Two Gun Bills Introduced in Washington State

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by 1024Megabytes, Jul 8, 2014.

  1. Initiative 594, backed by gun control groups, would strengthen background checks on gun purchasers to include gun shows and online sales.

    On the other hand, Initiative 591, backed by pro-gun groups, would prohibit background checks by the state unless they conform with federal background check laws. The same initiative would also explicitly prohibit “confiscation,” which advocates say is essentially what has occurred in New York and Connecticut where gun registries were established.

    “It’s possible both could pass, that’s what the polls are showing now,” Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue, Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told TheBlaze. “Conventional wisdom is that then it would go to the courts.”

    Gottlieb said that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as “Seattle left-of-center elitists” were expected to dump millions into supporting 594.

    Washington is a traditionally liberal state, but as with any off-year election, turnout is key — and pro-gun voters are viewed as more likely to mobilize. The turnout generated by gun ballot measures could have ramifications for Washington state congressional and legislative races this year, Gottlieb said.

    On Sunday, Washington’s largest newspaper editorial board endorsed the increased background check initiative and opposed the ballot measure supported by the pro-gun groups.

    The Seattle Times blasted the anti-background check measure as “wholly inappropriate, unnecessary and potentially a reckless retreat.” Criticizing the ballot language as vague and poorly written, the editorial continued: “The firearm industry and its entrepreneurial forces know their market, so the notion of ‘confiscating’ guns is immediately mentioned.”

    The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which is running the “Yes on 594″ campaign, has sent out an email call for supporters to “Send a Message of Support to SPU,” referring to Seattle Pacific University, where a June 5 campus shooting left one dead and two others injured.

    On the other side, the Washington Gun Rights website states that Initiative 591 “protects against illegal search and seizure, preventing politicians and bureaucrats driven by an anti-rights agenda from depriving citizens of their property without due process. The gun prohibition lobby responsible for draconian anti-civil rights and self-defense laws in New York, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, is now targeting Washington citizens, using money and resources from out of state.”

    The site asserts that the measure would keep the state’s current background checks in place.

    “591 protects background check uniformity and prevents unwarranted intrusion by the state into temporary firearm loans to friends or in-laws,” Washington Gun Rights says. “It stops the state from creating a universal gun registry that could enable future confiscation. Maintaining balance between privacy rights and public safety is what 591 is about.”

    If passed, Initiative 591 would make it “unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process” and “unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.”

    The expanded background check Initiative 594 says it would “apply the currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.”

    The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility says Initiative 594 is necessary to fix the “loophole” that “allows criminals to buy guns from strangers – in parking lots, on the Internet, and at gun shows – with no questions asked.”

    (This story was updated to included a comment from Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue, Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.)
  2. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    What a crock.

    Unless they are requiring an FFL and check for all FTF sales, 594 will not change a darned thing. FFL holders at gun shows already do checks, and online sales already require an FFL to ship to.

    The only "loophole" is private sales, as that last quote mentions. And the law won't change that, will it?

    ETA: ok, I read it, and it DOES require FTF to go to an FFL and do the check.

    So, I guess my objection will be not that it's a joke, but that it's an infringement. A common sense law, of course, but an infringement, none the less.

    They did at least allow transfer within the family without a check, so you can give your kid a gun.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014

  3. I agree with what ajole said, it won't make any practical difference. Beside the fact that I've always believed that we have a mental health and law enforcement problem - not a 'gun control' problem. :);)
  4. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Good points.

    Thank goodness they will now have a law making it illegal to sell guns to criminals by accident. That should stop all the illegal sales of stolen guns and AK's .:rolleyes:
  5. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    Look how well those laws in California worked with that whiny douchenozzle killed those people. Or how safe Chicago is. What's that? 84 people shot with 14 dead over the weekend? How is that possible? Lax federal and state gun laws of course
  6. What do you expect from a state that elected Patty Murray to the Senate? She's giving Pelosi a run for the money in the 'Least Brains in DC' contest. And yes, I'm familiar with Ms. Murray. I lived outside of Tacoma when she was first elected. Wasn't impressed with her then and even less impressed after all this time. Like so many politicians she represents her party, not her constituents.
  7. If you live in Washington State make sure you get out the vote in November and get your fellow like minded voters out. Vote no on Initiative 594, backed by gun control groups, would strengthen background checks on gun purchasers to include gun shows and online sales.

    Vote yes on Initiative 591.
  8. It would be an interesting court battle if they both get approved ;)
  9. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    When are these anti-gunners ever going to realize that CRIMINALS do NOT obey the law...... Have they ever even heard of a dictionary? These infringement laws only affect NON-Criminals!! :eek:
  10. These laws are directed at destroying liberty one chip at a time. It took New York City about 100 years to get where it is today with no 2nd Amendment rights at all. You cannot legally own a firearm in New York City without police permission or knowing someone high up in authority.

    Get out the vote Washington. Vote to keep your 2nd Amendment rights!
  11. Liberty

    Liberty Shhh! Lifetime Supporter

    New York was the first city with a police department, and now they have the worst gun laws. Fancy that!
  12. Initiative Measure No. 594 Concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers passed the popular vote on November 4th. It won with about 59 percent of the vote.

    Washington State is now going to be awful for firearm owners. The Seattle area voters have made this State into another California. May mercy be upon all people who love freedom in that state.

    Also Initiative Measure Number 591 failed. About 54 percent of people voted against it.
  13. But only 50% of the votes are is. Cross fingers!
  14. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    Any updates on this?
  15. Liberty

    Liberty Shhh! Lifetime Supporter

    Tomorrow the headlines will be brisk that gun sales are up. Of course, they have to get these from dealers, where, you guessed it, background checks are already required.
  16. Anybody know how these background checks are going to work and how much they are going to cost?
  17. planosteve

    planosteve Lifetime Supporter

    Well you can not charge for a photo ID to vote, so you should not be able to charge for a background check for someone to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Might make a good court case using that angle.
  18. I really wish what you are saying PlanoSteve would come to pass. The courts in recent rulings are continually siding with background checks no matter how intrusive. The drones of Seattle have spoken.

    This law also doubles the state waiting period on handgun sales from five to ten days and extends it to every private transfer of a handgun.

    The sad thing is we know what happens after registration. Look at what New York and California are doing to their citizens after the mandatory registration laws were passed. It make take ten or twenty years but it will happen unless the laws are repealed.
  19. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    All they can do now is challenge the law in court