State Rep. Mike Hope (R-44) is a co-sponsor of H.B. 1588, which would subject all firearm transfers to background checks, effectively making it illegal for me to sell a gun to my dad or brother unless I pay money to, and ask permission from, the goverment.
Folks like Danny Westneat think this is a great idea, because people buy and sell guns under I-5 without knowing if the person might be a convicted felon. But I've asked many people -- including Rep. Hope -- for evidence that this bill, or one like it, would actually prevent any significant number of felons from procuring guns, and so far, I've gotten nothing but silence.
What the bill certainly would do is put a burden on many law-abiding citizens: not only would they have to wait some indeterminate amount of time to sell the gun, but they would have to pay money, and risk a flaw in the system denying them the purchase. It would have a serious impact on people who aren't breaking the law, immediately.
The odd thing to me is that Hope, through correspondence to me from his state legislature e-mail account, says he would not vote for this bill as written, even though he is sponsoring it.
He says he will propose amendments for guns transferred from parents to children, exempt law enforcement officers and concealed-carry permit holders, and so on, and that without at least some changes, he will vote against it.
But like Westneat, he thinks the bill will help keep guns out of the hands of felons. I don't believe that, and I see no serious argument or evidence for that. Those felons are already violating the law if they are buying guns at all, and while this law would also make the seller culpable, there's no reason I can see to think that sellers for these felons wouldn't still exist, and be relatively easy to find.
They think we're stupid. Too many are. And will suffer the consequences.
***
They say it takes 30 days to break a habit. I can't think of a better time than the advent of Lent to do so. It's been an interesting 13 yrs at Sound Politics.
***
I am on the right, and that is not my statement. Your straw man/red herring carries no weight here.
Background checks can be done quickly (ala instant credit checks), by private party, and no tie to gun actually bought. Any other lunacy by the gun-freaks is hyperbole.
Background checks:
a. cost money
b. are prone to error
c. tell the government you are trying to buy a gun (not necessarily, but that is how it will almost always be done)
These may be small infringements of our rights, but they are infringements nonetheless, and therefore you need a strong argument to get us to accept it, and so far, you do not.
There are often times when arguments from leftists, a majority of which are strawmen/red herring or obfuscatory can be adequately addressed with a direct and concise, albeit brief reply.
Posted by: KDS on February 11, 2013 09:04 AM
Background Checks
a. Cost Money (how much depends on implementation, it also costs money not doing them -- i.e., cleanup from messes where those who shouldn't have guns have them, like felons -- how much would it cost to go through and clean up this mess?)
b. Prone to err (issue with implementation and not a reason why they aren't a good idea -- if we didn't do all things that are prone to error, that list would be long -- should we not issue drivers licenses because they are prone to error, how but issue loans because credit checks can be prone to error)
c. tells the government ... (not the least, who says the government has to be involved except to set up the regulations governing the industry? Does government perform credit checks? Also, who says what you are buying has to be part of the background check? Does a background check for an apartment record which apartment you are checking into or is done by the government? No. This is NRA hyperbole to believe this crap).
Impair is defined as: "effect on, damage, harm, diminish, reduce, weaken, lessen, decrease, impede, hinder, hobble; undermine, compromise; formal vitiate. ANTONYMS improve, enhance."
It is accurate to state that every bill now pending in the legislature concerning limitations on gun ownership is unconstitutional because each bill will impair the ability to own and bear arms for self-defense.
How many times have we heard this. "Yes he drinks too much, and he should probably take his medication but he's really a sweet guy."
So background checks for everyone, ideally everyone would meet the CPL requirement.
Posted by: ExPatBrit on February 11, 2013 12:29 PM@15 - Did you realize that in the case of Colombine and Newtown, the perpetrators either stole or took them to use, unknowing to the owner?
How would these additional background checks as outlined in this bill help the safety of the public if there was no sale of the weapons to the perpetrator(s) ?
@13 - You are obfuscating the real issue with your weak rebuttal to the 3 points, which is you side with the "Cease Fire" and are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment.
Easy to prove or disprove. All Westneat has to do is search public records for convictions regarding "illegal possession of a firearm." If the felon couldn't own guns due to conviction, then they needed to get the gun from somewhere, unless they also stole it, which would be a second crime. Therefore, one could filter the first total and rule out incidents where the felon was also charged with stealing the gun.
Posted by: just saying on February 11, 2013 01:01 PMHope and his colleagues are knee jerking all over the place to do SOMETHING as a result of Sandy Hook.
That this bill, had it been fully implemented, would have made no difference in Sandy Hook is the thing.
That this bill would do nothing to improve the security of soft targets like schools is the thing.
That this bill punishes those of us who follow the law for the actions of those who break the law is the thing.
That this bill will make no impact on street sales where guns are sold to those who are not supposed to have them (Felons, for example) is the thing.
That this bill will do nothing to stop anyone from, say, buying a gun in Oregon or Idaho without undergoing this nonsense is the thing.
This bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except to increase the bureaucracy (always a democrat goal) and provide revenue to the state (always a democrat goal) while making it more difficult for those who obey the law to purchase weapons.
It's difficult to see where THAT isn't the real goal of this idiocy: and why would government want it to be more difficult for the law-abiding to buy weapons?
We have a Constitution. It sets limits on government. This bill cavalierly violates those limits.
Those who obey the law will suffer. Those who break the law won't even notice... or care. And it seems to me that government's priorities are just the tiniest bit screwed up here.
This law accomplishes nothing except to make the RINO's visible. And we're watching.
Posted by: Hinton on February 11, 2013 01:18 PMMillions of credit reports have errors
Posted by: say what on February 11, 2013 02:44 PMThese background checks will be less than successful.
Posted by: Ten years After on February 11, 2013 02:49 PMThese background checks will be less than successful.
Posted by: Ten years After on February 11, 2013 02:49 PMThese background checks will be less than successful.
Posted by: Ten years After on February 11, 2013 02:49 PMSomeone please explain how incremental gun grabbing is different than banning alcohol. And then explain how limiting/preventing firearms for law abiding citizens will end up with a different result than prohibition? How did that work out for you? In what practical ways is gun running different than rum running?
It's oddly funny how the evolved and enlightened accuse their opponents of shallow thinking.
Posted by: scott158 on February 11, 2013 03:32 PMYou have it perfectly backward. You were commenting on my post, not on "the right's" post. So you were arguing against a "reframe" that had, until you introduced it, nothing to do with this discussion. You were introducing, as I said, a straw mand / red herring.
a. Cost Money (how much depends on implementation, it also costs money not doing them -- i.e., cleanup from messes where those who shouldn't have guns have them, like felons -- how much would it cost to go through and clean up this mess?)
You're confused. The question of cost, in the way I introduced it, is absolute, and not in reference to "the cost of not doing them." I was simply pointing out that because there is a cost, therefore you need to justify it with evidence.
b. Prone to err (issue with implementation and not a reason why they aren't a good idea
Again, I was not saying it is not a good idea: I was saying because they are prone to error, therefore you need to justify it with evidence.
c. tells the government ... (not the least, who says the government has to be involved except to set up the regulations governing the industry? Does government perform credit checks? Also, who says what you are buying has to be part of the background check? Does a background check for an apartment record which apartment you are checking into or is done by the government? No. This is NRA hyperbole to believe this crap).
Um.
Uh.
It would help if you knew something about the topic before discussing it. Seriously. The background checks in this bill (which I linked to) are from the jurisdiction of the seller or buyer -- via the police department or sheriff's office -- and include a federal check. And it's explicitly a firearms check, since firearms checks are unique.
So while it doesn't include the specific firearm you're buying, it tells the government that you are, almost certainly, trying to buy a firearm.
So who says the government has to be involved other than regulating the industry? This bill, and every other similar bill at both the state and federal levels.
Seriously, just stop until you inform yourself.
You're not making an argument here. First, those parents did not sell their guns to their kids. Second, even if they did, unless they would have failed a background check, then those sales would've gone through anyway. And if they would have failed a background check, then the sale would be illegal today, without any change to the law, because you cannot sell a firearm to someone whom you have reason to believe would fail a background check.
So unless you don't know your family member -- and who would sell a firearm to an immediate family member they don't know? -- and are unaware that they would not pass a background check, sales to those family members are simply already covered by existing law.
Other than that proposed bill requires it explicitly? There's also the fact that a private group cannot get access to the data.
The govt would set regulations, like data privacy, use, and retention/destruction policies, but a certified, private party service could run the business.
How would it get the data?
It is no different than credit or other background checks currently being done.
So a private business is going to have the data about who has been convicted, and what the terms of release are, and who has been adjudicated mentally defective, etc. For all the jurisdictions of all 50 states and the territories and, of course, the federal government.
The federal government itself cannot even reliably keep all this data up to date. Obama had to write several executive orders just to get his employees to come up with ways to try to get more data into the federal system, because of the complicated issues involved. How do you expect a private organization, which won't be able to get most of this data, to do this?
You're just making no sense.
No one said that. Please learn to read.
Private companies already get most of the necessary information to perform a simple background check and the govt can provide the rest via OData service layer with secure certified access to such companies. Those companies, yes, would be required to abide by privacy and data handling regulations, but private business are already cleared everyday to handle this information. We are not talking about active criminal investigation information. We are talking about post conviction information, most of which is in public domain. Today one can search public court records for cases by name. As more of the court data gets digitized, this will get better for searching.
Posted by: notamusedbyright on February 11, 2013 08:59 PMYes, because I understand the issues involved.
Businesses today already get their background check information, including felony information, through private clearance agencies.
And it is less reliable, less current, and less comprehensive than government is capable of.
They don't have to go through the hoops you discuss.
Right, because they don't have the same data needs.
Private companies already get most of the necessary information to perform a simple background check and the govt can provide the rest via OData service layer with secure certified access to such companies.
So you admit you were wrong. Thanks.
Not all rights are equal, apparently!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 12, 2013 03:55 AMThe left, when in charge ALWAYS implements these measures incrementally. It is analogous to placing a frog in the pan of water and incrementally cranking up the heat until the frog is cooked. A cooked frog represents a totalitarian government. A pushback against these tactics by the leftwing progressivists are mandatory if we are to maintain our 1st, 2nd and all other amendment freedoms.
Posted by: KDS on February 12, 2013 07:29 AMOf course, I am not sure why you are arguing this piece. I get a feeling that you disagree on the principal, so it doesn't matter the implementation of the system. You don't want it period. At least that is my impression.
Posted by: notamusedbyright on February 12, 2013 08:09 AMTo be fair, the only reason I think that is because I am aware that federal law very clearly says so.
I do not believe that needs to be the case.
Right. Like I've been saying, you don't know what you're talking about.
Providing an OData layer of this same information, with proper security in place and use agreements by the companies that use them would provide the information needed to answer the question does the buyer have any felonies in their background that disqualify them for purchase and if the courts have issued an order reinstating their rights. This last part may need a new court order form to make query to the court systems work.
Your claim was that government does not have "to be involved except to set up the regulations governing the industry." Now you're admitting you were wrong -- that government has to actually be involved in actively providing the information, on demand -- but pretending you were right. Please stop doing that.
You seem to think one needs to go through an extensive background check that requires law enforcement research.
No. I think -- because I understand the issues -- that information that only government has access to is required for the task (and even then, as Obama recognized in his many executive orders a few weeks ago, there are significant gaps).
That seems a waste of money to answer simple question of whether the buyer is disqualified due to past criminal history (i.e., specific felony convictions).
Except that is NEVER the question. It's not even PART of the question. It's never "specific felony convictions," but all felony convictions. It's also whether you are a fugitive, even for a misdemeanor. It's also whether you've been found guilty of using a controlled substance, been found mentally defective, been committed to a mental institution, are an illegal alien, have been discharged dishonorably from the Armed Forces, have renounced your U.S. citizenship, is subject to a restraining order against a partner, or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor charges.
And then there's the fact that despite all of the above, you can get your gun rights restored under some conditions.
Some of this information is easily available to the public. Some is certainly not. Please stop pretending you understand the issue. You clearly do not. And while that may not have been clear to you, it should have been clear to you that you might not understand it. Since you had no evidence that the longstanding requirements for background checks are as simple as you believed they could be, you should not have assumed that they were actually that simple. They aren't, and never have been.
It only has to interface with court records
False. Again: you just don't know what you are talking about, and you should really stop pretending that you do.
In rereading your comments and Pudge's rebuttal, it is apparent that you are trying to push your leftwing agenda absent of important facts and consequence.
Posted by: KDS on February 12, 2013 09:02 AMIsn't that the real point? Throw some of these sellers into jail for a good long while and before long, they won't be easy to find.
If you shoot like you reason, people really do have nothing to fear from you.
Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 13, 2013 09:48 AMBut they are easy to find, for criminals, now. Not private sellers who might possibly and unknowingly sell to an illegal buyer (which does not violate the law), but people who sell illegal guns, or sell illegally, to illegal buyers. These are people who, mostly, are breaking the law now.
And you think changing the law will suddenly make them scarce.
Twenty points higher than me? Thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?
Nope, just your red herring that makes little sense and is based on your biased random evidence. Hopefully you don't have a gun that fires real bullets.
How come you and notamusedbytheright aren't over at HA.org with Mike BS and the rest of the contingent of statist trolls who show up in mobs ?
Posted by: KDS on February 13, 2013 10:05 AMEveryone knows Obama (Mr. & Mrs.), Jarret, Emanuel and other Dems are the ones to follow and their plans/laws/rules bring all these great community benefits. So let's get on board, Seattle wants to be a Progressive beacon and be on the cool list too. (sarc off)
Posted by: Dengle on February 13, 2013 10:47 AMI would not post this comment if I thought there was any chance R.R. actually posted it, since he wouldn't have a chance to respond to any responses, but since clearly this comment is not at all serious and it can't be him, here is what it said.
So, pudge, you think the next Adam Lanza should be able to get a gun from his mother without a background check? The next Christopher Dorner should be able to buy a gun from his father without a background check? I'm not real comfortable with this concept. You might be okay, your father and brother might be okay, but someone else out there might have a son or a brother who isn't okay.
Not even a hardcore insane leftist like R.R. could think that background checks would have stopped a son from stealing his mother's gun and killing her with it, or prevented an ex-cop with no restrictions on purchasing guns from buying a gun from any dealer or private seller.
So I don't know who there is pretending to be Roger Rabbit, but kudos for the entertaining parody.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/17/seattle-senate-bill-includes-home-inspection-as-part-of-gun-control-measure/
Posted by: Marmstro on February 17, 2013 02:48 PM