Lawmakers change proposed gun control bill to ease owners' concerns
»Play Video
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - In order to ease the concerns of gun owners, Washington lawmakers seeking to expand background checks for gun sales have made a series of changes to their proposal.
Under a revised bill considered during a committee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers say agencies that conduct background checks would have to destroy records of the search once it's complete. Opponents of the bill had expressed concern that the transaction records would essentially provide a foundation for a registry of gun owners.
Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said he received hundreds of emails related to the bill. Some were generic emails or form letters, but he said others included reasonable suggestions.
"There are quite a few people who were very thoughtful," Pedersen said. "Those comments resulted in the changes."
The new bill also allows private parties to bypass the background check if the buyer already has a concealed pistol license. People involved in a transaction can also skip the background check if a request for such information goes unanswered for three days, responding to concerns that the federal system could be unavailable for periods of time. The new measure also removes a provision that allowed a state agency to request that more detailed information be submitted as part of the background check process.
At its core, the bill is designed to require background checks for private gun transactions. People already have to undergo a background check if they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer, but supporters of the measure are concerned that criminals and mentally ill people can simply seek out a private transaction in order to acquire weapons.
Opponents, however, said criminals will still find ways to get guns.
Despite the changes, Brian Judy, the Washington state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said he still had concerns about the bill. He believes that local law enforcement would be unable to conduct background checks and that gun dealers may lose money on the proposed $20 fee for conducting the checks, essentially freezing private gun transactions.
He argued that it would disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens.
"This is a misdirected program," Judy said. "It's not going to work."
House lawmakers are looking to move ahead with the measure next week. It has support on the committee of Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer previously supported by the NRA. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.
It's not clear if the measure has the votes to pass in the state Senate, where Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, of Ritzville, indicated that the measure wouldn't have much support in his caucus.
"I think it's highly divisive and it's not broadly supported," he said.
Under a revised bill considered during a committee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers say agencies that conduct background checks would have to destroy records of the search once it's complete. Opponents of the bill had expressed concern that the transaction records would essentially provide a foundation for a registry of gun owners.
Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said he received hundreds of emails related to the bill. Some were generic emails or form letters, but he said others included reasonable suggestions.
"There are quite a few people who were very thoughtful," Pedersen said. "Those comments resulted in the changes."
The new bill also allows private parties to bypass the background check if the buyer already has a concealed pistol license. People involved in a transaction can also skip the background check if a request for such information goes unanswered for three days, responding to concerns that the federal system could be unavailable for periods of time. The new measure also removes a provision that allowed a state agency to request that more detailed information be submitted as part of the background check process.
At its core, the bill is designed to require background checks for private gun transactions. People already have to undergo a background check if they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer, but supporters of the measure are concerned that criminals and mentally ill people can simply seek out a private transaction in order to acquire weapons.
Opponents, however, said criminals will still find ways to get guns.
Despite the changes, Brian Judy, the Washington state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said he still had concerns about the bill. He believes that local law enforcement would be unable to conduct background checks and that gun dealers may lose money on the proposed $20 fee for conducting the checks, essentially freezing private gun transactions.
He argued that it would disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens.
"This is a misdirected program," Judy said. "It's not going to work."
House lawmakers are looking to move ahead with the measure next week. It has support on the committee of Republican Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer previously supported by the NRA. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.
It's not clear if the measure has the votes to pass in the state Senate, where Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, of Ritzville, indicated that the measure wouldn't have much support in his caucus.
"I think it's highly divisive and it's not broadly supported," he said.
Pathetic... That gun owners think the NRA is there to protect gun rights... they are more there to generate GUN SALES. They work mostly for the gun manufactures and very little for owners.
So if you pay dues to the NRA you are getting fooled.
@nwlib Every time I read or hear this silly, baseless argument, or others like it, I put a dollar into the jar for NRA donations. Every month they get a check. You just earned the NRA another dollar.
@nwlib While I see the claim used from time to time, I have yet to see anything in the form of proof.  Pathetic indeed.
Thanks for the reminder. Â I just finished renewing our family's membership. Â About the same time, our friends sent us an email they were opting for lifetime membership. Â
@lexl1019 @nwlib Yes sir they have done their JOBS that being keep pushing the fear. Sad so many are brainwashed.. I would provide a link for you to look at but you would discount it for being from a liberal site.
@nwlib @lexl1019 How would you know what I'll discount? Â
From the sounds of it, you don't have anything more than an ultra biased source you aren't willing to reveal. How credible is a claim like that? Â You seem so sure, you really do! Â While faith is admirable, who is the brainwashed one again?
I tend to avoid either end of the spectrum. Â I find both blue and red kool aid to be distasteful as a rule. Â
What I support as a voter would likely surprise you, considering your wild assumptions.
The bill would effectively regulate all firearm private commerce in WA, ensuring that nobody who would fail a background check can get access to a gun.Â
Even 74% of NRA members support this sensible change. If gun owners are worried about the cost of the background checks, instead of voting no, how about asking them to come up with ways to reduce the cost burden? Maybe a small tax on bullets? A registration fee? A gas tax?Â
@KH It wouldn't effectively regulate it. It creates a new process requiring police to do the background checks. The idea is good but the implementation is poor. I want universal background checks but this bill, even the substitute one, is misguided,
@KH If by "effectively regulate" you mean "ban," then you are right. This bill makes private firearm commerce impossible since the two parties that the bill tells you to do a background check with won't do it and can't dot it and aren't forced to do it.Â
@KH The gun owners want it for free, don't mention tax or else the will call you a socialist... Frankly I like Chris Rocks idea of $50 a bullet tax. If you mention the state requiring a separate liability insurance policy they just claw themselves up the wall. Â
They believe the 2amd makes them more important than a someone who doesn't own a gun.
@nwlib generalize much? I don't want it for free. I want a free market where I choose the FFL, and he sets the price, just how it is now. By setting the price at $20, many dealers will refuse to process it, and people will just not get the check done, we need free choice of where we get it done, just as it works now.
@nwlib @KH Chris Rock has the money to pay for a armed security detail, his idea of a "$50 bullet tax" are the ramblings of a washed up hack. Just because I own firearms doesn't make me think I'm better than you. I made the conscious decision to take personal responsibility for my own protection, I neither want or require assistance from the police (read peace officers). And in any event, I'll come to the assistance of anyone, even someone like you.Â
@nwlib@KHLets charge you $5 for the right to speak your mind after you start complaining about the bill for $600 the government will send you after kicking in your door. After all it cost them $600 in court fees to get a search warrant for your house, therby protecting your 4th amendment rights, so you obviously owe the money back. If you chose to plead the 5th amendment later that'll be another $200. Also, if you want the right to question the police who you think wronged you, you'll have to personally pay for their appearance in court to do so. Overtime isn't cheap citizen, you have the right to pay up.
@Root Please Don't forget poll taxes. How about paying $50 to vote? Sounds like the same thing as prohibitively taxing cartridges to me.
@nwlib @KH And rock isn't prejudiced at all is he? I witnessed your man rock dressing down a steward at a motel in vegas, and he used some real colorful language. He's lower than dirt and so are his opinions.
@nwlib No, Chris Rock is just another racist comic who loves to make white people jokes. If you think those four people make the same sort of comments as Chris Rock you have either never listened to any of them or you are delusional.
@nwlib @komoispropaganda @KH I have no idea, and don't push your republican button with me. I have no party affiliation and stand on my own.
Rock is a bigoted racial slur of an American and that is the name I responded to. Don't try to drag me into a corner. All of America's leadership is corrupt.
@komoispropaganda @nwlib @KH So he is like Glen Beck,Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney...huh!
@KHÂ Criminals acquire firearms through straw buyers, criminal FFL dealers and from the street. Few firearms are purchased by criminals though private sales.
@Iconoclast @KH And how do you suggest that stop other than stiff prison sentences which dont seem to stop the sale of illegal guns by criminals. got to stop this at the roots on how these guns get on the street.Â
@nwlib You cannot disarm the USA either practically or legally. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the USA and it is impossible to confiscate them all. Even if firearms were confiscated, criminals would still bring guns in from other countries--just as they bring in drugs. This is true all over the world and would be true here as well. So banning the ownership of firearms by honest citizens would just result in more violent crime because people could not defend themselves.
Legally, guns cannot be banned without a change to the Constitution. We have an inalienable right to self-defense which is expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Any attempt to ban firearms without changing the constitution will fail.
One way to deal with gun violence on the streets is to end this idiotic war on drugs. It is just Prohibition--we are getting gang violence as a result of the enormous profits that the illicit trade in drugs provides. End the war on drugs and much of the gun violence will end.
@KH Jail sentences for offenders that are actually a deterrent?
Regarding HB 1588
-The bill would effectively back-door ban all firearms private commerce in WA since no dealer will do a background check for $20 or less and law enforcement is forbidden under federal law, so no way to get the actual background check for the sale.Â
-For CPL holders the seller is required to get a copy of their CPL, I'm sure judges won't accept smartphone pics and who carries a copy machine around in their pocket?
-The bill does not have any teeth and would not solve any problems since police have no way of knowing if a firearm was sold or given away.
Call your rep and tell them to vote NO on this!
@NW-Economist A gun registry would resolve most of these problems.Â
@KH @NW-Economist Study more history.
@KHÂ @NW-Economist No, it wouldn't, AND it's prone to abuse. Canada abandon their universal gun registration after billions were spent, a decade wasted, and ZERO crimes were solved (and no significant drop in crime was linked to it). OTOH, registration DOES easily allow confiscation, and makes criminals of good people for simple paperwork mistakes, while it does little to deter real criminals.Â
If you are trying to fix a problem with a law, the first thing you need is a clear problem statement. If you can't do that, then you can't design a law that will address it properly, let alone fix it. And if anyone with three brain cells and five seconds can work around it, your "solution" isn't a solution, but a bigger problem.
@NW-Economist It also doesn't cover gifting or loans. I can sell you a totally unregulated, but very nice, plastic holster for $750 (r a screw-driver, or a box of ammo, or...), and then GIVE you a Glock as a Groundhog Day present, and be totally cool, legally speaking, because it wasn't the gun I was selling. I could also LOAN you the gun, and you could LOAN me $800, and it all good, too. They are officially separate and unrelated actions. And, because the new bill explicitly destroys records of the check, even if you DID do it they can't prove anything one way or another. In other words, it'll create paperwork, lawsuits, and news stories, and occasional catch up the honest but misinformed seller. Won't do squat for the real problems.
Still not clear how they'll get the Crips, Bloods & Hoover Street gangs to undergo background checks when they sell their stolen guns to each other. That is, after all, where the vast majority of criminal activity takes place and where the vast majority of criminals get their guns, from other criminals.
@nwgunslinger Or from people with no record who purchase guns for them. Straw buyers.
The real gun nuts are those phobic cretins who fear firearms so much they imagine that disarming citizens will make matters better.Â
@Iconoclast That's alright, just keep your guns away from people.  Like anything else offensive, keep those guns to yourself.
@31F@Iconoclast"That's alright, just keep your guns away from people"
In an attempt to keep peace, I believe what Iconoclast was saying is that if you don't want to be close to 'his' weapons was to achieve this for you to not go to his house or pass him on the street is because he's pretty much armed all the time.
No threat was intended I'm sure.Â
@komoispropaganda "Rock on...."
Yep, you are old. But don't feel too bad, that phrase was new when I was already an adult.
@31F @Iconoclast LOL, okay, I guess I act a little old.......... holy cow, I AM old.Â
Rock on....
@Iconoclast Hmm, I wonder what you define as real whining.  This is a discussion.  There is no whining here.  If you think I am whining, then you are simply whining back.  Now is that what you want.  I don't think so.  I think you want to carry around your gun and be right.  Maybe you'll get a cookie too.
@komoispropaganda Of course there was no threat. Only a moron or worse could possibly interpret that response to someone whining about never being near someone with a firearm as a threat.
@komoispropaganda Yes, agreed, however iconoclast said to another poster that there were no threats.  I just made the point that it can be seen as a threat.  I don't take it as a threat.  This is a board for crying out loud.  All is forgotten, once I go to sleep.
@31FÂ Well, don't come to my house and don't pass me on the street.Â
@31FÂ "and I have learned that this place isn't that bad."
That is the truth. I have even been to Chicago several times and Seattle barely compares (a joke). Bad things still happen here but nowhere near the frequency as occurs in other places (like Mexico, for example).
@Iconoclast Err, I saw another post from you way below this list that made me think you were a little paranoid.  However, given your past, I can understand that you are trying to be cautious and not put yourself in the same situation.  You know, I've been to some dangerous places in my life (Iraq, PNG, etc... ) and I have learned that this place isn't that bad.
@RN1Â Heck, just go to West Coast Armory or Wades for lots of open carry! For some reason, they never seem to be robbed. I wonder why...
I'll bet it was a polite place! Carry is legal in bars in ID?
@31FÂ Where did I say I was paranoid? I was referring to your discomfort about seeing someone who is armed.
I carry because I have had several encounters over the years that have convinced me that carrying a sidearm would be prudent. Since I am older now I am a much more attractive target than I was when I was younger--weaker, fatter, slower.
@Iconoclast @31F FWIW, the advisability of open vs concealed varies place to place. There is a GREAT BBQ joint in ID that gives a 5% discount for folks that show up open carrying, for example. Last time I was there, it was about a 50-50 mix. Polite place, that.
@Iconoclast Okay, out-of-sight, out-of-mind...  So, are you telling me that you are paranoid about what people might have?  So, I am afraid and you are paranoid.  Sounds like a great place we live in.  The paranoid carry around guns and the scared have to suck-it-up and deal with it...  That's life
@31FÂ Bogus is an adjective applied to a noun. The noun used was accusation, which referred to your lie about me making any sort of threat. I suppose you were frustrated by the utter inanity of your request that I not carry in public that you had to make something up.
If you are frightened by open carry, as opposed to concealed carry, and just want to pretend that no one is armed that is your right. I do not favor open carry for practical reasons--it makes one a target by both criminals and law enforcement--but that doesn't change matters. As I pointed out, every time you walk down a Seattle street you probably pass several armed people. Not knowing which are armed and which are not is just a convenient illusion for you, that's all.
@Iconoclast Man, you are awesome.  You keep wanting more.  Alright, you reeled me in.  Let's see, I have an internet connection and need to look something up.  Sorry, but I am not tracking here.  Maybe you should stick to the point.  We were talking how you must carry around your weapon for protection, but we really know why.  And, I am saying that you should leave it at home or out of sight and out of mind. Â
@31FÂ You have an internet connection. Look it up. Are you really that lazy as well as frightened of the world?
@Iconoclast Bogus, what's bogus; huh?
@31FÂ Decide to stop lying yet? btw, you should take care of making bogus accusations like that in the real world. It is defamation and can result in a civil suit.
@Iconoclast Useless... Next
@31F Only  a moron would interpret that as a threat. You were the one complaining about being near any firearms. I just let you know how to do firearms--stay off the street. That way you won't pass near any of the CPL holders (or LEO) and you won't be frightened.Â
@Iconoclast Fyi, Telling me not to pass you on the street can be interpreted as a threat...
@KH @Iconoclast No threat was made. Try to stop lying, though I know that will be difficult for you.
@KH @Iconoclast @31F Â
 No threat was made or even implied.
No one is denying your right to your opinion, but attempting to enforce that opinion in the face of Constitutional rights will not end in your favor.
@Iconoclast @31F Wow. This attitude should fail a background check. You would threaten to shoot someone who has different political views than your own?Â
@Iconoclast Okay, I know you are upset.  Just settle down Rambo.  If that is the way you want to be; fine.
Take care, and remember you don't always need your gun... Â
@31FÂ You probably shouldn't drive either. Someone can do a lot of damage with a 2 ton vehicle traveling at 40+ mph. Pretty frightening. Flying probably petrifies you, not only from the natural risk of mechanical failure or human error but also from the certain knowledge that there are thousands of fanatics who would love to crash that plane you are on.
I would be careful walking down a Seattle street as well. You should realize that many of the mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless you see on the street have some sort of weapon.
In fact, there probably isn't anywhere in the world quite safe enough for you and your nervousness. A pity.
@31FÂ Someone who is about peace? Are you attempting some sort of poor parody of a nitwit?
As burton points out, stay in your house. You might not pass any of the hundreds of firearms around you every day in that case. My firearms offend you? So what? If I commit a crime against you then you have grounds to make a complaint. But, like virtually all legal gun owners, it is extremely unlikely that I would do such a thing. Unless I commit such an offense who really cares about how offended you are.
truly, you are a genuine gun nut.
@burton @31F Yes, cops make me nervous too.  It's not a,  "oh no there's a gun!" nervous, but more a, "Darwinian understanding about human nature".  Crazy people were once sane.  I don't want to be around when the sane change to the crazy.  Something as simple as a bad day can spiral into a loss of loved ones.  And, for what reason, because someone pulled a trigger.  There are too many years in life to lose it all to an event that takes mere seconds....Â
@31F @burton Â
Open carry is also perfectly legal in this state. Do cops make you nervous, too? I mean they should, given current events, but still.
@burton No problem, what I don't know, won't cause me any concern.  Stay indoors, huh; well I accept that guns will inevitably be a part of society.  I just don't want to see them.  And, regarding misunderstood youth, well, that's another story... Â
@31FÂ Â
He conceal-carries. If you do not want guns near you, stay indoors. There are many thousands of people that carry in this state. They're in your convenience stores, movie theaters, grocery stores and malls. Â
If you don't want to be around guns, stay indoors. But that won't stop some group of "misunderstood youths" from busting your door down at 3am, tying you up, and making you watch while they have their way with your possessions.
lconoclast, you are absolutely not an answer to this problem. Â Give your gun to someone who is about peace. Â "Don't pass me on the street... "; you do not deserve to carry around a gun with that attitude.
@Iconoclast I'm not even remotely suggesting disarming citizens. I am however suggesting that in light of the rapid increase of gun violence that something be done to a) limit the type of firearm the general public has access to, b) increase the type and thoroughness of check(s) people go through to buy a firearm from any source public or private, c) track the posession of said firearms, and d) make sure that firearm owners are properly trained to own and or maintain posession.
@what? There is no rapid increase in gun violence. And limiting firearms millions of which have never been used in a crime is just shallow hysteria. Increasing background checks in this state will do nothing to change anything about gun violence in this state. Criminals will still get firearms without any problem. And as for requiring that firearm owners are trained to your satisfaction, that isn't your place to put that sort of limit on a fundamental right. Nor will such training have any effect on gun violence either.
Just more limitations on honest citizens with the fantasy that those restrictions will limit access and supply to crazies and criminals. It won't and we all know it.Â
So, yes, you would qualify as a real gun nut.