Guns

Washington's Universal Gun Background Checks Kick In, Not That They Can Be Enforced

|

Israeli Defense Force

Last month, a majority of Washington state voters imposed background check requirements on firearms transfers between private parties. The i594 measure was hotly contested and its passage triggered vows of defiance, including plans for mass civil disobedience on December 13 at the state capitol. The law goes into effect Thursday, for what that's worth. Perhaps the biggest challenge to the measure is that authorities have little idea as to which state residents own what guns now. Without knowing where guns start out, it's essentially impossible to keep people from gifting, selling, loaning, or otherwise transferring them with little regard for the law.

Just when the law applies remains up in the air. Mitch Barker, executive director for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, told the Associated Press that he doesn't think it would prevent somebody from just examining another person's gun, but he admits that part will have to be clarified. On the other hand, Dave Kopel, a prominent firearms expert and adjunct professor at the University of Denver's law school, thinks the plain language of the law does apply to simply holding somebody else's firearm.

Confusion over the law, in addition to contempt for its control freaky intent, is all the more reason to defy its requirements, especially since enforcing the background checks is a bit of a slog for authorities. The Associated Press, again, has Barker of the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs on that point.

As for how to enforce the law, Barker said that's a bit trickier.

"If somebody committed a crime with a firearm, and if the source was tracked back to someone who didn't do a background check of the person who they transferred the gun to, that to me would seem to be the most likely scenario where a law-enforcement official would take action," he said.

If. That's a little world patching over a big hole in the law.

Despite the passage of i594, Washington doesn't have especially restrictive gun laws. In particular, it doesn't require licensing of guns or gun owners. Sales records from licensed dealers exist, but they're not updated to match people's movements from home to home, and in and out of the state. They also haven't accounted for private transfers, including kitchen counter sales, presents, inherited weapons, exchanges, and the like up until the passage of the new law. As of right now, who owns what firearms-wise is pretty much a mystery so far as the authorities are concerned. They might be able to pull up records of an initial sale, but they can't easily follow the trail from there to its current owner. Years from now, whether a gun was transferred before or after i594 took effect will generally be known only to the parties who participated.

So people who want to sell guns to friends, give them to coworkers, or loan them to neighbors have little incentive to subject themselves to the hassle and expense of a background check unless they really enjoy intrusive bureaucracy. Historically, that hasn't been the case, as peoplein the United States and around the world have gone to great lengths to arms themselves and remain that way, to the great discontent of government officials.

Washington residents illegally transferring guns might face some risk if a new owner commits a crime, but the authorities will still have to trace the gun's history and prove it was transferred after this Thursday to take any action.

Thousands of people say they will publicly defy universal background checks requirements on December 13. Maybe so. But more importantly, a great many people will be free to ignore the law every single day, and there's very little the supporters of i594 can do about it.

Advertisement

NEXT: At CBO, A Choice for Republicans

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s great for a statist politician when the citizens vote to take away their own rights, so that they don’t have to work so hard.

    1. The fucked up thing about this initiative, however, and why I think it passed so easily, was (unsurprisingly, of course) how deceptive the campaign for it was (it’s just to prevent criminals from getting guns! Really!) and how actually fucked it is was very hard for people to get, especially your average voter. The complaints about how its wording could even potentially prevent you from handing your gun to a friend at the range were mostly ignored by an anti-gun media and because it just sounds so ridiculous.

      In fact, I think the vagueness and ridiculousness of the initiative actually helped it pass. Its proponents could just speak in vague platitudes, and its opponents had to try and explain just how fucked it was, which was so much that it seemed improbable.

      I said this when it passed: be ready for the anti-gunners to start initiatives like this–and just as fucked–in all states with initiative processes. And they’ll just. Keep. Trying.

      1. They had to pass it to find out what was in it.

        1. Just like my morning dump.

            1. “Who does Number 2 work for?!?”

            2. Given Episiarch’s ambiguous genitalia, it’s all just a number one.

              1. It’s called a cloaca you insensitive jerk! It’s not like you haven’t seen it before!

                1. You just kept screaming “It’s my poop hole AND my pee hole!” that night on the beach. Then hotel security dragged you away.

                  1. Well, in my defense you had dosed me with PCP and amyl nitrite. Not that I minded so much.

      2. In theory, if it’s vague and deals with a constitutional right, it can be struck down with a law saber for the vagueness alone. In theory.

        1. I definitely have some hopes of it being struck down for vagueness. However, I’m not sure how that process (repeal/striking down) works for initiatives in Washington State.

          1. It’s like any other law, most likely. Someone sues on some basis, and it goes from there. There are likely state and federal grounds for attacking the initiative.

            Does Washington have a process where the courts approve the language of the initiative? That might be another angle, to appeal that decision.

            I’m not much up on initiative law in the first place, but someone around here probably is.

            1. Does Washington have a process where the courts approve the language of the initiative? That might be another angle, to appeal that decision.

              Yes. Many initiatives have been struck down because of the “one subject” rule.

            2. In fact, I was hoping that this could be struck down on a one-subject ruling, but in fairness to the initiative, I don’t see a second subject. It would take Clintonian interpretation to pull a second subject out of this interpretation.

              Hmm… I may be on to something.

              1. second ‘interpretation’ should be *initiative

        2. This is currently my hope. That it’s so broad and vague that its an infringement on keeping and bearing arms.

      3. Baja Washington is next. The gun grabbers just gained control of the state senate which had been holding up this type of legislation. And if it doesn’t pass there, the initiative will be on the next ballot.

      4. Didn’t someone, recently say something like “a lack of transparency is a huge political advantage”?
        I could have sworn I heard it, followed by something like “chalk it up to the stupidity of the American voter”.
        The leftists must be so proud.

  2. Can’t be enforced without a registry? I think that can be fixed easily enough.

    1. A firearm registry is absolutely terrifying to me.

      “These are all the actually dangerous people who might fight back. We get them first, then the sheeple just fall in line.”

      1. Better yet they’ll incrementally put restrictions on what people may own, until the only things that are left are smooth-bore black-powder muskets. Since those are the only arms protected by the 2A.

        1. Maybe by the time they get around to that, everyone will have the option of custom-3D-printed guns.

          1. You kidding? The threat of custom-3D-printed guns will be the excuse to require anyone who owns a 3D-printer to have a federal license. I’m surprised there isn’t a call for such licensing already.

            1. A girl can dream, sarc!

              Although, I’m sure you’re right about the licensing thing. They’ll probably even want some kind of documentation every time you print something. Of course, that’s only going to work if they can also track how much material you buy to feed the thing.

            2. 3-D printer licensing runs into a problem when it becomes possible to 3-D print a 3-D printer:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project

              1. I don’t think it’s going to happen (the licensing thing, that is). Loads of people own machinery that can be used to make much better guns than you can on a 3D printer now. And few people do and no one is saying milling machines and lathes should require licenses to own.

        2. Fortunately, courts seem to be pushing back on that. And lots of state constitutions have much clearer and stronger guarantees of gun rights.

          I’m fairly optimistic about the gun thing. The anti-gun fanatics are a pretty small group and the pro-gun fanatics (or single issue voters if “fanatics” is too loaded a word) are a pretty large and dedicated group.

      2. Look, we’re asking nicely. Fucking submit.

      3. A firearm registry is absolutely terrifying to me.

        “These are all the actually dangerous people who might fight back. We get them first, then the sheeple just fall in line.”

        And as I have said, the gun-controllers are leaving themselves with no other option. They pass more and more vague, impossible to enforce gun control measures, the only way to enforce them is to have a government list of everyone who currently owns a firearm, and then apply Canadian-style laws where your home can be inspected at any random time by armed law enforcement for “auditing” purposes.

        1. the only way to enforce them is to have a government list of everyone who currently owns a firearm

          Except that is just as impossible. For guns already in circulation, at least. Most guns in Canada or Europe probably aren’t on the registry.

          Gun controllers will fail in the US.

          1. Gun controllers will fail in the US.

            If it fails the way the drug war has failed, I’m really not looking forward to it.

            A lot of people are going to end up in jail or dead because of it.

            1. I think it will be more like the failure of the war on fat, or something like that. Some ineffective laws will be passed, but I very much doubt that it will get anywhere close to universal registration or mass confiscation. And I think we will continue to see some of the worse state laws be pushed back by federal courts.
              When it comes down to it, there are a lot of pro-gun voters who will reliably vote on that issue and not so many anti-gun people who will do so.

  3. A New Zealand military firearms collector provides some helpful insights into how “common sense” gun regulations quickly become excuses for the most extreme forms of enforcement on what we think should be ‘exceptions’

    In short = power always goes to the farthest limits of the law.

    “If punishment is at all proportionate to the offense, then power becomes watered. The only way you generate the proper attitude of awe and obedience is through immense and disproportionate power.”
    ? Norman Mailer, The Naked and the Dead

    1. Today’s “compromise” is tomorrow’s “loophole”.

      1. In any compromise with evil, only evil profits. -Ayn Rand

        1. This is what I say when my pals can’t figure out where we’re all going to get dinner and someone suggests a really obviously terrible restaurant.

          1. So your pal with terrible taste in food is evil?

            1. Basically.

              There’s just always that guy who, when folks can’t decide between one or two options, suggest a third option as a “compromise.” Of course, it’s not really a fair compromise between the two earlier choices, it’s just where he wants to eat instead.

          2. OMG LET’S GO GET SOUP AND SALAD AT OLIVE GARDEN!!!!

            1. But endless bread sticks, dude! ENDLESS!!!

              1. God dammit.

                On the rare occasion I go out with other females, this is always the place they want. Of course it’s because they’re all on diets, so they get the saddest soup and they don’t put cheese on their salads. The bread sticks may as well be butter sticks to them.

                Meanwhile, I’m over here, eating copious amounts of pasta, and I’ll probably get dessert, too.

                1. As long as you get the lowfat dressing. You don’t want to have a heart attack.

                  1. Lowfat dressing? Are you kidding me? All my favorite dressings are the “worst” ones: bleu cheese, Caesar, ranch, etc.

                    I specifically make a point to get the full fat option.

                    1. No, no, no, I am in no way anti-fat. You should see how rapidly I go through the half-gallon containers of cream I get at Costco.

                    2. I … did not know that Costco even sold ice cream… I’ve been thinking about getting a membership to Sam’s Club because they sell the protein I like on the cheap.

                      But back to ice cream! Have you tried any of these?

                    3. Oh, they sell ice cream, but I was talking about just plain cream. You know, the good part of milk. As far as ice cream goes, I can’t say I know that brand, but I’ll be on the lookout for it the next time my body dysmorphia allows me to stop worrying about my abz. Also, come to Cleveland and go to a Mitchell’s. Tasty.

                      As far as protein goes, I always get it from Amazon. I’m always disappointed in brands I can get from brick-and-mortar stores. Other than ON, but then that’s still more expensive than online.

                    4. I’ll have to check them out if I’m ever in the area. Looks like they have some good flavors! I’m not very concerned about abz right meow; I’ve never had that low of a body-fat percentage that they’d show. Maybe one day, but pizza, ice cream, beer, and cider reign supreme for now.

                      If I were better at planning, I’d go through Amazon, but usually buying protein goes like this: get home from the gym, realize I’m out, and lots of swearing on the way to the grocery store due to hanger.

                2. “Hey, look at this crowd. You guys gotta try the pasta. It’s got a real nice profit margin. Bam!”

                  1. Pasta and wine are a license to print money.

                    1. I got dragged to an Olive Garden recently. The salad was a big vat iceberg lettuce with tiny bits of mozzarella and pepperoni drowned in sugary vinegar, and the soup was a little bit of chicken broth with a ton of potatoes and a little bit of bacon in it. The breadsticks are completely inedible, so I didn’t even bother. They must have made at least 50% profit on the $10 we spent for lunch.

                    2. Unfortunately only pre-dehydrated cheap-ass pasta. I used to go all the time to an Italian restaurant across the street from my place in NYC, which was run by this crazy (is that redundant?) Italian chef that was a total character. He was very good and he really wanted to make it big. So he started serving fresh handmade pasta in his dishes in an attempt to set his place apart. It was DELICIOUS. Fresh handmade pasta is just amazing. But after a few weeks he was talking to me and said he was stopping because it was just too much work and killed the profit margin. It was a total shame.

                    3. The problem there is the labor, though. I have a hard time believing that no one has invented a pasta machine that can make a close equivalent to the handmade stuff.

                    4. Oh yeah, labor is definitely the problem. They have machines for producing the pasta, but you have to make the dough and roll it and then after you run it through the machine you have to put it on racks if you’re going to dry it, or else make it every night, which is just brutal. My parents tried doing it for a while when I was a kid and they also gave up really fast.

                      It’s amazing how much better it is, though.

                    5. I’d think that someone could make a machine that does all the rolling and cutting and drying and everything.

                      When I make pasta I usually just make lasagne or manicoti, then you just have to roll it out and cut it into big pieces.

                    6. Needz moar orfins.

                    7. Yeah, fresh pasta is like fresh bread; once you have had the real stuff the day old dried stuff is just never the same.

                      The one time I have been to Italy, I stayed in this hotel run by a woman and her adult daughter. They served dinner every night and the pasta was made by the older woman who had probably been making it since she was five and her grandmother taught her. God damn that stuff was good.

                    8. I hate all of you. I’ve never had fresh pasta. Being in the middle of Montana, I’m sure I’d have to make it myself if I wanted it.

                    9. It is not hard to make Riven. It is just eggs, flower and water.

                    10. Hmm…

                      So, can I use whatever kind of flower I want. 😉

                      The biggest deterrent is the labor; I’m so very lazy.

                    11. Semolina flour is best, but all-purpose or bread flour works OK. If you don’t have a pasta roller, a rolling pin works OK. But a pasta machine makes it a lot easier and more consistent.

                    12. So fucking make it already, farmgirl. I don’t see the point, though. Wheat is what you feed to food.

                    13. You’re in the middle of Montana? So am I!

        2. Another one from Ayn:

          “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. . . . We’re after power and we mean it. . . There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.

          One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?

          What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt.”

  4. “”If somebody committed a crime with a firearm, and if the source was tracked back to someone who didn’t do a background check of the person who they transferred the gun to, that to me would seem to be the most likely scenario where a law-enforcement official would take action,” he said.”

    And what’s the most likely way the would trace the gun back and show it was transferred after the effective date of this law: give a deal to the guy who committed an actual (as opposed to paperwork) crime with the firearm of course!

  5. Unless the seller admits to it, I don’t see how the cops ever prove the criminal bought the gun from the seller and it wasn’t stolen. Imagine they catch an evil criminal with a gun and the evil criminal says he bought it from evil gun nut John who didn’t run a background check. Okay, so the cops show up at my door and say “you sold this gun to an evil criminal”. Really? All the cops have is the work of a criminal that I sold it. How do they even know I ever own the gun? We don’t have universal registration. Maybe they can find a record of me purchasing it, but that doesn’t prove I sold it. Maybe the gun was stolen. Maybe I gave it to my brother in law who then sold it to the evil criminal. There is no way to prove any of that.

    And all of that assumes the evil criminal will even know the name of the guy he bought the gun from. I have bought guns at gun shows a couple of times. Every time it was a cash transaction. I don’t know if I knew the guy from whom I bought it’s name and I certainly don’t know it now nor he mine.

    This law is beyond retarded.

    1. Don’t many places require lost or stolen firearms to be reported under penalty of law?

      1. I don’t know to be honest. But that is a definite possibility. I bet the penalty for that is less than for violating this law. Still though, I don’t see how they prove I ever owned it in the first place or didn’t sell it to someone else before the criminal bought it.

      2. Pennsylvania cities can now be sued for having laws like that, since they are illegal under state law. Obviously they weren’t enforced before, but that didn’t stop a lot of whining when the state made it so you could sue to have them removed.

      3. …and John didn’t realize it was missing until officer Dunphy showed up at his door asking questions.

        1. Maybe I didn’t. If someone broke into my house today and stole a weapon, it might be months before I noticed. It is not like I take them out and play with them every night. Or maybe I loaned to someone and forgot he gave it back to me.

          We are talking reasonable doubt here. The government has to prove it is unreasonable to think there is any explanation other that I sold it to the criminal. Good luck with that.

          1. Didn’t you see the article about the daycare owners earlier? They don’t have to prove shit. All they really have to do is get 12 dead-behind-the-eyes assholes to think you’re evil.

            1. Those people had shitty lawyers. But you never know what is going to happen in a trial. And that of course is the point of these kinds of laws, the bully and terrorize people with the threat of prosecution for the crime of being a gun owner.

    2. All they need to do is give the evil criminal a deal for some time off his sentence in exchange for testifying against you. Then they file charges against you, and you have to weigh the chances of being found guilty at trial after incurring lots of legal costs against pleading guilty and getting some kind of reduced sentence. Many people will conclude its better to plead in that situation, and the authorities know it.

      1. Without proof you ever owned the gun in the first place, that case might not even get to a jury. And even if it did, it is unlikely a DA would ever take it to one since the chances of winning are near zero.

        1. Would you bet 5 years of your life on that?

          1. It wouldn’t be five to life. And if the price of not betting was being a felon, yes.

            1. The penalty for violation of this law up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 fine. They might offer you a deal to plead to some lesser charge, perhaps a misdeamor.

              1. No dice. Of course I have something to lose. I can’t afford any conviction.

                The chances of this law ever being enforced or such a case ever going to trial are near zero. The only way it happens is if I am dumb enough to confess and not lawyer up or I have some kind of enemy in the DA’s office such that they really want to get me.

                1. No dice. Of course I have something to lose. I can’t afford any conviction.

                  The chances of this law ever being enforced or such a case ever going to trial are near zero. The only way it happens is if I am dumb enough to confess and not lawyer up or I have some kind of enemy in the DA’s office such that they really want to get me.

                  John, you really do post some comically deluded shit sometimes.

                  YOU might weigh it and say, “Fuck it, I’m going to trial,” but a whole hell of a lot of people who aren’t shitweasel lawyers wouldn’t. Which is precisely why so many people end up taking plea deals and serving time for retarded shit.

        2. For a large number of weapons, you are correct that this is difficult.

          However, over time, many weapons make it through an FFL dealer, who will record the sale. At that point, they know when it was last in your possession.

          This law is unenforceable for most old guns. But for used guns that were sold across state lines (and therefore require a background check) or that were sold on consignment or at a gun show (etc), there will be a record that John purchased it after the law went into effect. And if that gun then winds up in the hands of a criminal without a background check, they have a pretty tight case that you didn’t follow the law.

          True, you could state something like “it must have been stolen and I didn’t notice” but at this point, in a state where your average jury member probably voted for this legislation in the first place, it is not unreasonable to expect your ass is grass.

        3. Without proof you ever owned the gun drugs in the first place, that case might not even get to a jury. And even if it did, it is unlikely a DA would ever take it to one since the chances of winning are near zero.

          Hmmmm…..

  6. It doesn’t matter that it’s impossible to enforce. That’s a feature, if anything. To these people, gun owners are a hated minority, and they look for any way that they can to punish us, any inconvenience that they think the courts will allow. They’d make us drink from separate water fountains if they could. They’re not any different than the fetus crowd and their laws about admitting privileges, really.

    1. It is truly ironic how those who claim to be champions of anti-discrimination are feverish in their efforts to discriminate against smokers, gun owners, and anyone else who offends them.

    2. That is right. And some gun owner somewhere is likely to not be smart enough to lawyer up. From these assholes’ perspective if it puts even one evil gun owner in jail, it is worth it. They want to make owning a gun criminal. They can’t do that directly, so they will pass laws like this and other “safety” laws to put every gun owner in as much legal jeopardy as possible figuring more and more people will just say fuck it and not take the risk.

  7. I have a dozen guns in my house and have never even set foot in a gun shop except to buy ammo–every gun is an inheritance. There’s plenty of folks like me. The government doesn’t have a clue what’s out there. How can they regulate it, then?

    1. “How can they regulate it, then?”

      (cue proggy panic-attack)

      “OMG U R right!? GUN REGISTRY!?”

    2. I have purchased exactly three weapons in my life and two of those were at gun shows where there was no record or my purchasing them. Every other weapon I own was given to me or taken in trade for something.

      The anti gun morons have no clue how the actual gun culture works. Guns are often family heirlooms passed around amongst families or given in trade amongst friends. I have a Winchester 75 shotgun I got from a friend of mine in trade for a 20 gauge I had. He wanted to go bird hunting and was tired of lugging that big bastard around and I was tired of bird hunting and was happy to trade off my 20 gauge. Shit like that happens all of the time. There is no way for the government to track it or stop it. And that doesn’t even consider the coming 3d printing revolution.

    3. All they need is to find you target shooting, hunting, or otherwise doing something perfectly legal with one of those firearms, demand that you show your papers, and then you’re fucked. That’s the idea. It turns those who don’t comply into criminals.
      Like in CT with the assault rifle registry. They don’t know where the rifles are, but whenever they catch someone doing something legal with one they have an excuse to fuck up their life.

      1. Yes. This is why universal gun registration is nothing but a back door ban and why they want it so badly. You can’t seize guns unless you know who owns them. It also has the bonus of criminalizing every gun owner who doesn’t have their paperwork in order.

        1. This, and frankly they already have a half-assed registry with 4473 forms. Despite BATFE officially not being allowed to form one from the data. This I believe as much as I believe anything else coming from this rotten government.

          Why the type of firearm and serial number needs to be listed on a 4473, a form that’s only supposed to vet the purchaser, I have no idea. So, WA, expect to see a registration initiative next election, preferably named after some cute kid who’s head got canoed. ‘To clean up the loopholes,’ you know.

          1. Why the type of firearm and serial number needs to be listed on a 4473, a form that’s only supposed to vet the purchaser, I have no idea.

            Yeah you do. That information is never discarded. One thing governments do is hoard information. So with that information they can create a registry when the political winds call for it.

        2. John: “You can’t seize guns unless you know who owns them.”

          That especially comes in handy when you want to retroactively make a gun that is legal today, illegal tomorrow, as is happening to some gun owners in New York State. They are getting letters to turn them in or get rid of them – and show proof – or have the guns confiscated.

          I have also been reading from various sources, that even though the BATF is not allowed to build a database of gun owners, in some instances, during a “normal audit”, they are photocopying all applications in the dealers’ books.

          Small steps, small steps.

      2. “All they need is to find you target shooting, hunting, or otherwise doing something perfectly legal with one of those firearms…”

        I think a better way of understanding it might be =

        before, you could be target shooting, hunting, etc. and the police *would have no reason to be concerned that anything illegal might even be possible*

        whereas now, they have every reason to fucking pull aside anyone armed and ‘check their papers’

        Which is the point = start ‘normalizing’ constant scrutiny of gun owners by law enforcement by making these petty rules “cause” for intervention.

  8. If you step across a state line, conduct a sale, and then come back, would this law apply? So they’d have to prove that didn’t happen right?

    1. I believe, since it is impossible for this to be applied to people in other states, there is language in the initiative stating that it does not apply to out-of-state sales.

    2. Can you even transfer a firearm in another state, when you are not a resident of that state, without using an FFL as intermediary? I’ve never tried to buy a gun out of state before, so I don’t know.

        1. But not handguns? Again, I know a lot of people who haven’t followed that law. But again, how do the cops prove that you got the weapon out of state?

          1. They don’t. These laws only really are intended to apply to FFLs, I think. I mean, sure, if the feds can add on some charges to some chump, they’ll be ok with it, but I don’t think they care much about them.

            1. The whole thing is idiotic. The last thing a professional criminal would ever use to commit a crime is any kind of expensive weapon. If I am out breaking into houses or robbing people and am carrying a gun and ever have to use it, I have to get rid of the gun first thing. The easiest way to get a murder rap is to be found in possession of the murder weapon. So I am only going to use it once.

              I honestly think these idiots believe that criminals are out buying $2500 M14s and Beretta Shotguns to use to commit crimes. They are really that pig ignorant.

              1. Yeah, who the fuck would use a Sig as a throwaway weapon for God’s sake?

              2. “I honestly think these idiots believe that criminals are out buying $2500 M14s and Beretta Shotguns to use to commit crimes. They are really that pig ignorant.”

                I honestly think they don’t give a shit about “criminals” and want to make legal gun ownership more and more difficult and create endless barriers and obstacles for regular people such that it becomes an unbearable ‘cost’; that firearms ownership becomes so fraught with difficulties and frustrations and risks that subsequent generations abandon the behaviors that were ‘normal’ for the previous ones.

        2. Nope. Still need to go through FFL.

          Pistols are a bit more stringent and need to be transferred to an FFL in your state of residence first.

      1. If you can’t, most gun owners in the country are probably in violation of it. My father is a resident of a different state. When he gave me my great grandfather’s .22 rifle, should we have gone to a FFL as an intermediary? If so, most of the people who have inherited weapons are federal criminals.

        1. I think it’s just for handguns. I don’t have the time to dig through the Gun Control Act of ’68, which is where I think the restrictions are. This is BATFE’s FAQ on firearms transfers; maybe it’s in there?

          But yeah, I think it’s just another of the three felonies a day.

          1. Not just for handguns. As I said in my last post, you have to go through an FFL for an interstate purchase. Pistols are just more rigorous in that they need to be transfered to an FFL in your state of residence first, where as you can make a long gun purchase out of state, so long as it’s from an FFL (or an FFL is doing the transfer).

            BUT, inheritances are generally excepted.

  9. Last month, a [significant] majority of Washington state voters imposed background check requirements on firearms transfers between private parties

    fixed. Just want to make sure things are portrayed as accurately as possible.

    1. What exactly is an insignificant majority?

      1. 50.1%

        The majority that passed this law was a Shawn Kemp two-fisted jam through the rim.

    2. 59%. Not sure I’d count that as “significant.”

      1. In most elections that aren’t in essentially one party cities or states it is pretty big.

        1. I’m no expert, but Washington seems pretty solidly Dem to me. Both US senators, the governor, all statewide offices except secretary of state, and the state house of reps are all Dem. Voted for Dems in every presidential election for over 20 years. The Reps got the state senate in this cycle, but barely.

      2. Considering that you could put an initiative forward that said that all new born babies should be put in the incinerator, around 48% would vote in favor, 59% is very significant.

        Further, it’s my understanding that even some rural pro-gun counties voted ‘yes’ on i594.

        And the counties that DID vote yes voted yes at rates of like 70+%

        http://results.vote.wa.gov/res…..ounty.html

        Note King County: 74%
        Jefferson County (rural): 67%

        There were a few extremely rural counties that voted no by significant margins, but unfortunately, their populations are so small that they had almost no overall affect on the vote total.

  10. It will make it difficult to advertise weapons, and I can see a lot of entrapment.

    1. I’m telling you it’s going to be pissed off wives in divorces who are going to be turning in their estranged husbands. How else are you possibly going to even catch anyone at this?

  11. I’m not sure how gun ranges are going to rent weapons to people, which is a significant part and reason to go to an indoor range.

    If the gun range puts a weapon in your hands, is that not a transfer?

  12. This is one issue that I have some faith on. Gun control is getting less popular in this country as gun ownership is becoming more popular. Sure, you will still have isolated bad things happen, like the voters passing this initiative, but overall, gun rights are winning against the gun control crowd. Even mounds of dead children for the statists to climb upon didn’t help them win one single major victory.

  13. An initiative similar to this passed in Colorado this year. It is a pain in the ass.

    As many have pointed out, it really isn’t useful for old guns. But it is still probably enforceable for anyone who had a background check after the date that the law went into effect. My brother purchased a used BAR at Cabella’s this year and loaned it to me while hunting. He also picked up a higher caliber rifle and now wants to get rid of this one. It is a 30 year old rifle, but the state knows he owned it after the law went into effect. In order for him to safely give it to me, we will have to use an FFL as an intermediary.

    Over time, this will become more and more common. Older rifles will be transferred through an FFL for various other reasons (cross-state lines, new purchases, good intentions, etc) and in a couple years as you contemplate handing off a rifle to a friend, you’ll think “Wait, when did I buy this? Before or after the law…” and you’ll use an FFL to transfer the firearm just to be sure. And now another gun is in the system.

    So, over time this is going to net more and more guns and make peoples’ lives even worse.

    1. This is a piecemeal part of an up-to-date national gun registry – a liberal’s wet dream since the 1968 Gun Control Act singled out and specifically exempted private sellers.

      They couldn’t get a bill through Congress, so they are picking off the States one-by-one.

      If the pro-gun organizations don’t offer a background check without the 4473 business, these “close the loophole” laws will go into effect. The non-gun owners really don’t give a damn about gun registration, they just hear “safety” and vote “yea”.

  14. my neighbor’s step-sister makes $62 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for seven months but last month her paycheck was $20988 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit this site….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  15. And BTW: no one even discusses the fact that we are depriving millions of citizens of their natural right to own firearms just because at some point in their life they made a mistake.

    These are the same people who will argue all day how wrong it is that we deprive a felon the right to vote even though they have “served their time”. But they have no problem making sure that a kid who made some mistakes, maybe got caught with drugs, or whatever will never be allowed to own a firearm for the rest of his life.

  16. Maybe they can find a record of me purchasing it, but that doesn’t prove I sold it.

    This. Also, the person that committed the crime is the one at fault. Would anyone go after a seller of a car if the purchaser ran it through a crowd of people? (rhetorical)

  17. lol, laws are for honest folk, Thats all.

    http://www.Anon-Rocks.tk

  18. The Gruberized Washington people who voted for I-594 have placed a significant part of that state’s population at the mercy of the good will of those in power.

    We’ve all seen abuses by petty officials shutting down kids’ lemonade stands because they didn’t have a license, or PTA-type bake sales because of some imagined health violation.

    We are going to see similar examples of bureaucratic overreach, but this time on steroids. I give it six months to a year (if that) before some otherwise law-abiding citizen is facing ruinous legal costs fighting a misdemeanor or even a felony charge due to the same mindset. All we need is an overzealous petty official or a politically ambitious DA to get the ball rolling.

    Welcome to the Brave New World, courtesy of Bloomberg and the rest of his fellow Left-wing one percenters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.