Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Washington State Gun Control: Voters Approve Ballot Initiative To Expand Background Checks


Voters in Washington state chose to advance a ballot initiative on Tuesday that will expand background checks for guns and effectively close what is known as the "gun show loophole."
Initiative 594, which passed with 60 percent of the vote, mandates background checks on all gun sales and transfers, including at gun shows and online. The measure makes exceptions for weapons transferred within families and for the purchase of antique guns.

The passage of I-594 closely follows the Oct. 24 shooting at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Marysville, Washington, that left three students dead and three more injured.

As has been the case with previous mass shootings, public support for stricter gun laws increased in the week following the Marysville shooting, according to a survey conducted by local PBS affiliate KCTS-9. At the same time, the poll showed an increase in the percentage of voters who said they would oppose new background checks, suggesting that the shooting galvanized public opinion on both sides.

The increased opposition in some quarters to expanded background checks may have been due in part to the presence of Initiative 591, a competing measure, on the ballot. I-591 would have loosened gun laws by prohibiting background checks on gun purchases unless required by federal law. Washington residents ultimately rejected the measure, with more than 54 percent voting against it according to early returns.

I can't wait to hear how the gun-rights folks explain this away.

64 comments:

  1. Nothing to explain Mike. The people have spoken. Though it seems a bit shy of the mythical 80 to 90 percent oft mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fairness, this doesn’t necessarily contradict 90% polls. 90% of the people might very well support background checks done the right way without simply banning the private transfer practice, and making new crimes like using a common gun for training, loaning a gun to a sibling, loaning a gun to a friend because they have a stalker, or sharing a safe with a friend. Did you get that last part Mike? If you store your gun at a friend’s house because they have a kick-ass safe, being more concerned about “gun flow to the criminal world through theft” than you are home defense, then you are committing a crime in the state of Washington. Are you happy with that Mike?

      Delete
    2. I don't believe any of that nonsense, TS. The new law provides for exceptions like immediate family.

      Criminals will be harder pressed to get guns. Isn't that a winner for everyone?

      Delete
    3. MikeB: "The new law provides for exceptions like immediate family."

      Not for loans. Just read the frickin law already.

      MikeB: "Criminals will be harder pressed to get guns. Isn't that a winner for everyone?"

      It's not a winner for all the new criminals.

      Delete
    4. Laws don't make people criminals. Your continual attempts to blame criminal behavior on laws you don't like is a drag.

      And do let us know when someone is jailed for momentarily handing a gun to someone or for storing one in someone else's gun safe.

      Delete
    5. I have no doubt that some huge percentage of the crimes committed under this new law will not be prosecuted (it would be impossible to enforce it seriously and consistently). Yes, lots of people will get away with their crimes. I thought you had a term for that. What was it- “hidden criminal”?

      Delete
    6. You're probably right, TS. The tens of thousands of good honest people who regularly store their guns in other people's safes will now be hidden criminals. It's a horror, to quote Kurt.

      Delete
    7. Why would it matter whether it is tens of thousands, or just ten, or one? It’s no less an unjust crime. But don’t pretend this law doesn’t have wide implications. There are many other innocent and common scenarios which I spoke of that are now crimes. I would say that close to every single gun owner has done some of these actions that are now considered crimes in the state of Washington. Have I ever exchanged guns with friends while target shooting on BLM land? You bet. Have I ever got some help putting a gun back together that I was having problems reassembling? Yep. Did I bring my gun to a non-licensed gun smith who had the tools and skills to fix a gun which discharged when I didn’t pull the trigger? Does that really need to be a crime?

      Delete
    8. Why would it matter whether it is tens of thousands, or just ten, or one? It’s no less an unjust crime.

      Precisely, TS. In fact, I would go further, and say that even if no one is persecuted (not a typo) under the most draconian provisions of the law, it is still an abomination, simply for the potential for abuse. Laws like that require us to take on faith that even the most ambitious, most zealously anti-gun prosecutor won't take advantage of that potential for abuse.

      I don't have such faith, and shouldn't need it.

      Delete
    9. Indeed. Even if the cops and prosecutors ignore the new law the people still have to follow it or risk arrest (and be one of those "hidden criminals"). Mike can probably raise his "famous 50%" to "famous 95%" in Washington with all the new "hidden criminals" there.

      Delete
    10. Have it your way, guys. Let's just weigh all those horrors against the thousands of criminals who normally buy their guns without background checks and will no longer be able to do so. Of course, knife crime will probably skyrocket, mass stabbings and the like.

      Delete
  2. You guys lied. That’s how it happened. I think if you were more honest about the bill it would not have passed- now it’s on to the courts. Every “Yes on 594” ad I saw used the word “sales” or “purchases”, sometimes even “gun show sale”, when the bill does so much more than that. I also never saw one of those ads talk about the crimes the law creates. Do they ever talk about the need to throw people who do these new illegal transfers in prison? Of course not. They want to sell this law as being “reasonable” and “common sense”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the thing is, if they didn't want to criminalize the other transfers--e.g. loaning a gun to a family member or friend you're hunting with--they could have easily avoided it by using the word sale instead of transfer, etc.

      Delete
    2. You guys are full of it. Immediate family members are exempt from the restrictions.

      Delete
    3. You guys are full of it. Immediate family members are exempt from the restrictions.

      Which does absolutely nothing to alleviate the horror of what happens in the scenarios that TS has described.

      Delete
    4. You keep bringing that up and conveniently ignoring the issue of a loan to a friend you're going hunting with or a loan at the range. If the law wasn't intended to cause a headache in these situations it would have been drafted to cover sales, not these temporary transfers.

      Delete
    5. Gifts only, Mike. You can't sell, loan, or allow your family member to even handle the gun. "We're full of it", says the guy who never read the law.

      Delete
    6. "Which does absolutely nothing to alleviate the horror of what happens in the scenarios that TS has described."

      Well, now that the law has passed, you should have no trouble pointing us to stories about these horrors. I'll look forward to posting them for you.

      Delete
    7. Are you suggesting people knowing break the law because it is a “bad law be damned” scenario?

      Delete
    8. How about instead of waiting for a good person’s life to be ruined we just not pass laws like that in the first place? Wild idea huh?

      If there was a bipartisan bill on economic treaty that was widely supported, but someone snuck a line in there about everyone’s first born child being sacrificed on Mt. Doom, would we just say “nobody will enforce it”, or “You let me know when a baby dies via pagan ritual, and I’ll look forward to posting them for you”? Or should we oppose the bill? Or maybe just cross out the pure evil crap? If you agree that it is wrong to arrest someone for storing a gun in someone else’s safe- then don’t fault us for opposing the law. Take out the evil crap. Make it actually “reasonable” and then try and pass it.

      Delete
    9. Who stores guns in other people's safes anyway? And who's to know if I show you my gun and let you hold it for a minute in the privacy of my own home?

      You're stretching and twisting as usual.

      Delete
    10. MikeB: "And who's to know if I show you my gun and let you hold it for a minute in the privacy of my own home?"

      Yes, these will be well-hidden criminals. Do you think people should follow the law anyway?

      MikeB: “Who stores guns in other people's safes anyway?”

      Some people do. I’ve done it before. It’s probably more common than you think, but how often it goes on is not the point. The point is, should this be a crime?

      Delete
    11. Lots of people do. I did when I was at college. Had two options: 1--store it at the campus police station who made it a huge hassle to get it out, or 2--store it in in the safe of a friend I trusted and who lived off campus.

      Knew several other people who did the same thing because option one wasn't really an option. Want to check the gun out to go to the range? Sorry, the officer who handles that isn't on duty today. Or if he is, you can come down, fill out papers, and head to the range an hour or two later. Then, if the officer isn't there to take the gun back in you can either find someone to store your gun with or lock it in your car, park it off campus somewhere, and hope it doesn't get burgled or towed.

      Want to go hunting? (Main reason the police offered the storage option) Too bad--nobody will be there for you to check it out early in the morning before you head to the hunting grounds, so you can forget hunting or check it out the night before and then, again, have the option of car storage overnight or dropping it off with someone off campus.

      Others hold guns and valuables for people who are traveling and don't want to leave guns, even locked up, in an abandoned apartment or home long term. I've left guns and jewels with family when traveling for extended times and held guns and jewels when they've been abroad.

      I also store a couple of valuable target rifles with a family member who has a larger, more robust safe that can better accommodate them.

      There's multiple scenarios that I and people I know have experienced--ones that were, thankfully, available to us since we live in a state without this kind of crazy law.

      Delete
    12. This is a pretty good summary of what Washington's low information voters inflicted on themselves and the rest of the state with I-594.

      Delete
    13. I came across this handy dandy flow chart that will help people determine their potential for running afoul of the law. It does a pretty good job of clearing things up.....

      http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/590-flowchart.png

      Delete
    14. Great chart, SSG, really illustrates what an efficient felon factory Washington residents have voted to inflict on themselves.

      Delete
    15. Yep, that chart is even better than one of TS's comments.

      If you guys are right, I suppose there'll be civil war in Washington State before long.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, MikeB, SS is correct, the people have spoken. Heres wat they said:

    As the election returns came in on November 4 one thing was evident—the Second Amendment crushed gun control candidates in Senate and gubernatorial races around the country.

    In so doing, the Second Amendment annihilated the left's relentless claim that 90 percent of Americans support more gun control.

    On the gubernatorial level, in Arizona, pro-Second Amendment candidate Doug Ducey (R) beat gun control candidate Fred DuVaul (D). And in Florida, pro-Second Amendment incumbent Rick Scott (R) beat gun control candidate Charlie Crist. These victories were enhanced by the fact that Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly endorsed DuVal and Giffords' gun control PAC gave $100,000 to Crist's campaign.

    The Second Amendment trumped their endorsement and their money.

    In Texas, NRA-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott (R) won. In Maryland, NRA-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan (R) won. In Alabama, NRA-endorsed Governor Robert J. Bentley (R) won. In Wisconsin, NRA-endorsed Governor Scott Walker (R) won. In Michigan, NRA-endorsed Governor Rick Snyder (R) won. In Nevada, NRA-endorsed Governor Brian Sandoval (R) won. In Ohio, NRA-endorsed Governor John R. Kasich (R) won. In Oklahoma, NRA-endorsed Governor Mary Fallin (R) won. In Wyoming, NRA-endorsed Governor Matt Mead (R) won. In Idaho, NRA-endorsed Governor Bruce Otter (R) won. In Kansas, NRA-endorsed Governor Sam Brownback (R) won. And in Maine, NRA-endorsed Governor Paul R. LePage (R) won against gun control candidate Michael Michaud (D). (On August 8, Breitbart News reported that Michaud was supported by Gabby Giffords.)

    In Senate races, gun control Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) was defeated by NRA-endorsed Cory Gardner (R) and gun control Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) was defeated by NRA-endorsed Thom Tillis (R). In Kansas, NRA-endorsed Senator Pat Roberts (R) won. In Georgia, NRA-endorsed Senatorial candidate David Perdue (R) won. In Arkansas, NRA-endorsed Tom Cotton (R) won. And in West Virginia, NRA-endorsed Shelley Moore Capito (R) won, marking the first time that state has sent a Republican Senator to Washington DC in over five decades.

    The spotlight was also on the race between NRA-endorsed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and pro-gun control challenger Alison Grimes (D). McConnell won handily.

    NRA-endorsed Senatorial candidate Joni Ernst (R-IA) also won.

    On November 3—the day before the elections took place—Breitbart News reminded red state and pro-Second Amendment voters to vote like their guns depended on it. They did. And as result, the Second Amendment won the day, Republicans won the Senate, and gun control took a beating.

    Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course these loons say this election was ALL about the gun issue, what bullshit.
      As I predicted the loons also want to say this minority election (only 1/3rd of eligible voters voted) defines the intent of the majority of Americans. What bullshit.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, the voters were little concerned about guns. Many were expressing their racist hatred of the prez.

      Delete
    3. Ha--"racist hatred of the prez"--good one.

      Delete
    4. "As I predicted the loons also want to say this minority election (only 1/3rd of eligible voters voted) defines the intent of the majority of Americans."

      So Anon, are you then suggesting that the passage of Initiative 594 isn't an accurate illustration of the peoples' will?

      Delete
    5. Ah yes. The people who voted were just a bunch of Racists. I would say to just keep telling yourself whatever it takes to let you sleep at night, but I feel I should point out that the only other place I've seen that claim made was the Daily Show in an obviously tongue in cheek skewering of the rest of the media.

      Oh, and why did those racist misogynists elect a bunch of women and people of non-white descent?

      The fact that you can't acknowledge that there are ideological motivations rather than racism shows the deep root of racism that runs to your core and colors your view of the world.

      Delete
    6. Isn't that one and the same, mike?

      Delete
    7. You apply it to mean it is a reflection of the majority of Americans, so no.

      Delete
    8. So SS, you claimed the recall in Colorado meant the whole country was moving away from gun control and that recall reflected the people of Colorado. Now what do you say?

      Delete
    9. Nothing, figures.

      Delete
  4. Massive non-compliance is the answer here. As with the Connecticut "assault weapon" and "high capacity" magazine ban/registration, and the offensively misnamed "SAFE" Act in New York, it's time for gun owners to make a mockery of this abomination as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're probably right. People will be going out of their way to store each other's guns as an act of protest. In private homes all over the state, people will be passing guns around just to stick it to the government.

      Meanwhile, tens of thousands of truly law-abiding gun owners will adhere to the law thereby depriving thousands of criminals of guns.

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of truly law-abiding gun owners will adhere to the law thereby depriving thousands of criminals of guns.

      I look forward to you documenting the precipitous, sustained plunge in "gun violence" in Washington starting next month.

      Delete
    3. Do you want to make some predictions on their violent crime and murder rates compared to states that don't pass such a law?

      Delete
    4. Ah--now we're talkin' (excerpt):

      Now, Washington state gun owners intend to take things to a new level in response to Washington's new gun control law. At least 5,500 are planning to openly violate the heavy-handed law, I-594, during a rally at the state capitol in Olympia on December 13th. The law goes into effect on December 4th, after the Secretary of State certifies the election results. Not a single so-called mainstream media source has mentioned the unprecedented event, even though RSVPs continue to increase every day.

      This is practically unheard of in the modern era; not only will 5,500 people deliberately violate the law through civil disobedience, but will violate felony gun laws. . . .

      The Facebook page for "I-594 I Will Not Comply" states, "We will rally at the capitol, openly exchange guns, unveil and plan to break apart the entire legislation and violate I-594 in every possible way … We will buy and sell guns from whom we please, we will not submit to background checks, we will not give up our rights, WE WILL NOT comply."


      Good for them. Warms my heart to see evil resisted.

      Delete
    5. "Do you want to make some predictions on their violent crime and murder rates compared to states that don't pass such a law?"

      Yes, I'll make two.

      1. Washington state will see a measurable improvement in gun violence as well as overall violence.

      2. You'll write lengthy impossible-to-follow explanations about why it doesn't count.

      Delete
    6. Kurt, requiring people to do a background check prior to selling someone a gun is evil? And you wonder why I call you a fanatic.

      Delete
    7. And you wonder why I call you a fanatic.

      Not at all. Libelous name-calling is precisely what I've come to expect from you, and you never disappoint.

      Delete
    8. "Freedom begins with an act of defiance."

      What BS, but not surprising coming from a criminal like you.

      Delete
    9. I strongly suspect that the nanny-state apologists will cite this as evidence that very short term transfers will not be a crime under the impending law:

      Now, a Washington State Patrol spokesman says people won’t be arrested for exchanging guns.

      “We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer,” said Bob Calkins, spokesman for the patrol.


      Believing that contention, of course, requires one to ignore the fundamental difference between not criminalizing a certain (victimless) behavior, and criminalizing that behavior without establishing an effective means of proving the violation and enforcing the proscription.

      For the latter to be incapable of causing great harm, one must assume that there will be never be any ambitious, zealously anti-gun cops (and cop chiefs) and prosecutors who try to overcome the difficulties in proving the violation. That would, of course, be a dangerously silly assumption to make.

      It's also a bit difficult to credit Calkins' claim that they would have trouble proving that such transfers are indeed transfers, because the text of the law plainly states that they are, and the planned event would have those transfers conducted openly--the cops could make video records of them if they wished. The real problem, of course, is that they don't want to have to try to arrest a gathering of more than 6,000 angry and armed gun owners. Probably a wise judgment.

      Delete
    10. "the text of the law plainly states that they are"

      According to you. According to others, reasonable people like the "Washington State Patrol spokesman" it says something different.

      Delete
    11. According to others, reasonable people like the "Washington State Patrol spokesman" it says something different.

      No--he does not say that such transfers are not considered "transfers" under the law--he only claims (quite dubiously) that the WA State Patrol doesn't think they could prove that illegal transfers are taking place--a much different proposition.

      Delete
    12. In my latest JPFO piece, I have a little more to say about the need to defy this atrocity.

      Delete
    13. I've got an idea for you, Kurt. When writing for the JFPO, you should stop using such luke-warm words as "atrocity." You should call it a holocaust nor an attempted-holocaust.

      Delete
    14. I choose my words with some care, Mikeb. When I mean "holocaust," I say it. This time, I meant "atrocity," and so that's the word I used.

      Ha--taking editorial advice from the genius who says that that "voluntary" means "constrained by law which law-abiding people freely comply with." If this were Twitter, it would be the ideal place for the "#AintGonnaHappen" hashtag.

      Delete
  5. Hey, Mikeb, is this the outcome you had in mind?

    A few of them believe the government is out to take their guns and they are buying them like crazy.

    [ . . . ]

    It is that frustration that has led to a firearm frenzy in Spokane. Several gun shops in the area have experienced a spike in gun sales. In fact, sales at one shop have surged 25 percent in the last few weeks.


    The more gun laws passed, the more guns bought. Maybe I should write a book: "More Laws, More Guns" ;-).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is certainly nothing new. It happens every time, and almost all of them are gun owners buying more guns. Big deal.

      Delete
    2. Minus of course the recent rise in gun ownership in the last year.

      Delete
    3. This is certainly nothing new. It happens every time, and almost all of them are gun owners buying more guns. Big deal.

      Well, good for you! You've certainly not always been so sanguine:

      Something's wrong here. Every time there's a new gun law going into effect, especially if it's to make possession of certain guns illegal, gun sales soar beforehand. This obviously diminishes whatever good the new law will do. In some cases the benefits of the new law will never catch up with the increased sales that took place leading up to the implementation of the law.

      Glad to see you gaining some desperately needed emotional stability.

      Delete
    4. "Minus of course the recent rise in gun ownership in the last year."

      I don't think the rise in gun ownership has translated into more gun owners. It's people owning more guns, isn't it? That's what the decrease in households with guns indicates anyway.

      Delete
    5. "That's what the decrease in households with guns indicates anyway."

      Mike, you posted this showing an increase in households with guns just a few days ago.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/11/fascinating-gallup-polls.html

      Delete
    6. The third chart from Gallup showed a decrease, unless you want to consider only the last year. But you yourself said that's not kosher.

      Delete
    7. The tragic fallout from this heinous law begins already:

      The Lynden Pioneer Museum will remove World War II-era guns from a current exhibit and return them to their owners, to avoid violating the new background-check law, according to the museum’s director.

      The new law, passed by voters this month as Initiative 594, requires background checks on the recipients of guns in all sales or transfers, with exceptions for family members and antiques.

      The 11 rifles the museum borrowed from collectors for the exhibit are too new to qualify as antique under the law, and I-594 is silent on any exemption for museum displays.

      “I read through the law about 10 different times looking for a loophole,” said Troy Luginbill, the museum’s director.


      In other words, the law requires the suppression of history.

      Delete
    8. That museum is obviously run by some whiny gun-rights sympathizer. I doubt very seriously if anyone was going to make a big deal about guns on display in a museum, that is except those who want to make a big deal out of it for their own ends.

      Delete
    9. That museum is obviously run by some whiny gun-rights sympathizer.

      Gun rights advocates are generally happy to leave the whining to the anti-rights camp--you guys are so damned good at it.

      I doubt very seriously if anyone was going to make a big deal about guns on display in a museum . . .

      So what are you saying--that he should just break a gun law, on your novel theory that it won't be enforced? Advocating the violation of gun laws is kinda new territory for you, isn't it, Mikeb?

      By the way, Mr. Luginbill would not be placing only himself (and the museum) in legal jeopardy by violating this monstrosity. There are also the gun owners to consider. I realize that they couldn't be charged under the "law," since obviously they 'transferred" the guns before Washington's low information voters inflicted it on themselves, but if your little theory about the law not being enforced turns out to be wrong, the guns would be seized as evidence.

      Would they eventually be returned to the owners, after the long, slow crawl of the "justice" system? Perhaps. What kind of care do you suppose the guns would receive in the evidence lock-up, Mikeb? How well protected against rust, etc.?

      Delete