NRA: 'Urgent' action needed to thwart state's gun control proposal
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The National Rifle Association is increasing pressure on Washington state lawmakers who have endorsed a plan to expand gun background checks, with the group calling members to action and specifically targeting a Republican lawmaker who supports the effort.
In a mailed note to its Washington members, the NRA called for "URGENT" action to contact GOP Rep. Mike Hope, who works as a Seattle police officer and was previously supported by the NRA. It said Hope's vote could determine the fate of a "sweeping gun control measure."
Hope supports the background check plan, saying Tuesday that it is a reasonable way to help keep guns away from violent criminals and the mentally ill. Hope said he's invited the NRA to help shape the bill and has some changes that he's going to propose to make the bill better.
"What frustrates me is that they're not really looking at that stuff," Hope said of the NRA. "They're just looking at a unilateral 'no' to everything, and they're not looking for a solution."
Gun buyers already have to undergo a background check if they purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer. The bill supported by Hope and many Democrats would expand that to sales between private parties, with Hope saying criminals use the private purchasing to get a gun without having to prove that they are legally allowed to own one.
Hope said he's received about 300 emails related to the gun bill and believes there are a lot of misconceptions about what it does. In the memo that the NRA sent to its members, the group said the bill would have no impact on criminals and would be "the first steps toward universal registration of firearms and owners." It called the background checks plan "a massive regulatory scheme with huge burdens and obstacles."
Hope said the note is inaccurate. He said records of the background checks would not be maintained or part of a registration system. Under the bill, two people wanting to complete a transaction could go to their local gun shop or local law enforcement agency and pay for a background check of $20 or less.
NRA officials did not respond to requests for comment.
The background checks plan also has the support of Republican Sen. Steve Litzow and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Democrat who has aligned himself with Republicans this year. House lawmakers will begin considering the measure Wednesday in a committee hearing.
In a mailed note to its Washington members, the NRA called for "URGENT" action to contact GOP Rep. Mike Hope, who works as a Seattle police officer and was previously supported by the NRA. It said Hope's vote could determine the fate of a "sweeping gun control measure."
Hope supports the background check plan, saying Tuesday that it is a reasonable way to help keep guns away from violent criminals and the mentally ill. Hope said he's invited the NRA to help shape the bill and has some changes that he's going to propose to make the bill better.
"What frustrates me is that they're not really looking at that stuff," Hope said of the NRA. "They're just looking at a unilateral 'no' to everything, and they're not looking for a solution."
Gun buyers already have to undergo a background check if they purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer. The bill supported by Hope and many Democrats would expand that to sales between private parties, with Hope saying criminals use the private purchasing to get a gun without having to prove that they are legally allowed to own one.
Hope said he's received about 300 emails related to the gun bill and believes there are a lot of misconceptions about what it does. In the memo that the NRA sent to its members, the group said the bill would have no impact on criminals and would be "the first steps toward universal registration of firearms and owners." It called the background checks plan "a massive regulatory scheme with huge burdens and obstacles."
Hope said the note is inaccurate. He said records of the background checks would not be maintained or part of a registration system. Under the bill, two people wanting to complete a transaction could go to their local gun shop or local law enforcement agency and pay for a background check of $20 or less.
NRA officials did not respond to requests for comment.
The background checks plan also has the support of Republican Sen. Steve Litzow and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Democrat who has aligned himself with Republicans this year. House lawmakers will begin considering the measure Wednesday in a committee hearing.
My question is, how do you enforce this? Your telling me that I would have to pay 20$ or more to conduct a private background check, or I could advertise a gun sale on Craigslist and write a bill of sale that pre-dates the law. Do you think our Police have time to track down every seller? Is the plan to spend millions from our already strained budget to create a whole new task force? This proposal has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Here's something else that could potentially cause problems. Would our lawmakers add proof of ownership to this bill? Finding stolen weapons would be a huge win, right? Wrong. How many of us own a deer rifle that a relative gave or gifted us as a kid? How many people still have the receipt for a firearm they bought 20 years ago? Without proof of ownership, your weapon now becomes illegal. Police now have probable cause to search your house for more "illegal" weapons, which is what they proposed on the first bill. This now effects sportsman, hunters and anyone trying to sell a firearm.Â
Hope said the note is inaccurate. He said records of the background checks would not be maintained or part of a registration system. Under the bill, two people wanting to complete a transaction could go to their local gun shop or local law enforcement agency and pay for a background check of $20 or less.
Â
So they want to charge you but they feel no need to maintain the background checks or register them?? The background check fee would also have a gun shop fee added to it so I'm guessing $20 isn't a very accurate figure.
Define " mentally ill " Does this apply to persons that have been locked behind doors because they  " see things " or are you banned from gun ownership because you went to see a counselor over  problems with, lets say, the loss of a loved one and had to take anti- depressants for awhile and now your fine. Does one's Doctor now have to report to a national data base that you took said meds and his/ her findings? How far into our privacy are we talking and do we want to have our medical information in a federal data base. Thoughts ?
 @Suzie-Q Yeah ...... This is just getting way to complicated to try and  figure out.  Â
I think this country needs to try to figure out a way to get rid of all the bad "stock" in this country and then we wouldn't have a lot of these problems.Â
Every time I see this photo I get a kick out of seeing my carry gun in the middle. Wheel guns getting respect back!
 @Iconoclast Taurus Ultra light 5 shot  .38 special ?  That's what I have for my all around carrying gun. I love how small and light that gun is. Great carrying gun for when I'm out in the woods hiking or just exploring.
 @Seahawker It looks more like a titanium S&W 642 in the middle. Is the Taurus behind it?
 @Iconoclast Yeah your right about that prob being a S&W 642 Airweight. I can't see if it has an exposed hammer or not so it's hard to tell. Either way I think it's a S&W for sure. I just pulled out my Taurus Ultra-Lite and the barrel config is different  but it is a titanium frame just like the gun in the picture.  Awesome light little gun, I love it!
So how does a "Private party" do a background check on another person? This just sounds like more ways the State can make money on fees and checks and less about gun control. So if the State does the background check and that person kills someone with the gun they purchased via the "background check" the State performed, does that mean that the State would be liable because they performed the background check?? I'm all for keeping the guns out of the hands of mentally insane people, felons, and criminals, but will this stop the senseless killings??Â
Â
To many loopholes with all of these new proposed laws. Â JUST LOCK UP AND SECURE YOUR WEAPONS AND MOST OF THESEÂ SENSELESSÂ KILLINGS CAN BE AVOIDED.Â
I'm always leary when the NRA uses the word 'urgent' There's always that subtext that involves firearms
 @Alikelystorey Since that is all the National Rifle Association is all about of course their messages always involve firearms.Â
I recommend all the people that have an opinion about this matter contact their state representatives in Olympia instead of venting on KOMO's comment blog....Put your word where they will count for something.
 @TBreeze12 That's half the problem right there, it DOESN'T count. Nothing Citizens say matters.Â
I am for having a background check system open to the general public. I am against ANY firearm info being included, it just isn't necessary. There is no reason to register the firearms unless the intent is to take them away.
The bad guys get guns mainly in three places. from burglaries, from vehicles and from other bad guys who stole or traded drugs for them.
 @32jim2 Wrong. Most criminals get their guns from straw purchasers and criminal FFL dealers.
 @32jim2 Interestingly though, 3/4th of guns used in mass shootings were obtained through legal means.Â
 @quidproquo  @32jim2 By people who wouldn't be denied a purchase even with the strictest of background checks.
Uggh, I hope this is the "need $7 so start asking for $10" business scheme, because the only common sense thing to reform here is a full and competent background check. And if it is from the DOL, then hello all you "scared I'm on a government hit list" wierdos, you are already on that list! The registration fee scheme is ridiculous and is a greedy piece of bull that wonât solve a dang thing. You wanna pay for the background check system, than the background check should be worked into the purchase price, yes, I said a tax on gun sales, pay to play, and yes I would not hesitate to pay that gun tax on my next purchase if that means that the background check system is working for ALL gun sale transactions. You guys have got to give something on this; the mentally disturbed and felonious offenders do not deserve a gun! A blind or drunk person does not deserve to get behind the wheel of a car, which is not a rights issue; it is a common sense issue.
 @Silverback201 Adam Lanza tried to buy a firearm FIVE times about a week before the shooting, and guess what, he was denied all five times. What we have now seems to be working just fine.Â
 @fubar  @Silverback201 Except in 3/4ths of mass shootings and shooting sprees in America the guns were obtained through legal means.Â
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map has a good break down of where and how each shooter obtained their gun.
 @quidproquo Â
Aurora--total failure of the university to not report to NICS/feds or state that the killer was insane and threatening. Bureaucrat failure.
Â
Arizona/Giffords--Total failure of county sheriff to report the threats and mental instability of the killer. Bureaucratic failure.
Â
Most of the other shootings on this map reprise this failure of our bureaucratic state to follow through on preventing the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. This bill in the Legislature would do no better.
Â
Maybe a mental health bill would be more appropriate than adding more background checks.
 @Silverback201 You seem to confuse *intent* with *effect*. I would LIKE a good background check system that private sellers can use, beside the "got a CPL?" check. Got that? I'm NOT against background checks. Most pro-gun folks I know are not particularly against them. What I (and many others) ARE against is the fact that this requires all private sales will out a full registration form for the buyer and gun at the time of the check, with is the same as registration. These lists are prone to abuse, expensive, do not help prevent or deter or solve crimes. It takes up police resources and business labor that could be better spent elsewhere. If they can propose something that allows a private seller to run a backgorund check on a prospective buyer W/O registering the gun, I'd give it very serious consideration.
Â
But that still leaves the whole concept of "rights" - you don't ask permission to exercise your rights. What part of that isn't clear to you? Or do you just not like this one?
@RN1 --that's because this is the only right that deserves a little common sense thrown at it. And asking permission to own a gun is common sense. You don't have to give up your guns or any rights that would affect you, unless you are a felon, mentally disabled, or have a history of violence. You and I agree on the registration issue, I think it is just greedy opprotunity. But instead of rialing up thier base and those whose pockets they line, the NRA should be lobbying for background check reform rather than putting armed guards at school, cause nothing says free society than armed guards at elementary schools.
 @slappywag Yet even though it is so easy no one does it. Maybe because that modified lower receiver is a serious felony? Maybe because no one with any sense trusts what is basically a back yard machinist with manufacturing a reliable & safe lower receiver? btw, maybe an FFL can comment in here but I believe the BATF controls/tracks lower receivers in the same way they control/track full-auto weapons.
Â
ps: I think you meant M-16, not AR-15.
 @RN1 Agreed. Perhaps a great irony in all of this is that they are not even LOOKING at 80% lower receivers. 99% of these anti-gunners do not even know they exist or what they are! I find it fairly amusing. Anyone can LEGALLY purchase an 80% (up to 95% in one case) lower receiver and finish mill it into a working firearm WITHOUT a background check or an FFL transfer ever taking place - no serial number required - because they are NOT considered a firearm by the ATF.  Persons that are denied firearms transfers on the NCIC check can LEGALLY purchase these because it is NOT a firearm! All the person has to do is finish the machining (which can be done in under an hour with a couple drill bits, a cheap drill press, and an alignment jig) and he can assemble a fully functional AR-15, AK-47, etc.
Â
OOPS! There went the whole background check process out the window. I guess these dummies did not think of everything.
 @Silverback201  @RN1 Here is the problem. WAC (Washington Arms collectors) and the NRA *HAVE* offered language to the state house and senate that they ARE happy with, that WOULD accomplish background checks for private sellers. Several times. They may get a sponsor or three, but never enough support to ever get out of committee, because it *DOES'T* have registration. If we get universal background checks that DON'T get registration, then the anti-gunners don't have any big clubs / selling points to get their registration scheme passed. It is clear that for many in Oly and elsewhere, the *goal* is registration, and background checks and the rest are a side-show.
 @Silverback201  @RN1Â
Â
"And asking permission to own a gun is common sense"
Â
You don't need permission to exercise your rights.
"Under the bill, two people wanting to complete a transaction could go to their local gun shop or local law enforcement agency and pay for a background check of $20 or less."Â IF this is all there is to it, a voluntary agreement between buyer and seller to have a background check- I'm all for it. If there is any legal requirement to do so I reject it. I doubt that the State could do a check for $20 and that the records of the check would be destroyed. The State has shown how perfidious it can be. The State would build another empire around the rule.$$$$
 @contraryjim sure $20 the first year then they will make it $40 the next year and keep raising it for more revenue.Â
 @32jim2 It isn't about revenue. It is about pricing more and more people out of purchasing firearms. The same strategy these phobic loons are pursuing with taxing ammunition.
 @32jim2  @contraryjim What? Raise fees? They can DO THAT? Who wood'da though?
 @contraryjim It says you HAVE to do this, and according to section 2.d, "(d) The department of licensing shall create and make available an 20 application to transfer a firearm for use by unlicensed persons engaged 21 in the sale or purchase of a firearm. The application shall include 22 the information required under RCW 9.41.090 for an application to 23 purchase a pistol from a dealer, and any other information the 24 department of licensing determines is appropriate."
Meaning it registers it with make, model, seriel number, your name, DoB, address, etc.
Â
In other words, it's registration of ALL firearm sales.
 @RN1  @contraryjim And now with those details I can say I'm completely against it. If it was only the background check and no registration I could somewhat back it (though I know criminals wouldn't do it anyway so its of little value). But the fact they register the weapon, there is no way this should be supported. You know we constantly hear that we need to have universal background checks. Ok. Now, why do they also always want to go further and register the firearm. Its clear the anti-gunners are trying to get registration under the guise of background checks. Liars as usual.
 @RN1  @contraryjim Speaking of sells well, remember how many times the brady bunch has changed the name of their organization? They keep changing it to make it more palatable to the masses. Under their original name people knew right off that they were going after peoples rights so they changed it. I believe they are on their third name I don't keep track anymore.  Thanks for the link I'll look into the details.
 @SeattleJoe  @contraryjim For all the details:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1588&year=2013
The keep calling it "universal background checks" because it sells well. "registration of all sales, even if between CPL holders" sounds a lot less rights-friendly.
"make'n a list, check'n it twice, gunna find out who's a felon because of paperwork or not..."
The NRA is about as relevant as the Catholic church. Oppose anything new or progressive.
 @SanctuaryÂ
Â
New and progressive doesn't always mean good.
"...with Hope saying criminals use the private purchasing to get a gun without having to prove that they are legally allowed to own one."
Â
Ok so where's the data proving this? Last I checked these whackos that have been killing poeple stole the guns. They didn't purchase them in private deals.
 @jimbob Wrong. Most wacko's got their guns through legal means http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
The NRA is two faced. In 1999 they supported legislation for background checks on all purchases. Now they oppose them. I think their leadership is getting senile and forgetting what they stand for.
 @jcman See details below, but to say again - this ISN'T just background checks - it's registration, but so poorly drafted there are HUGE practical problems.
People become so irrational when anyone mentions gun control. They are asking to perform background checks on all gun purchases to prevent guns getting to felons, mentally ill, etc. and banning assault weapons and extended clips. There are still many, many, many guns to be had legally. These same people probably are more then happy to have a woman's uterus controlled by the government (men, in particular). We poor weak, feeble women cannot make decisions regarding our own bodies but heaven forbid anyone even mention gun control.
 @diniangel Are you kidding me? This is about gun registration and infringing on a constitutional right.
Â
However, being you want to venture off on other issues, I will oblige you.
Â
In reality most Republicans/Conservatives do not care what people do in their private lives. We are pro-choice, pro gay marriage ETC. I know, I know, the libs have hijacked civil rights and other issues. Keep in mind Lincoln was the President who freed the slave, democrats were the party that opposed civil rights.....I could go on.
Â
Also, I know libs love being victims of anything and love to blame it on the right even more. No one cares about your uterus. You are the one who wants the government inside of it by thinking tax money should be used for abortions on demand. Abortions are personal, and private money should be used for them, not my tax dollar. (Of course there should be exceptions to the rule. ex: rape, underage pregnancy and a few others.)
Â
Using your logic, men should demand that government pay for vasectomies, and then bit-- that the government is controlling our bodies when they refuse to pay.
Â
Next time, please stay on topic, and keep your NPR talking points to yourself.
 @diniangelÂ
Â
Assault weapons are already mostly banned (unfortunately). Research the National Firearms Act.
Â
Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15)Â fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. Just like every pistol in existence.
Â
Long-barreled rifles (from your average hunting shotgun to the dreaded Bushmaster) account for 3% of -all- gun-related homicides. More people are assaulted and killed by hammers than "assault weapons." Gangs account for more than 70% of all firearm-related homicides. They're also using pistols.Â
Â
Your association of 2nd amendment advocates and opposition to abortion rights is ridiculous and you should absolutely feel like a poor, weak, feeble woman for assuming such drivel.
Â
You're also a hypocrite for thinking that it's reasonable to support curtailing the rights of everyone in the country because few religious people don't think you should be able to abort a child.
 @diniangel It's NOT just a background check. It is, in effect, registration of all purchases. It will push of the cost of guns (bad for poor people who can only afford to live in bad neighborhoods, and are likely to NEED a gun), and it is badly written so that it will be awkward to comply with, AND it leaves a HUGE hole with respect to *gifts* (which it doesn't cover at all), meaning it would be OK to sell your neighbor a box of ammo for $500 and GIVE him the gun as a groundhog day present, and be totally legal. Yeah, no criminal would ever struggle through a tribulation like THAT to skirt the law, no way!
Perhaps well intentioned, but deeply flawed.
 @RN1 Off to write to my legislators in support of gun control. I appreciate that you are passionate about this topic, I just happen to disagree with you.
 @diniangel Just remember - if you can convince them to ignore one right you don't like, then maybe someone else can convince them to ignore another right you DO care about.
 @RN1 But it is okay for the Republicans to push legislation through that orders doctors to lie to women seeking medical advise about a pregnancy? It is okay to force a woman who has had to make the gut-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy to get false information and an internal ultrasound that is not needed? It is okay to deny medical care simply because she is only an incubator and has no other value? Where is your outrage when all this is going on but asking people to register guns that they will get to keep is worth all your ranting???
Â
 @diniangel Try to stay on topic. If you have a single issue concern then maybe you should comment in places that are discussing that issue instead of wasting time bringing up irrelevancies here.
 @diniangel Don't push that one on me. I'm pro-choice, personally. And, teh NRA is a *single-issue* special interest group. They support Harry Reid, for fuzzball's sake, because he's a strong gun-rights support. They ONLY issue they care about is the 2nd Amendment. Republicans are a different thing. Don't confuse teh two.