State lawmakers near deal on expanded gun background checks
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington lawmakers are beginning to coalesce around a plan that would expand the state's laws on gun background checks, providing hope for supporters after years of failed efforts.
Gun measures have flooded the Legislature this year, with some lawmakers proposing that teachers have the ability to carry firearms and others looking to add new fees to gun transactions. The universal background checks plan, however, has emerged as the most surprising proposal that has bipartisan support.
Ralph Fascitelli, who leads the gun control group Washington Ceasefire, said the organization didn't believe earlier this year that the idea had a chance of passing the Legislature. That has changed in just the last couple weeks.
"We are increasingly optimistic," Fascitelli said.
While the measure is supported by many Democrats, the background checks plan also picked up support from Republican Rep. Mike Hope of Lake Stevens, Republican Sen. Steve Litzow of Mercer Island and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Democrat who has aligned himself with Republicans this year. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.
Background checks are already required when purchases are made at federally licensed gun shops. The bill would expand that requirement to sales between private parties.
Litzow said the bill would do nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.
"It's a common-sense approach to making sure that those who shouldn't own a gun aren't purchasing a gun," Litzow said.
Litzow said he also thinks there is broader support for efforts to change the mental health system, such as making sure there are counselors in schools and increasing capacity so that people can help get loved ones the care they need. Litzow also supports an effort to create penalties for people when children get their accessible guns and injure themselves or others.
The background checks bill is first getting a hearing in the state House next week.
Hope, a Seattle police officer, said the private transactions are occurring all the time and are attractive for criminals who can avoid a background check. He noted that when his employer recently held a gun buyback program, some people were on the streets buying weapons from people who were waiting in line.
"That's exactly what we want to go after. We don't know who's buying the gun," Hope said.
Don Pierce, legislative director at the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said curbing violence is only going to be accomplished through a combination of proposals and that the background checks are part of that.
"Part of the solution is to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill," Pierce said.
Hope said he expects the bill will pass the House. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jay Inslee said the office hasn't examined the specific language of the background check proposal but is supportive of the idea.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the bill would come in the state Senate, where the bill has been assigned to a committee dominated by pro-gun lawmakers. Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, expressed skepticism of whether the background check proposal would help, arguing that the state needs to focus instead on treating the mentally ill. She said she opposes bills that would limit the rights of gun users, such as an assault weapons ban or a limit on magazine capacity.
"You can be in the House and can be supporting some of the bills that will take our freedoms away, but they will die in the Washington state Senate," Roach said.
Fascitelli, the gun control proponent, said he's not very confident the bill would make it out of committee, either. But he's hopeful the Senate will be able to bypass that process and bring the measure straight to the floor.
Litzow said he hasn't yet discussed the gun bill with members of the Senate committee. He wasn't sure about the idea of bypassing the panel.
"I don't think that's necessary at this point," Litzow said.
Gun measures have flooded the Legislature this year, with some lawmakers proposing that teachers have the ability to carry firearms and others looking to add new fees to gun transactions. The universal background checks plan, however, has emerged as the most surprising proposal that has bipartisan support.
Ralph Fascitelli, who leads the gun control group Washington Ceasefire, said the organization didn't believe earlier this year that the idea had a chance of passing the Legislature. That has changed in just the last couple weeks.
"We are increasingly optimistic," Fascitelli said.
While the measure is supported by many Democrats, the background checks plan also picked up support from Republican Rep. Mike Hope of Lake Stevens, Republican Sen. Steve Litzow of Mercer Island and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Democrat who has aligned himself with Republicans this year. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.
Background checks are already required when purchases are made at federally licensed gun shops. The bill would expand that requirement to sales between private parties.
Litzow said the bill would do nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.
"It's a common-sense approach to making sure that those who shouldn't own a gun aren't purchasing a gun," Litzow said.
Litzow said he also thinks there is broader support for efforts to change the mental health system, such as making sure there are counselors in schools and increasing capacity so that people can help get loved ones the care they need. Litzow also supports an effort to create penalties for people when children get their accessible guns and injure themselves or others.
The background checks bill is first getting a hearing in the state House next week.
Hope, a Seattle police officer, said the private transactions are occurring all the time and are attractive for criminals who can avoid a background check. He noted that when his employer recently held a gun buyback program, some people were on the streets buying weapons from people who were waiting in line.
"That's exactly what we want to go after. We don't know who's buying the gun," Hope said.
Don Pierce, legislative director at the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said curbing violence is only going to be accomplished through a combination of proposals and that the background checks are part of that.
"Part of the solution is to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill," Pierce said.
Hope said he expects the bill will pass the House. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jay Inslee said the office hasn't examined the specific language of the background check proposal but is supportive of the idea.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the bill would come in the state Senate, where the bill has been assigned to a committee dominated by pro-gun lawmakers. Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, expressed skepticism of whether the background check proposal would help, arguing that the state needs to focus instead on treating the mentally ill. She said she opposes bills that would limit the rights of gun users, such as an assault weapons ban or a limit on magazine capacity.
"You can be in the House and can be supporting some of the bills that will take our freedoms away, but they will die in the Washington state Senate," Roach said.
Fascitelli, the gun control proponent, said he's not very confident the bill would make it out of committee, either. But he's hopeful the Senate will be able to bypass that process and bring the measure straight to the floor.
Litzow said he hasn't yet discussed the gun bill with members of the Senate committee. He wasn't sure about the idea of bypassing the panel.
"I don't think that's necessary at this point," Litzow said.
All this would do is to help keep gins and ammo priced out of the reach of poor people. The same way unconstitutional car insurance does. Hopefully this all gets shot down. There are already plenty of laws on the books to punish criminals, quit punishing law abiding citizens.
NOTHING is going to get voted through. Guaranteed. This is just a knee jerk reaction to a tragic incident that the government is using to divert your attention from the economy. Wake up, sheeple!!
@Bubba Gunners, Go look at the last article I posted below, the liberal one. Scary.
Â
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Obama is going back to the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty talks to sign the agreement and bystep Congress, backdooring UN controls to America.
 @SargeMcC Get this man some tinfoil. He needs a new hat.
 @leftcenterright My,,, you certainly became quiet.
 @leftcenterright Obviously,as you're confused, your opinion of me matters not, so I don't require your appology for your insult.
 @leftcenterright Or, for your liberal passive sensitvities;
http://ivn.us/the-frog-and-the-eagle/2013/01/16/why-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-should-be-obama-gun-control-legacy/
 @leftcenterright Or if you don't like that one;
https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/
 @leftcenterright Wrong, my identity crisis confused sheeple friend;
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/
 @K. Coleman  @SargeMcC  @leftcenterright That is only if the president wants to abide by the constitution. I'm pretty sure the congress and the president could care less whats written in the constitution. And hopefully people won't vote for any congressman that puts their signature on this  bill. Call your congressmen.
 @K. Coleman I agree. I, too, would welcome a great deal more education of the topic and the process. Too many Americans simply don't understand the issues and refuse to be educated, or fail to believe what is presented to them.Â
 @SargeMcC Possible? Yes.  Probable? No.  It would still have to be Constitutional, which it is not.  Also, the Senate is not as knee-jerk as the House.
Â
In some ways I would WELCOME a debate as this... because the arguments and fighting would become so loud and obnoxious that people would finally become educated. People would learn some history and finally wake the heck up.
Â
Once people become AWARE, the tend to vote more conservative. So I believe this will eventually backfire on the left... they keep pushing and never know when to quit. Â Â
 @K. Coleman True, and as you stated, it would have to be voted on, (or a draft of it), by the Senate. But with only 51 Senators opposed in July, I believe the fervor over Sandy Hook would sway that vote considering mid terms aren't until 2014.
@SargeMcCÂ A treaty such as this would essentially turn ourÂ
sovereignty over to the U.N. Â The removal of Liberty and the denial of Constitutional rights is in direct conflict with the Oath of Office. Â Quite simply it's an impeachable offense. Â I imagine the Supreme Court would probably weigh-in as well. Â Â
Â
That should be 'bids'.
 @K. Coleman Funny, but read the liberal passive article below. They state that the Senate voted last July, 51 opposed, becuase it was right before the elections. We know that the gun control issue is a hot topic and those voting for strict gun controls before elections failed in their bits for a seat. The next elections, mid-term, are in 2014. Enough time to run some damage control for voting for gun control. And the UN treaty does bipass Congress.
 @SargeMcC For a topic as volatile as this, it'll never pass, probably never make it to a vote, or it'll be held up for years.  IMHO, it's a scare tactic that is used to keep peoples eyes off of other things.
 @SargeMcC It didn't work that way for Kyoto, I believe.Â
Â
Sadly enough, I could see that this treaty will only impact the decent folks (e.g. Christians in Nigeria or Croatians in the old Yugoslavia) while being powerless against the savages (e.g. Palestinians or Nigerian Islamists).
 @K. Coleman If you read the articles you will see that if Obama agrees to the treaty the Senate is bound by agreement to adopt some form of the arms trate treaty. They would be required to draft accepted portions of the treaty.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Â
 @SargeMcC  @leftcenterright *ALL* treaties have to be approved by at least a two-thirds vote.  Obama cannot single-handed go in and make a treaty.
Also if you think they are giving out ANY MEDICAL INFO .. due to HEPA LAWS... mental illness, suicide attempts etc... I DOUBT IT............
 @DISPATCH911 FFL holders are required to honor privacy laws. But they are businesses with something to lose. How will privacy be maintained with private sellers?Â
@Iconoclast you will NEVER control someone that wants a gun from getting a gun in America .. These so called "background checks" are a JOKE...............
Curious ...  what do these "background checks include???? AND most important how accurate are they .... ?? and better yet ..  how up to date are they?????????????????
This is a solution in search of a problem. We need less gun control, not more.
 @Wayne I agree, in addition to my 357 Smith & Wesson, I would like a 50 Caliber machine gun for target practice, a bazooka for mounting on my Ram 4 x 4 roof, a FIM - 92 Stinger Rocket would be nice to protect me from alien spacecraft circling overhead and an m777 Howitzer in my backyard to protected my backside from all those evil zombies coming to take me away to that funny farm they own and and eat me. But most of all, no background checks to see if weirdos are trying to buy guns, no, we do not want that all, Those evil government Republicans and Democrats, who needs them, right:?
I can support this one, as I gun owner, I have found it very strange that when I buy a gun online or at a store, I have to get the background check and wait for the "okay" typically 7-10 from the King County Sheriff's office. But I could go to a gun show or to any one of my friends and hand over cash and walk away with the gun in a matter of minutes. This is not the answer to all of the issues but it does close a big gap in our system.Â
Â
 @justsumguy 2 questions:
How far is it from universal background checks, even for private transfers between friends or family, to total registration, and how do you like CA and NY confiscation (or prove you sold it) based on registration lists?
What do you tell people who are good folks with no legal problems, but who toked a joint recently, when they are filling out the 4473? Do they say YES they used drugs, and be denied the purchase, or to they lie and say NO, thus committing perjury? After all, they are OK by WA state law, but not by Federal law, and they have hurt no-one, nor intend to hurt anyone.
Â
Still OK with universal background checks?
 @justsumguy . NONE of what you said is true. NICS checks don't come from the KCSO, and ANY experienced gun owner knows that.
Â
You also KNOW the wac screens it's members, and only members can buy guns at gun shows, and that these days, licensed gun dealers make up a huge percentage of gun show sellers and are going to run the check anyway.
Â
And if you worry about your friends , you need to keep better company.
Â
Lastly, in any universal check system will create a registry, and that is the prelude to confiscation. And don't say it will never happen. A new bill dropped in california to do just that. CONFISCATE REGISTERED FIREARMS.
 @justsumguy You shouldn't support it, this is pure punishment for legitimate firearms collectors trying to save guns from being destroyed at the recent Seattle buyback.
Â
The point of this bill is to make the process for private citizens buying and selling so complicated that it's impossible for them to do it at all, wake up.Â
You have an LAPD cop gone bad, killing officers, and officers going nuts and shooting up innocent civilians.
All of those guys had background check, psychological profiles and exams, and extensive training.
Good luck with your pitiful state background check. Another pointless act by corrupt politicians.
 @Stephen Ramsey No *necessarily* corrupt. Just ignorant. Be sure you write them, politely, and educate them. Regularly.
 @RN1  @Stephen Ramsey It's hard to do when the people of this republic refuse to stand back and take it all in. A lot of people don't believe that history, when ignored, will repeat itself like a broken record.
If they pass this, fine. We'll just ignore it.
Then gun owners will clean up the Olympia rats nest in the next election. 1996 wasn't that long ago.
 @Stephen Ramsey I'd like to think you are right, but we keep sending Patty "dim bulb" Murrey and Cant-vote-well back to office, so while I'm ever hopeful, I'm not too optimistic. And even if we DO change a few of them, UN-doing a law like this is always harder than DOing it to start with.
"State lawmakers near deal on expanded gun background checks"
Â
Absolutely, and lets jail all of the gun runners from the Dept of Homeland Security, Border Patrol, C.I.A., F.B.I., Justice Dept, Congress, and The Administration, for their parts in "Fast and Furious" among many other "covert" mistakes made while expanding their corruption. There is a whole group right off the bat you could go after for gun crimes and drug violations. Any real background check on any of these folks should disqualify them from having a weapon in their possession at all. Their violations of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution should be considered treason also.
Deja Vu!
I thought I saw all these arguments at least 20 times before... Â Â
 @K. Coleman Mostly. I did put a new one in there thought about pot being legal in WA, but a federal felony, and filling in a 4473 to buy from an FFL you have to either be denied by saying YES or commit perjury by saying NO if you had toked a joint recently.
The sad thing is there really is no gun show loophole in Washington state. The gun shows are usually put on by the Washington Arms Collectors which require you to be members to buy a firearm. To be a member of WAC you have to have gone through a background check. If you look on internet sites that let you list guns for sale nearly all of the people selling require you to have a CPL, which you had to have a background check to get. Criminals will NOT be affected by this bill, the only ones are law abiding citizens who would have to pay to get another background check.Â
Â
Instead of focusing on legislation that will affect law abiding citizens only we need to focus on legislation that will strongly deter people from breaking our CURRENT laws. Stiffer punishments and hard time in jails.Â
Step by step.....inch by inch! Don't ever think for a minute that the 2nd amendment is safe. If this administration has it's way.....it too will be gone!!
From reading the comments here, I can only surmise a couple things.
Â
Some folks choose to disregard history and fail to understand the implications of tyranical rule.
Others can grasp the concept and stand by the logic that our founding fathers penned in the Constitution.
Â
Pretty dam sad on the whole. Everthing that made our country great is slowly being rat holed by ignorance.
 @bobalouie Oh my goodness, yes. It is so darn tyranical to want to keep guns out of the hands of felons, to want gun owners to be responsible and keep their guns out of reach of their children. tsk tsk tsk
ps. Your avatar is just the cutest little kitty.Â
 @Darn it! The vast majority of firearms used by criminals are provide by criminal FFL dealers, criminal straw purchasers and stolen guns. Background checks will do nothing to prevent any of this. It is as pointless as trying to ban modern rifles or standard sized magazines.
 @Iconoclast  @Darn it! I doubt it will work as well as intended but...
Â
If the background check is required for all gun purchases it could put a crimp in straw purchasers making making them criminals for selling the guns without the required background check (which their buyer cannot pass, that is why there are straw purchasers in the first place.)
 @Iconoclast I understand your concerns regarding the devil being in the details.Â
Actually, what I would like to see most of all is harsher sentences and no early parole. I know this wouldn't stop all violent crimes but it would make some think twice and it doesn't step on anyones constitutional rights.Â
 @Justaguy Folks that have a LOT of background checks over the years for guns, class III weapon owners, activists in the community, people who have filed lawsuits against the Feds for them to obey teh law, those sorts of people. Such a list would likely be a hundred thousand or more people long, and it would take them a few days to grab everyone on it if they decided confiscation. The guy with two rifles bought 30 years ago is WAY down the list; they'd have time to find out they sold their guns years ago, if you know what I mean.
fyi, I too am a member of the shooting. I'm not exactly sure what the "raid early" list is; but if there is such a thing the government probably already knows a great deal more about those on that list than a gun registration list would provide, the patroit act has made that possible and is the single greatest threat to our freedoms, considerably greater threat than background checks on gun purchases.
 @Justaguy They may know I have guns. They DON'T know for sure how many I have, or where they are. Confiscating them ALL could be problematic. Same for many folks in the shooting community, especially if you were not high on the "raid early" list. It doesn't tong to make them scarce.
I see your point and yes Iâm aware of the fact that there have been isolated events where local governments have used gun registration lists to aid in the confiscation of fire arms.   But the government already has a list of everyone that has a CWP. If the government was going to start collecting weapons I would imagine that is probably where they would start.
Â
I also appreciate your position on what the role of a prudent citizen is. My concern is that if there can be no middle ground found on this issue then the government will continue to waste time and money on the debate and use it as a smoke and mirror to distract the public from the real problems we are facing primarily the debt issues.
 @Iconoclast Most people don't have a clue to what has really happen in these mass shooting. I am at 98.6
 @Mike Chill, dude. I was referring to criminal shootings, which vastly outweigh atrocities like Sandy Hook.
 @Darn it! " It is as pointless as trying to ban modern rifles or standard sized magazines."
Â
This is a simile. I did not say you desired to ban anything. I compared the relative uselessness of this legislation to the utter uselessness of bans on standard magazine sizes or modern semi-automatic rifles.
 @Justaguy I am interpreting what you are suggesting as "even if it does no good what is the harm". Is that a fair characterization? (btw, thanks for the civil comment!).
Â
Presuming I am accurate, I would suggest in return that laws that do no good can still do harm. Leaving aside the potential for surreptitious registration (I don't know if this legislation contains such a provision), if a law is really only a bureaucratic hoop for law-abiding citizens to jump through then the only people it will really catch are law-abiding citizens. In other words, laws that target and victimize law-abiding citizens are corrosive in many ways to a decent society.
Â
My biggest concerns are in the details and whether this is a back-door registration scheme or not. The support of gun banners like Washington CeaseFire isn't very promising The feds dump the records within some relatively reasonable period of time. Will the state do the same or maintain the records as a defacto firearm registration? How will privacy be maintained? How long do records have to be kept?
Â
Laws like this have significant impact financially and socially. Shouldn't prudent citizens stress focus on laws that have meaning and value?Â
 @Iconoclast I'm not talking about banning anything.
 @Iconoclast  @Darn it! BS were did you pull that out of.All the mass killings of the last the gun came out the house they lived.To bad they were not locked up. The thing that ties them is they were on a psych drug for mental problems. Parents were not watching
@Iconoclast @Darn it!
Let's assume you are right, what is the problem with allowing the law to be passed and prove your point? Laws are not written in stone and if proven to fail to reach the result that was anticipated they can repealed or rewritten. Remember we have had stricter gun laws on the books in this country than we do right now, a single action does not dictate a path of destruction.
 @Darn it!  @bobalouie So you don't understand or know how many times a government has used the excuse of "catching criminals" or "it's for the children" or "the security of the state" and twisted it into locking up their political enemies? Just because you are ignorant of world and US history doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 @Darn it!  @bobalouie Got any hard evidence that your proposals with do what you claim, and not be abused? If not, then let's not spend money on it. As for curbing violence in general, not just gun-related violence? Yes. Any adult not in jail can carry and own any gun they want for any lawful purpose, including hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. Secondly, remove most of the drug prohibition laws, which feed gang profits and turf wars. The bad eggs will weed themselves out very quickly, and it doesn't cost much tax money.
 @RN1  @bobalouie Your negativity precedes you. Got a suggestion to curb gun violence?Â
 @Darn it!  @bobalouie This has nothing to do with guns out of the hands of felons, and everything with confiscation. It is about political power and has zero to do with public safety.Â
 @Darn it!  @bobalouie More political rhetoric by the buffoons in Olympia. These clowns  couldn't manage a 7/11.
 @Darn it!  @SandyBeach  @bobalouie Not necessarily so. I didn't vote for inslee, but the process of election is set, and until it changes I wouldn't have it any other way.
 @SandyBeach  @bobalouie You get who you vote for.