Gun control supporters to form lobbying coalition
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Gun control advocates in Washington state are forming a coalition to lobby state lawmakers, hoping to help usher passage of a plan to expand background checks.
Democratic consultant Christian Sinderman said Tuesday the new group will focus this year on supporting lawmakers who take difficult votes on the issue and organize public efforts to keep pressure on the Legislature.
"We're hearing messages from legislators who want to be supportive that they're nervous about their electorate and how this issue is perceived," Sinderman said. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility will officially launch its work next week.
Gun buyers currently have to undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Under a new bill, background checks would be extended to private gun sales, with supporters saying criminals can use that type of sale to bypass oversight.
The National Rifle Association has testified against the idea and has been pressuring lawmakers to reject the plan. The group sent out mailings recently targeting Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer who has worked to develop the background checks bill.
A version of the background checks proposal has passed out of a House committee. It faces probably the biggest test in the state Senate, where a committee that would handle the bill is led by firearm-friendly lawmakers who recently rejected some other gun proposals.
Sinderman said the group is bringing on a lobbyist and a campaign manager. He said there's no discussion right now about pursuing a ballot measure.
Sinderman didn't have numbers of how much has been committed to the effort so far.
Democratic consultant Christian Sinderman said Tuesday the new group will focus this year on supporting lawmakers who take difficult votes on the issue and organize public efforts to keep pressure on the Legislature.
"We're hearing messages from legislators who want to be supportive that they're nervous about their electorate and how this issue is perceived," Sinderman said. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility will officially launch its work next week.
Gun buyers currently have to undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Under a new bill, background checks would be extended to private gun sales, with supporters saying criminals can use that type of sale to bypass oversight.
The National Rifle Association has testified against the idea and has been pressuring lawmakers to reject the plan. The group sent out mailings recently targeting Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer who has worked to develop the background checks bill.
A version of the background checks proposal has passed out of a House committee. It faces probably the biggest test in the state Senate, where a committee that would handle the bill is led by firearm-friendly lawmakers who recently rejected some other gun proposals.
Sinderman said the group is bringing on a lobbyist and a campaign manager. He said there's no discussion right now about pursuing a ballot measure.
Sinderman didn't have numbers of how much has been committed to the effort so far.
In reading the many comments by gun ownership advocates, I often see the use of fear of the hoards of bad people "out there", and the need to be able to blast them to KingdomCome if they dare transgress on a person's property. And sometimes even before they do the transgressing...
And then I am told that all of the NRA members, and their families, and their friends, AND their co-workers - but rarely their in-laws - are trained, well practiced, and would never panic and shoot someone who doesn't "deserve" it...
But last night, I watched a report on the shootings in South Africa, apparently justified by the reported endemic fear that many of the citizens of that nation seem to be smothered by - and it does sound like the possible end result of all the fear mongering we see and hear in this country. The runner justifies shooting 4 shots through a closed door, because he was afraid that there was "someone" hiding on the other side. Another man - his brother? - was recently involved in shooting down from a window INTO THE DARK because he "thought a thief was doing something to his daughter's car in the dark driveway.
It was his daughter, and one of the several bullets he fired hit her, and she died.Â
And he was not taken to trial because a noise in the dark is justification fro opening fire without even calling out to see who might be out there, or even why.
His comment about that one shot that hit and killed his daughter? "It was just one wild bullet, not one I was aiming".
And this is the world that US gun owners look forward to?
@OrcasThunder I don't see anyone advocating that world or shooting before the transgressing. I don't know where you get that from. I will use my gun in self defense, and only as a last resort when there is an imminent threat etc. And... what is your point?
@Watcher3@OrcasThunderGood to hear that you will be responsible in your use of guns.
My point is that many of the pro gun posters do not seem to have that control. When they speak of how it should be used, they seem to favor just the kind of actions those men took in South Africa - shoot first and don't even bother with the question...an approach that - insanely - the government seems to embrace.
As to your not seeing the posts that support my POV, take a look at the one below - "The people involved in this "new coalition" need to be arrested and tried for conspiracy to destroy the Constitution." from a control opponent - and then tell me they don't exist. They are so caught up in the fever that they have no ability to consider rational controls that hurt ONLY those who should not have guns. THAT is the mindset I see in the reports from SA.
@OrcasThunder @Watcher3 OK, if you judge people's possible actions by their temper posting with "internet muscles", you are not going to get a good idea of what people are really like.
I agree with the point that there are plenty of idiots with guns, as there are idiots with cars, motorbikes, chainsaws, bows and arrows etc. Fear of how law abiding citizens will mis-use tools is not a reason to restrict rights. Our reaction to drink driving was to improve education...
So, maybe the government or some of these so called organizations against "gun violence" (and the NRA) could plow their lobbying money into educating people to "secure your guns" and "be sure of your target" etc.
@OrcasThunder The US is a free society governed by laws it will come a time if this keeps up it will no longer be a free society,it will be lost because of the minority braking laws,and the majority losing the free society.I can live some killings to keep the free society. You just can't stop every thing,no matter what you do.
@Mike@OrcasThunderUm, yeah...care to add some level of sense to that, Mike?Â
IF I am reading what you wrote correctly, you seem to be saying that - at some point - the US will no loner be a free country. That "may" be a rational statement, but it's unclear who these "minority" and "majority" you refer to are. As to your ability to "live with some killings to keep the free society", that is very similar to those who said that they could live with a few police actions, as long as order was maintained - and they themselves weren't affected....
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I did not speak out;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 Martin Niemöller
@OrcasThunder @Mikehe minority are the people that brake the laws the majority of the people don't need laws they go about life and don't infringe on other people
@OrcasThunder Â
The thing is, we don't need to use statistics to justify our ownership of firearms. We're just trying to relate to you on a level you might understand. Gun ownership is a right and the anti-gun crowd seems to be finicky, at best, of their understanding of what a right entails. Â
My ownership of firearms is protected by the same document that protects your right to speak and assemble peacefully; the same document that guarantees you due process and protects you against unlawful search and seizure.
@burton@OrcasThunder"We're just trying to relate to you on a level you might understand."
That's just it - your level requires the injection of fear to survive.
Remember, the citizens of South Africa also have the right to own guns. My comment above addresses the logical extension of where your level of fear can lead us...
@OrcasThunder@burtonÂ
"that it showed what one man with the firepower can do against the government."
That's an accurate assessment, though. His actions drove the LAPD insane, to the point where 3 innocent bystanders in non-matching vehicles were shot at and two were wounded by them. Â
It's an argument meant to dissuade the inaccurate belief that, if our government turned dictatorship, that we citizens wouldn't stand a chance.
As for wanting the most powerful weapons, we can legally purchase various tanks, planes, and helicopters. If you have enough money for the permits, paperwork, and munitions, you can even arm some of them.
My "irrational" point is that your feelings regarding guns and their uses mean precisely nothing due to the fact that ownership is a Constitutional right.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to own a firearm. But there is everything wrong with forcing others to follow suit.
@burton @OrcasThunder Â
A large portion of the pro gun posts have made much of the crime stats, how some very vicious people are going to attack up, and that's why we should all be armed - it's as much a call to fear as "If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns."
And then there are your compatriots why end their post with "...and we have guns..." - as if to tell us to fear that if we come close to them we might get shot.Â
But the most fear raising of all are the ones who hint that they want to have the most powerful weapons, because they are just waiting for the rising...one poster even praised what the former cop did in California, that it showed what one man with the firepower can do against the government.Â
I do not choose out of fear to not own a firearm. I do so because I feel safe enough with my own means of protection.Â
I also refuse to shame myself with disrespect for those who died due to gun violence - which you do simply to make some irrational point.
@OrcasThunder@burtonÂ
No, your level requires - no, is, fear. Your entire case against weapons is shouted from the top of a mountain made of dead children and their grieving families.Â
My level requires nothing.Â
I do not have to justify my right to bear arms any more than you need to justify your right to speak in public.
NRA says get rid of all laws. That way gunowners can get the anarchy they crave and blast away at trespassers from the slits on their fallout shelters, like Mad Max.
@KOMO_Sapiens I don't want anarchy, I want peace and quiet. And Mad Max always took the fight to the bad guys, poor analogy. What justification would anyone have for shooting at a trespasser?
@KOMO_Sapiens Not a true statement buy the NRA. this BS
@KOMO_Sapiens
Never met a gun owner that wished for that.Itâs a wonder that nothing ever gets accomplished when people canât have a constructive conversation.Is your goal to aggravate and alienate the other side.If you feel so strongly about your opinion do you realistically think this is the best tact for you to win support for your cause?
@KOMO_Sapiens Â
Gun owners want to be left alone. We are defending our right to arm ourselves. You came after us, not the other way around. There are hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens that you are more than willing to turn into felons because you are scared of a tool.  Â
A tool with a specific purpose that is responsible for less of that purpose than tools designed for complete safety, mind you.
Your side is drumming up paranoia - projecting your phobias onto other people, all the while standing on a pile of dead children to ensure your unconstitutional message is heard. Â
We don't want anarchy - you do. You want a population incapable of fending for itself. You want a country of victims.
Osama bin Laden wanted to be left alone, too. Afghanistan, Nigeria, Colombia - there are places on this planet that enjoy the "freedom" (more accurately called "license") and unfettered access to weaponry that the fringe mistakenly asserts as an absolute "right." Why don't you spend some time in places like that and report back to us in a month on your quality of life?
OrcasThunder @Another Commenter KOMO_Sapiens please read my post again, beyond the first sentence. I said nothing about not having access to weapons. I said I doubt removing the weapons would fix the problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not unwilling to listen to good legislation on background checks per the topic of the article. I think komosapians is using a ridiculace example. Somehow warning us that legalizing something that is already legal will turn us into one of the listed countries. Those countries have problems because of poor economies, poor education, poor infrastructure. No matter what they do with gun control they will still have violence.
@Another Commenter@KOMO_Sapiens "would be willing to bet that the problems in countries you list have very little to do with access to weaponry"
Afghanistan, Nigeria, Colombia - very little access to weapons? In what world do you live in?
Afghanistan - we are at war there, almost every man over the age of 18 probably has at least one rifle.
Nigeria -Â a long history of civil wars and religious conflict.
Columbia - a very long and brutal history of conflict between right wing governments and leftist guerrilla groups.Â
And with all that conflict, you say the people haven't managed to pick up a few guns laying around among the corpses?
@KOMO_Sapiens @burton Comparing peaceful gun owners to Osama Bin Laden, claiming gun owners can't see reality when it is clear you are the only one ignoring facts you don't want to see.....yeah you've lost it. You really do need to start taking your medications, they will help with your schizophrenia......
@burtonLooking at some of the postings on here is like a peek into a Bizarro universe where up is down, black is white, and Afghanistan, Colombia and Nigeria are paragons of responsible gun ownership. Look, there's a website that proves it! All one has to do to see the truth is to ignore the fact that they're utterly lawless and that people ignore whatever regulations are on the books. Can you find a website that ranks them on a corruption index? Please post your research, or again, spend a month there and tell us all how no one is running around in those countries with the unfettered access to weapons that the NRA has conned you into thinking is an absolute right.
I could see why the NRA would be against these countries - there is no need for pro-gun lobbying there, and no dues to collect from the right-wing dupes who make up the "base." It would be like lobbying for dry weather in Saudi Arabia.
@KOMO_SapiensÂ
Colombia?
In Colombia, civilians are not allowed to possess pistols and revolvers of calibre superior to 9.652mm, automatic arms, semi-automatic rifles and carbines over 22 caliber LR, arms with military-style devices (infrared and laser sights, grenade launchers and silencers) and ammunition for these arms29
Nigeria?
In Nigeria, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, military rifles and handguns27 28CompareÂ
Regulation of Automatic Assault Weapons
In Nigeria, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited27 28 CompareÂ
Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Weapons
In Nigeria, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited29 30
 Afghanistan?Â
While not a terribly fair example (you know, since we invaded them and all) they have less murder (-any- method) per 100k than the US while allowing open carry of just about anything providing you have a permit.
Carrying Guns Openly in PublicIn Afghanistan, carrying a firearm in plain view in a public place is allowed, subject to a valid permit10
Source - gunpolicy.org
In a sea of web sites offering unverified, polarised opinions on gun violence, GunPolicy.org provides evidence-based, country-by-country intelligence from a broad range of official and academic sources. This university site is for researchers, officials, journalists and advocates who need accurate citations and rapid access to credible sources.
@KOMO_SapiensI would be willing to bet that the problems in countries you list have very little to do with access to weaponry.I think if you were able to effectively remove every weapon from the country you would still have the same culture and violence.Furthermore, if I had to be in one of those countries I would without a doubt want unfettered access to weaponry.If you had no choice but to be in one of those countries would you honestly not want a weapon?If you had one would that make you a bad person?
So how is this group distinct from Washington CeaseFire? CeaseFire already does everything it can to ban firearms, so what can a new lobbying group contribute?
@Iconoclast"so what can a new lobbying group contribute?"
There are many separate gun rights organizations in the US, not all close to the NRA, so why shouldn't the gun control orgs have as many?Â
Last I heard, as long as they follow the laws both pro-control and anti-control folks have the right to form as many groups as the want.
@Iconoclast I gather from reading the article (ahem) that their focus is on universal background checks.
"This will only inconvenience lawful gun owners."
How the heck do you know whether they're lawful gun owners without universal background checks?
The fact that we're even arguing about whether to do this shows what a stranglehold the NRA has on our country. I have yet to see one even remotely coherent argument against background checks. That hippy peacenik Wayne LaPierre even said it was a good idea a few years ago.
As long as there are guarantees that when the state does the background check that all information is flushed within, say 7 days and that there are exceptions for family gifting, I don't have a huge problem with universal background checks. Most purchases are through dealers and those purchases are all background checked (handguns through the feds, long arms through the county) already. If there is a convenient way and privacy-secure way to get the background check done or trust someone's CPL then I am good with it.
The criminals are never going to abide by these rules, so gun laws are a mistake.
Murderers will still commit murders, so let's not bother to address homicide anymore. Ditto rapists and sexual violence laws, burglars and theft laws, drunks and DUI laws, etc.
Let's not stop there. We can never stop hurricanes, so let's get rid of the weather service. Earthquakes are going to happen, so let's stop enforcing building codes. You're going to die anyway, so why bother eating, sleeping, taking care of yourself. Just jump off a bridge and get it over with.
The above message brought to you by the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Klan, and the uncritical right-wing crazies on this message board who repeat the nonsense their moonbat puppetmasters spew in the name of 'Murica.Â
@KOMO_Sapiens, Do you actually think you're contributing to a mature debate with all your inflammatory BS rhetoric? You haven't posted anything yet that hasn't been deliberately inflammatory and negative. You are truly the personification of a 'Troll'. Grow up, or go away.
@SargeMcC"Do you actually think you're contributing to a mature debate with all your inflammatory BS rhetoric?"
Given the comment below - "The people involved in this "new coalition" need to be arrested and tried for conspiracy to destroy the Constitution." - from a control opponent, who is really using the "inflammatory BS rhetoric"?Â
How about taking a few verbal pot shots at THOSE folks who are destroying your arguments first?Â
I thought the media and the Demacrates was the lobby group to get the 2nd amendment tossed?? I guess there will now be a secound one trying...
The people involved in this "new coalition" need to be arrested and tried for conspiracy to destroy the Constitution. Â I believe that is called TREASON. Â Period. Â
@Deborah Justice Cutrell Why do you hate America so much, Deborah?
@Deborah Justice Cutrell Treason? Get real. It's called democracy.
@Count_Screamalot @Deborah Justice Cutrell Â
The Bill of Rights specifically exists to prevent breaches of rights, even if it's attempted by majority. Â
@burton @Count_Screamalot @Deborah Justice Cutrell Actually, a significant majority CAN take those rights away, it's called a Constitutional Amendment.
@Deborah Justice Cutrell Ironic that your middle name is "Justice" when you propose such an insanely unjust approach to political dialogue.
In this country you have the right to openly discuss the laws of the land and wether you agree with them or not. If you want to alter the Constitution you also have that right and there is a procedure in place to make it happen, it is not Treason. In fact that is how the second amendment came to be in the first place
The problem is that those who submit their information for a background check are not the ones who are committing crimes with guns. Â They need to enforce stiffer sentences for criminals if they want to stop crimes with guns. Â These idiots are always going after the wrong people.Â
"The National Rifle Association has testified against the idea" - nice spin KOMO. Actually they testified against the BILL, which is critically flawed. Many gun owners in WA support universal registration, just not via the crazy bill that was put together.
@Watcher3Â Universal registration and universal background checks amount to the same thing. You don't do a background check on someone when they buy a car and cars kill far more people than guns. Its just another unenforceable system of government control. Hopefully the bill gets stopped in the senate.
@Blindman @Watcher3 That's not true. You buy a rifle in WA now and there is no permanent record with the government. So that's a background check without registration. Why can't that process just apply to private sales? (which by the way is NOT what is in the bill)
You are correct there isn't a background check when someone buys a car. But we do require that it is registered before it is legally driven on the public roads. It is the registration of cars that allow the police to track down the owner when the driver fees the scene of a crime
@Justaguy And we also require the driver to be licensed - which is a form of registration.
@Watcher3Â Do you think many gun owners support registration? That seems unlikely to me from what I can read and people I have spoken with. Did you mean everyone opposes universal registration?
@Iconoclast @Watcher3 oopsie I meant universal background checks.
@Watcher3 AP spin...but same thing.
So know the anti gunners have a lobby group in Olympia, now we need a local pro gun lobby to do the same.Â
@Blindman Doesn't the NRA have local chapters?