Gun background checks plan stalls in state House
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Supporters of a proposal to expand background checks to private gun sales struggled Monday to secure a final batch of votes that would ensure the bill's passage.
Just a handful of votes short, supporters delayed their plans to consider the measure Monday afternoon. That came despite an intense lobbying effort that included a call from former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in a January 2011 shooting.
Giffords made a call Monday to Rep. Maureen Walsh, a Republican from Walla Walla who had initially supported the bill. Walsh said Giffords and an aide to the former congresswoman left her a phone message telling her to "be strong" and "be courageous" in support of the measure.
It didn't seem to be helping. Walsh recently withdrew her support from the bill, saying she made a "reactionary" mistake in signing on to the measure but now doesn't think it will help stop gun violence.
"This is really an exercise in futility, in my opinion," Walsh said of the bill.
Giffords has been working in recent weeks encouraging lawmakers around the country to adopt universal background checks.
Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check if they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Those checks are not required for private gun transactions, and supporters say the expansion is necessary to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire guns.
Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer who is one of the architects of the bill, said the delay in voting was a sign of struggles to secure needed votes. He said he doesn't know of any other Republicans that would vote in favor of the bill.
Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma, seemed relieved Monday that he wouldn't have to vote on the measure. He did not commit to how he would vote if the measure came up on the floor but said lawmakers should focus on other bills that could reduce gun violence.
"This bill isn't going to do that," Kirby said.
House lawmakers face a Wednesday deadline to pass the measure out of their chamber. After that, it would have to go to the Senate. A committee in the Senate that would likely get the bill is stacked with pro-gun lawmakers.
Just a handful of votes short, supporters delayed their plans to consider the measure Monday afternoon. That came despite an intense lobbying effort that included a call from former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in a January 2011 shooting.
Giffords made a call Monday to Rep. Maureen Walsh, a Republican from Walla Walla who had initially supported the bill. Walsh said Giffords and an aide to the former congresswoman left her a phone message telling her to "be strong" and "be courageous" in support of the measure.
It didn't seem to be helping. Walsh recently withdrew her support from the bill, saying she made a "reactionary" mistake in signing on to the measure but now doesn't think it will help stop gun violence.
"This is really an exercise in futility, in my opinion," Walsh said of the bill.
Giffords has been working in recent weeks encouraging lawmakers around the country to adopt universal background checks.
Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check if they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Those checks are not required for private gun transactions, and supporters say the expansion is necessary to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire guns.
Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer who is one of the architects of the bill, said the delay in voting was a sign of struggles to secure needed votes. He said he doesn't know of any other Republicans that would vote in favor of the bill.
Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma, seemed relieved Monday that he wouldn't have to vote on the measure. He did not commit to how he would vote if the measure came up on the floor but said lawmakers should focus on other bills that could reduce gun violence.
"This bill isn't going to do that," Kirby said.
House lawmakers face a Wednesday deadline to pass the measure out of their chamber. After that, it would have to go to the Senate. A committee in the Senate that would likely get the bill is stacked with pro-gun lawmakers.
This will never get voted in olympia. This will go to the people by ballot.
Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee in D.C. passed a universal background check out of their committee today. And in Colorado, the Senate passed 5 gun control bills, including universal background checks and ammunition magazine limits. Â
The most interesting stuff is going on in Colorado right now, and the national media is AWOL.Â
@lakeview And in Chicago, a city with a hand gun ban not just background checks an infant was shot and killed today. I guess Chicago did not do a good enough job in notifying the gang bangers (the suspected shooter per police) that hand guns are banned. They don't even get a chance to fill out a background check. Amazing how the national media is mostly AWOL on this story since it goes against their collaborated message that back ground checks will control gang bangers. And even the mother of this infant has been shot before in Chicago. A really good example of gun control laws in action. Nice of you to purposely leave this out.
@Beam_Me_Up @lakeview  There is no handgun ban in Chicago. Your info is years out of date. And frankly you should know full well that anyone can purchase a gun outside of a city and bring it in.Â
 You are probably talking about Illinois's open carry/CCP ban, which was struck down in 2012.
@Beam_Me_Up@lakeview Read this too: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/07/city-council-passes-daley-gun-restrictions-450.html
@Beam_Me_Up @lakeview McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, look it up. Â
@lakeview @Beam_Me_Up Years old? You are incorrect. Chicago's laws were struck down as unconstitutional in December 2012 but the court gave Chicago 180 days to create constitutional laws to replace them so nothing has changed yet. Chicago also has provisions for gun owners to keep a weapon in ready state in their residence only, not outside on their property or even in their garage.
Are you telling me that this infant was killed in a car sitting inside a gang bangers house? This is about the only way that someone might not have broken a law in Chicago. If the gun was outside a residence in ready state this is breaking the law. And it is still violating Chicago's gun ban since it is still inside the 180 from December 2012.
@lakeviewya because any of those bills will stop gang bangers from acquiring weapons smuggled in from Mexico or from printing assault rifles and high capacity magazines from 3-D printers right?
Keep living in a dream world where you can legislate obedience on this.Â
This bill is a GREAT idea. Now they should write a bill to require background checks to buy crack and heroin. Just like the gun bill, the drug addict criminals will surely comply.  There is no doubt in my mind that requiring a background check for grandpa to hand down is old double barrel to his grand daughter will make a huge dent in gang violence.Â
This is from a congress woman from the great state of Chicago talking about gun control. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/dem-rep-on-candid-camera-admits-assault-weapons-ban-just-the-beginning-handgun-ban-may-be-possible/
Honestly, background checks won't stop the people intent on violence with a gun.. they will just buy one illegally! ... all this red tape they like to throw up just burdens those of us who follow the rules.... if they want to curb gun violence they should make automatic sentences for any and all crimes that involve a gun ... fired or not.... that should be an instant 30 years to life... with life sentences being collected in full via prompt executions!... eliminate the people who commonly commit these sort of crimes the problems will work itself out when the executions outpace the production of new violent ciminals!
I agree 100% with you. I am very weary of the call for stricter ownership laws when no one has done a thing to ensure the laws we have are used effectively. I completely support mandatory sentencing for crimes involving a firearm. Quit plea bargaining our safety away prosecutors! stand up and make it mean something!
When the liberal mostly democratic anti gun people and politicians stop blaming law abiding citizens for the ills they have made to society maybe I will consider listening to them. When the liberal mindset realizes they have totally screwed up the prison system with reforms that coddle prisoners to the point they don't mind being repeat offenders then maybe they have changed enough to be taken seriously. When the liberal mindset stops trying to nullify the second amendment with new laws and regulations then maybe they have learned what it means to be an American that wants the same as the conservative mindset, a safe place for our people to live in, a place for our kids to thrive and grow to become responsible adults.
Sandy Hook and Gabby Giffords did not happen because of the conservatives. It is not our fault like the liberals keep trying to say it is. I am sickened by any shooting that happens and I know I did not cause it but every anti gun person out there is trying to blame me because I happen to own guns, because I happen to support ALL of our Bill of Rights and the follow on amendments, because I understand history and all the attempts of any type of gun control leads to over bearing governments, exactly where our government has been heading to for 100 years if not more.
The bill Giffords is rallying for would not have stoppedLoughner from shooting her. It would not have stopped Sandy Hook. All Giffords is trying to do is force legislation that leads to the end of the 2nd amendment. Every idea and policy and law proposed for gun control will help the anti gun movement in nullifying an amendment that would actually take away rights of American citizens. This would be a first for there has never been a nullification of any amendment doing this, ever. But this is the lack of respect for what makes our nation great that the anti gun crowd is pushing to do. Once this happens, once our Bill of Rights is changed removing rights of American citizens we are no longer the nation that was created from revolts against tyrants. Then we have become the nation of tyrants.Â
I know I will get all sorts of replies saying that there is not a war against the 2nd amendment but these people replying are just trying to hide their canine teeth amongst the sheep. The anti gun mindset thinks England or Canada or Australia has resolved their problems with gun control. I say go live in any of those countries and see how long you will last before wanting to come back to America. If you like it outside of America, stay. It is as simple as that. America is great because of our rights and once those rights are taken away we no longer will be America.
It wasnât that long ago that you could purchase fully automatic weapons via catalog and have them delivered to your door by the USPS. Schools regularly had rifle teams and high school kids kept their hunting rifles in their cars so they could go hunting after school. Aside from the occasional high profile mobster shootings during the alcohol prohibition, there was no âgun problemâ.
That was actual âeasy access to gunsâ.
Now, letâs fast forward a few decadesâ¦
Guns are much more difficult to obtain (legally). There are all sorts of forms to fill out and regulations to follow. Schools indoctrinate children into thinking that firearms are animate objects, that simply being in the same room with one means youâre likely to get shot. If you draw a picture of a gun or bite your strawberry tart into the shape of a gun, and youâll be suspended.
Whatâs changed?
@GreatWhiteLlamaYou hit the nail on the head. America has a culture problem now, not a gun problem.
Chldren are being taught conflicting viewpoints about firearms: that they are cool in movies, music, games and multi-media, but that in real life they are dangerous and taboo. People are being taught that to be near a firearm in real life is equivalent to physical death...
Firearms are tools. Children need to be taught from an early age that guns aren't sexy and that they are just as dangerous as a sharp power tool or big circular saw. For some reason we manage to teach children to responsibly handle knives, scissors, tools in woodshop and autoshop classes, etc.Â
@NW-Economist @GreatWhiteLlama There was a story I read recently (I will try and find the article again if you are interested) about taking at risk youth to area hospitals and seeing first hand the damage and aftermath of gun violence. I really like this idea, it's one thing to see it occur on some TV show, but to be in the middle of the cries, the sobs, the blood and the real aftermath of a senseless shooting is something else altogether.Â
The only way to change this is to get the at risk youth to actually have reverence to the lives of others, not the selfishness that seems to be prevalent in these circumstances.
@RN1 @Susabelle @NW-Economist @GreatWhiteLlama Very nicely said!Â
@Susabelle @NW-Economist @GreatWhiteLlama We need to teach people to not be so utterly self-centered. I don't mean just requiring them to work like slaves in "community works" project, but teaching them that they are part of a thing greater than themselves, America, and for all its flaws it's the best thing there is. If they are taught nothing but the flaws of the nation, and western civilization, and not it's great pragmatics truths, then they have no reason to act like citizens, only a self-seeking, amoral outlook based on "what can I get away with, and how bad is the punishment if I get caught?"
It didn't seem to be helping. Walsh recently withdrew her support from the bill, saying she made a "reactionary" mistake in signing on to the measure but now doesn't think it will help stop gun violence.
She means "At first I was using my own brain, then the gun lobbyist plugged me back into their mainframe"
Walsh relized that there are already laws on the books that prevent these killing, The problem is they are not being reinforced by our legal system. Thankyou for standing up for your beliefs and the people that you represent.
@just_sayin68Â Actually what she was referring to is the fact that at first she made an emotional knee jerk reaction. Then she had time to actually think about it and the fact this will do nothing to curb gun violence. Once she had all the facts she realized this bill is worthless and made the smart decision to get away from it.
@Ghost1518 period!!! :D)  Sharp crayon in the box..... two eyes on you... ha!
@just_sayin68Â Some people might see it as the reverse.Â
@just-saying68
No I think she means the opposite. "Most social left wing european loving liberals started to scream and I listened. Then I figured out that they really didn't have an answer, nor did they ever even identify the actual problem."
Ronald Reagan, concerning gun control:
Thank you Kirby for realizing these bills will do nothing to stop criminals. Perhaps we should enforce the laws we have on the books already?
How's about we make drug usage an extremely low arrest priority so we can shore up some room in the jails for people that deserve to be there. Add additional time for anyone committing a crime using a firearm, if a felon is caught with a firearm just take their index finger... easy peasy.
@BoscoBaracus You cannot take their finger! If you did they would claim disability and get paid for the rest of their life. If that angle did not work they would claim emotional distress.Â
This bill was always a joke.
It came out during testimony on it that the bill was really a sneaky way to try and ban all private sales in WA. The bill tells people they can have a private sale if they can get a background check. But then it only gives them two ways to get a background check and both are impossible!
Way #1: Go to a dealer and they will do the check for no more than $20. Dealers testified at the Capitol that they can't do the check for $20 and remain profitable, so none of them will do the checks since the law doesn't enslave them to do it.
Way #2: Get police/sheriffs to do it. The Police are FORBIDDEN from using the NICS system for private background checks by NATIONAL regulatons that supersede WA state law. You'd think our legislators would do their homework before trying to make illegal laws...
So in reality this bill was always a joke. They tried to add in an exemption for CPL holders but that still doesn't fix the paradoxes in the bill.
Everyone should call up Jamie Pederson's office and let him know you don't appreciate his attempt to sneak in a ban against private firearms sales in WA.
@NW-Economist Just remember - for many law-makers, a badly written, illegal, and ineffectual law is a FEATURE, not a bug. Just depends on what their real goals are.
I have reviewed this bill.. the things that I find, is that in order to accomplish this, all firearms need to be registered. How else will the government be able to track who sold what to whom? They won't be able to. Therefore, it is a defacto registration scheme. Designed to get all firearms registered. Who will be maintaining the database for this? It will cost to maintain the database needed for the tracking of change of ownership.
Will criminals register their guns so they can be tracked too? I highly doubt it. So, who does this law really affect? No one that is going to do anyone else any harm. That is who it will affect. Will it reduce crime? Absolutely not.  Look at this for what it really is.
Look at the system in place for transfer of car ownership. All cars have to be registered, and must be transferred to the new owner by licensed officials. There is a huge database for this. The same thing would be needed for firearms. In order to keep track of the sales from one person to another, records must be maintained somewhere.
Man, I hope you're right and it means registering every gun. I'll definitely support that!
@ the tide
Duh,... that would cost money... that the state doesn't have.. this bill, doesn't have any funding necessary for the actions it is requiring. It is a waste of time and a distraction from something else.
Now, we also need responsible restrictions on speech too, only people knowledgable about a particular subject can discuss that topic. .. That means you would be excluded from this discussion...
@the tide I'm guessing that you are either just trying to get a reaction out of people that want to protect their rights, or you're related to Piers Morgan
Gun laws do not stop all shootings. Just like speed limits do not stop all speeders and seat belts laws do not stop all traffic accidents deaths.
Let's put in responsible gun laws so the people who want guns at all costs can be checked and denied for their mental health issues. Sure they can find a way around that but at least we'll have a law to prosecute them with. Giving all kinds of guns to anyone with no checks at gun shows is NOT responsible. Tell these unreasonable dimwits no, and vote for the background check laws.Now use the moronic logic of gunnuts who want no background checks and get rid of speed limits and seat belt laws.  Oh wait, we won't be safer under that logic.Â
I suppose you think gun ownership is a privilege too? I bet you also think that driving a car is a right... Legislation can do anything they want with cars, because it IS a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Driving and car ownership can be infringed upon in any way the government wants.. The 2nd Amendment outlines a right that is protected, and further indicates that the right shall not be infringed. These so called "responsible gun laws" are an infringement to my right of ownership. These infringements are put in place under the guise of making thinsg safer for the public, which, they will not do.Â
Gunshows, in this state are run by a couple organizations, and they require every purchase to go through an FFL firearms transfer. Besides, the people whom this is intended for, aren't going to be hindered by this new law, as they get their guns illegally anyway.
@the tide You have no clue what gun laws we already have on the books, do you?
As I've said for a while, gun control is dead. The anti-gun idiots thought they could dance in the blood of 20 dead children to pass restrictive controls but found out quick that freedom loving Americans wouldn't stand for it. If they want to stay in power they are learning, just like dems in 94 did, to back down and leave our civil rights alone.
no
@the tide  Brilliant repose.
@the tide Had to retype it 10 times and that's still the best you could come up with? Just sad.....if you could actually carry on a reasonable debate it'd be different but all you can do is parrot the Brady campaign's oft debunked lies, if you attempt to even put forth that much effort.
I have written, sent emails and made phone call after phone call to my reps. and others. I am not an activist nor do I have time on my hands to spare, but we must all stop and take a good hard look at the way this is all heading. it is promoted as safety and for the greater good and it is the first steps in DISSARMAMENT plain and simple
of course Republicans aren't going to support a bill that the NRA disapproves of. Never mind the overwhelming public support. Republicans make no secret to hide who they represent and it is not you and I.
@calapete If Obama told you to jump off a cliff because it was the right thing to do. Would YA That's is what this is about.
@calapete Lets forget for a moment that there are democrats and republicans and look at it as, there is government and people. People that have a right to defend themselves and their families without the government telling them how and with what. It's called THE CONSTITUTION maybe you should try reading it instead of watching the news sometime.
@Joe USA Publib @calapete you don't even know the constitution. If you think you do, name the ONLY time that the 2nd amendment was held up by the supreme court as for being for personal gun laws. Now state the truth about what Justice Roberts said in his ruling - that it shouldn't be used in the continental United States. No, I don't think you have any knowledge of the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution. I think you go off of made up crap that started in the 1970s by the NRA or you would know that the Supreme court struck down the 2nd Amendment being used for personal gun laws in every single ruling until the 2008 ruling that shouldn't be applied to the Continental US. You would know that the 2nd Amendment was upheld by the Supreme court as to mean it is only to form a militia. Get educated.
@the tide "In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendmentâs opening language."
Are you trying to confuse personal self defense with personal gun laws? Â What is a "personal" law anyways?
@dg54321 @the tide @Joe USA Publib @calapete Lol Wow
@the tide @Joe USA Publib @calapete LOL.....wut? Now you're really gone off the deep end, wacko bird.....
This bill is a bunch of garbage. It will lead us to a path of dictatorship. Their end goal is to take all of our guns away so they can control us. We must stand up and stop them. Once we let them start taking OUR rights away we will never get them back and they will take more and more away. Criminals do not care what laws are on the books. They are criminals and they don't follow the law. Come on people think about it.
@Thepriest I agree, I have always said that IF the only concern was closing the "loophole" the legislators would push a bill written to only include background checks...they try to bury registration within the bill which has ulterior motives...and is the real push for "reform" currently.