to selling a car. Think for a second, if you sell your gun which you had to rergister after your criminal background check, would you neglect informiong the State the gun was sold? The Sate may legally perform a criminal background check on the new owner.
    3. Even the gun shows I’ve been to in WA also do criminal checks using NICS.
    4. Yes a huge black market is thriving thankfully so that honest citizens may hold firearms to protect thier families from government abuse like we saw recently in Boston. ————–
    It would be more worthwhile to follow the example of the Airlines arming pilots and having plain clothes agents ride in planes so that the hi-jackers know they won’t be the only ones with weapons. As such, why not train and license willing adults in the public sector such as teachers, librarians, even mall shop employees and those already with concealed carry permits who might be authorized to act within strict parameters to protect or distract the shooter?. It is so insane that after so many school shootings, mall shootings and the like we still allow the gunperson to be the only one armed until police arrive. That is insane! Good Grief people, the Crazies will always be armed…shall we endure yet another massacre of children huddled and defenseless? To repeat, I am not advocating a return to the Wild West, but a an highly trained citizen militia who may lawfully act within strict paramaters in the defense of the defenseless until regular City, State or Federal authorities arrive. Homeowners may protect thier homes withion certain parameters against intruders…we should have enough citizens to give pause to criminals bent on terror.

  • ZOne April 29, 2013 (6:51 pm)

    THIS IS A NON ISSUE EXCEPT FOR SHOWS PEOPLE! Why?:
    1. Anyone who purchases a firearm from a federally Licensed dealership MUST undergo a criminal background check already! No one in WA can just go purchase a firearm and take it home that day. The criminal background check must be completed usually no shorter than 3 days and no longer than 5 days.
    2. As to PRIVATE sales between non-criminals, WA has a form that must be filled out and sent in to advise of the sale similart to selling a car. Think for a second, if you sell your gun which you had to rergister after your criminal background check, would you neglect informiong the State the gun was sold? The Sate may legally perform a criminal background check on the new owner.
    3. Even the gun shows I’ve been to in WA also do criminal checks using NICS.
    4. Yes a huge black market is thriving thankfully so that honest citizens may hold firearms to protect thier families from government abuse like we saw recently in Boston. ————–
    It would be more worthwhile to follow the example of the Airlines arming pilots and having armed plain clothes agents ride in planes so that the hi-jackers know they won’t be the only ones with weapons. As such, why not train and license willing adults in the public sector such as teachers, librarians, even mall shop employees and those already with concealed carry permits who might be authorized to act within strict parameters to protect or distract the shooter?. It is so insane that after so many school shootings, mall shootings and the like we still allow the gunperson to be the only one armed until police arrive. That is insane! Good Grief people, the Crazies will always be armed…shall we endure yet another massacre of children huddled and defenseless? To repeat, I am not advocating a return to the Wild West, but a an highly trained citizen militia who may lawfully act within strict paramaters in the defense of the defenseless until regular City, State or Federal authorities arrive. Homeowners may protect thier homes withion certain parameters against intruders…we should have enough citizens to give pause to criminals bent on terror.

  • Kadoo April 29, 2013 (8:39 pm)

    Good to read! Um, want to change Rabbit to Rabbi in the text? Thanks.

    • WSB April 29, 2013 (8:50 pm)

      Sorry, I should have caught that when cutting and pasting.

  • Jim April 29, 2013 (9:09 pm)

    I don’t buy the “anything is better than nothing” argument. This seems like we’re just throwing ideas up against the wall and hoping some of them stick.

    I seriously doubt that this initiative would do anything other than burden law-abiding citizens.

    BTW, has anybody looked into the value of universal background checks when the subject has spent most of his or her life in another country?

  • Uncle Joe April 29, 2013 (9:15 pm)

    “Your tenor of your post indicates that your goal is not just background checks, but the elimination of guns.”
    Now THERE’S a good idea.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 29, 2013 (9:56 pm)

    Now THERE’S a good idea.
    .
    Ok lets do it. Ban and eliminate ALL guns.
    .
    Where should we start the NATION wide search of homes, cabins, caves, cars, persons…etc., to confiscate the guns? Key West? Nome Alaska? NE corner of Maine? San Diego CA?
    .
    While we are at it; ALL equipment that can be used to construct a gun MUST also be confiscated, along with controls and regulations placed on ANY material that can be used to make a gun.
    .
    Then there needs to be a registration of ALL persons that have the skill to make a gun.
    .
    Then we must secure ALL our borders 100% (would eliminate the Illegal Immigrant problem though) and conduct a 100% check of ALL incoming traffic and persons. We must also secure ALL our shorelines and again conduct a 100% check of ALL shipping and persons entering the US. Oh, and we can not forget ANY and ALL air traffic that enters the US too!
    .
    Does your plan also include the elimination of guns used by law enforcement and the military???
    .
    Still think it’s a good idea???

  • they April 30, 2013 (1:15 am)

    It’s so sad that instead of enforcing the rules on a few that won’t follow laws we write more rules for the many that do follow the laws. It’s just nuts…beam me up scotty!

  • redblack April 30, 2013 (6:57 am)

    ex-westwood:
    .

    The weapons used at Sandy Hook CT, Aurora CO, the Giffords shooting and VA Tech were NOT conducted using AUTOMATIC weapons OR “Assault Weapons”. The weapons used were Semi-Automatic handguns, used by persons who NOT ALLOWED to own them.

    .
    false. adam lanza used a bushmaster M4 assault rifle to murder 26 children in newtown, CT.
    .
    the elephant in the room is the gun and ammo industry. no one – certainly not this liberal – wants to confiscate guns from responsible, reasonable gun owners. we’re talking about catching the nutters before they obtain guns. but the industry has powerful PR to oppose any and all new regulations, and they’ve done a good job, so far, of obfuscating the issue, as evinced by some of the comments here.
    .
    after sandy hook, the first response i heard from some of our politicians and citizenry was that this was not the fault of the gun and ammo manufacturers. i wouldn’t worry. even a senate gun control bill that was projected to pass by nearly 70% was compromised by the $6 billion-per-year american gun industry.
    .
    but i fully understand the need to support the struggling gun and ammo manufacturers, especially considering that there is a gun for every man, woman, and child in america. (310 million.) and those are the ones that ATFE knows about.
    .
    5.5 million new guns are manufactured and sold in the u.s. each year, and 3.3 million are imported.
    .
    now, i understand our rights, and i fully support them. and as the sane, legal gun owners that i know we are, i think we can agree that adding a step in the legal, over-the-counter sale of guns in washington isn’t going to affect us sane, legal folks. right? because we’re not doing anything nefarious. are we?
    .
    forget about how criminals obtain guns. as many of you point out, it’s like comparing apples to typewriters. but if the extra law in question catches just one nutter who intends to shoot innocent, unsuspecting people, it’s worth it, in my opinion.
    .
    and who said anything about a universal registry of guns or their owners? i think this is paranoiac conspiracy-theory stuff, probably churned out by the industry to stop any changes in american gun laws – or a reduction of gun and ammo sales. think i’m kidding? look at the reaction of wayne lapierre after sandy hook. and look at the reaction of most of the posters here.
    .
    “buy more guns! arm pilots! arm teachers! heck, arm your kids!”
    .
    now ask yourself who benefits the most from such a reaction.
    .
    and just to keep things factual, washington state currently requires a carry permit, but no registry of guns or their owners. i see no mention of such a registry in the story above.
    .
    and please, by all means, don’t put up with any crap from namby-pamby liberals, victims of gun violence, or survivors’ families. the gun industry knows better and they have plenty of information campaigns to keep the arguments on track – not to mention fully-compliant state and federal governments to ensure that sales remain brisk.
    .
    all sarcasm aside, ignoring or dismissing the pleas of over 60% of the country to do something to curtail gun violence is not a reasonable reaction, in my opinion.

  • T Rex April 30, 2013 (8:26 am)

    So if Adam Lanza had not used his mothers gun and went to buy one, would his background check prevented him from buying a weapon or two? Nope, the mentally ill do not show up on a background checks people, unless they have a felony on their record.

    You can regulate the automatic weapons, it just means the nut jobs will just buy more hand guns. Crazy is crazy and if someone that disturbed as he was wants to kill people, they will find a way to kill people. Mental illness and violence is becoming a big big problem.

    It is my understanding that he was also addicted to extremely violent video games, will those too be regulated in the future? Background checks for those as well?

    Although I support it, I am not sure it is going to change anything.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 30, 2013 (12:52 pm)

    false. adam lanza used a bushmaster M4 assault rifle to murder 26 children in newtown, CT.
    .
    The last report I saw, on NBC, the CT ME stated that the the weapons used were 4 handguns. The AR-15 and a shotgun were found in the car Lanza used. In fact there was a video that showed both the AR and the shotgun in the trunk.
    .
    …i think we can agree that adding a step in the legal, over-the-counter sale of guns in washington isn’t going to affect us sane, legal folks. right? because we’re not doing anything nefarious. are we?
    .
    Background checks ARE ALREADY required in WA for over the counter purchases of handguns. Read the RCW in my link above. Background checks are a PREREQUISITE at Gun Shows sponsored by the WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) if you going to purchase a handgun at the show. In fact to join WAC, you MUST pay for and pass a background check before your membership is approved.
    .
    and who said anything about a universal registry of guns or their owners? i think this is paranoiac conspiracy-theory stuff, probably churned out by the industry to stop any changes in american gun laws – or a reduction of gun and ammo sales. think i’m kidding? look at the reaction of wayne lapierre after sandy hook. and look at the reaction of most of the posters here.
    .
    You might want to see what Obama, Feinstein, Biden, Bloomburg etc., have said about a NATIONAL REGISTRY of gun owners. Along with the most vocal of the “Anti-Gun” groups out there.
    .
    and just to keep things factual, washington state currently requires a carry permit…
    .
    ONLY if the handgun is being carried concealed. WA has an “Open Carry” law, where you CAN carry it on your person if it is PLAINLY visible. WA license is called a CPL, Concealed Pistol Permit, you do not need a permit to carry a rifle. READ the RCW I linked earlier.
    .
    we’re talking about catching the nutters before they obtain guns. but the industry has powerful PR to oppose any and all new regulations, and they’ve done a good job, so far, of obfuscating the issue, as evinced by some of the comments here.
    .
    Why do we need new regulations. The current ones aren’t being performed and conducted as they should be. In the VA Tech case, Cho LIED on his background check. If it HAD BEEN processed correctly, it would have been found out that he lied and he would have been denied the permission to take possession of the gun used. But the Gov’t didn’t perform the check completely or correctly. In the Sandy Hook case, Lanza’s mother was in the process of having him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, but because of the lawsuit brought by the ACLU in the 80’s on behalf of a KS inmate the process of involuntary commitment was made EXTREMELY difficult.
    .
    forget about how criminals obtain guns. as many of you point out, it’s like comparing apples to typewriters. but if the extra law in question catches just one nutter who intends to shoot innocent, unsuspecting people, it’s worth it, in my opinion.
    .
    The current background check system WILL work if it is conducted PROPERLY. The problem is that since 2008 ONLY 2% of failed background checks have been acted upon.
    .
    IMO, if you want new laws, concentrate on the ILLEGAL OWNER side of this equation, while ensuring that the CURRENT law concerning background checks is ENFORCED.
    .
    Because it is not reported, by either the police, and/or the press whether a gun crime was conducted by an ILLEGAL GUN OWNER, the general public is kept in the dark as just how bad the ILLEGAL gun problem is. Oh sure, we can guess, but I have NEVER seen that fact released in shootings OTHER than mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Aurora CO, VA Tech…etc.
    .
    Background checks, DO work. Mr. Giffords was DENIED taking possession of the AR-15 he purchased in AZ because he LIED as to the purpose and intent of the purchase.
    .
    As I have said before…
    .
    I FULLY SUPPORT BACKGROUND CHECKS.
    .
    I have gone through two of them (for guns), one for my WA CPL and the other for my Federal Carry Permit.
    .
    But I suggest that they be conducted CORRECTLY, PROPERLY and the LIARS PROSECUTED BEFORE any “new” laws are implemented.
    .
    Then if it is found that they are inadequate, go for strengthening and changing the law until they are. You wouldn’t get an argument from me!!! But to do so before hand is just impeding and punishing those of us who ARE obeying the law/s!!!

  • Ex-Westwood Resident April 30, 2013 (1:00 pm)

    So if Adam Lanza had not used his mothers gun and went to buy one, would his background check prevented him from buying a weapon or two? Nope, the mentally ill do not show up on a background checks people, unless they have a felony on their record.
    .
    YES THEY WOULD HAVE!!!!!
    .
    Why?
    .
    BECAUSE HE WAS ONLY 20 AT THE TIME. Federal law STATES that in order to purchase a handgun YOU MUST BE 21 or older!!!!
    .
    And yes the mentally ill DO show up on background checks, but only if they have been treated, committed OR their Psych submits their name and paperwork to the proper authorities.
    .
    I Holmes’ (Aurora CO theater shooter) doctor had done that he might have been stopped.

  • NM April 30, 2013 (3:22 pm)

    Background checks are not required to report a transfer of firearms between TWO PRIVATE CITIZENS in the state of Washington. That is the loop hole we are discussing here. Meaning I can go buy a handgun and sell it to Joe/Jen Smith without reporting it or getting a background check on them. That’s what occured when all of those people were buying the guns in the line for the police buy back program. It’s completely legal this leads to the gun show transfers (that is gun shows that don’t require member background checks)

    The state form that was mentioned earlier by ZOne to report a transfer of firearms is VOLUNTARY, not required.

    Ok, now that we cleared the law up without RCW links. This firearm owner, CPL (concealed pistol license) holder and recent student of a defensive handgun training program, which I highly recommend anyone who carries or owns a pistol to go through, thinks it is a wee bit scary to knowingly transfer your firearm without checking up on who you are selling it to… just saying. I wouldn’t do it, I can’t imagine getting the knock on the door asking me what happened to that firearm I purchased way back when… how did Joe/Jen killer with a long rap sheet get a hold of it?

    I think a lot of people are just scared that if we give an inch they will take a mile. I personally don’t know anyone that has transferred a firearm without a background check but I usually run with legal as well as morally responsible firearm owners.

    Also interesting tidbit I learned recently is that the local police can already look up rather quickly every firearm you purchased from a dealer… sounds like a de-facto registration list to me.

  • redblack May 1, 2013 (7:24 am)

    ex-westwood:
    .

    You might want to see what Obama, Feinstein, Biden, Bloomburg etc., have said about a NATIONAL REGISTRY of gun owners. Along with the most vocal of the “Anti-Gun” groups out there.

    .
    at the risk of getting pilloried here, i haven’t seen those comments; but i don’t have a problem with gun owner registry. after all, the second amendment allows for a well-regulated homeland militia, which i see as part-and-parcel with private gun ownership. after all, the intent of the amendment that allows private gun ownership is to repel foreign invasion and put down domestic insurrection. what we have now is free-market anarchy at a time when a lot of us would like LEO’s to know who’s packing – or stockpiling – what armaments.
    .
    for a good, topical example, i’ll bet that a lot of conservatives reading this would like to know if any of those left-wing anarchists planning on causing trouble downtown today is packing. and, like it or not, those anarchists are americans, and they have the same rights as the rest of us, no matter what their political leanings are.
    .
    good, reasonable rebuttals and a good conversation, ex-westwood. it seems we’re on the same page regarding automatic weapons, and probably high-capacity clips for handguns, as well. as you point out, simply enforcing existing laws would be a nice change. however, the gun and ammo industry is fighting any changes in government policy, unless it emphasizes arming more citizen vigilantes. and, of course, they’ve ginned up the “obama is a socialist who wants to take your guns away” argument.
    .
    by the way, the NRA and gun manufacturers’ lobbyists outnumber “anti-gun”/pro-enforcement lobbyists by a 17-1 margin.
    .
    how is that democratic, especially at a time when a landslide majority of americans want stricter/better enforcement of gun laws and an improvement in law enforcement’s ability to find the burgeoning number of terrorists among us?
    .
    we should also talk about the way we approach violent crime in our cities and what we can do to reverse recidivism and the downward spiral into lives spent in and out of our jail systems. right now, we’re talking about the effects of much larger societal problems without addressing the causes.

Sorry, comment time is over.