Slog Comments
Rep. Pedersen Files Bill to Close Gun Show Loophole
1
Awesome ... is there an online petition where we citizenry can indicate our support for this measure?
2
If you don't see your reps name listed below (or even if you do) you should contact them forthwith:
Representatives Pedersen, Hope, Jinkins, Hansen, Freeman, Kagi,
Walsh, Carlyle, Hunter, Clibborn, Ormsby, Cody, Green, Stanford,
Orwall, Maxwell, Liias, Pettigrew, Tharinger, Springer, Hudgins,
Wylie, and Moeller
4
It's a good thing that legislation is decided by a majority of the legislators and not single committee chairs... Oh wait, I drifted off into fantasyland again.
7
Thank goodness! A voice of reason. I believe over 17 states have already closed the gun show loophole and I believe this will do more good for Seattle and Washington than a dozen gun buy back events.
Thank you Rep. Jaime Pedersen!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Rep. Jaime Pedersen!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Great! Thank you Jaime Pedersen!!
And also: "Rodney" "Tom" needs a punch in the mouth. Just sayin'.
And also: "Rodney" "Tom" needs a punch in the mouth. Just sayin'.
9
Why should felons be barred from owning guns? A felony conviction doesn't necessarily mean you did anything particularly wrong nowadays. For instance, it's a felony to pass a joint or to violate JSTOR's terms of service and download scholarly journals faster than they'd like.
10
@9 - Many states allow felons to have their gun rights restored, even after violent crime convictions involving guns, through various appeal processes. In some states, they're automatically restored upon completing your sentence.
Here in Washington State for class B and C felonies, you can petition the courts once more than 5 crime-free years have passed.
Here in Washington State for class B and C felonies, you can petition the courts once more than 5 crime-free years have passed.
11
I have no problem with background checks. I certainly did enjoy watching neurotic Mike McGin's beard quake with panty twisting outrage on the TV. High pitched and emasculated like the eunuch Cuomo.
12
@11 If background checks that are used to restrict our constitutionally-protected freedoms are performed in a very transparent manner, then maybe they're okay. But when they become another blacklist, onto which people can anonymously place us (see our so-called "Terrorist Watch Lists"), they are an affront to freedom. Please excuse those of us who recoil in horror at the thought of yet another list that can be used to lock down anyone who threatens the status quo.
13
The type of background check I refer to is the kind they do every I buy a gun at a store. Nothing more, nothing less.
14
Nice picture of those idiots. The one on the far left doesn't even look old enough to drive, he definitely doesn't need a gun.
15
@14 S T -- Again, more ad hominem insults without any substantive comments. Typical of the hypocritical Left who preach tolerance but don't rally practice it themselves...
Those guys did absolutely nothing wrong Saturday. And BTW, that guy on the left is the average age of the dudes on the frontlines protecting your pathetic free-riding tyrant ass...
Thanks again to Mayor McGinn for providing such an outsanding gun buy event. We got a lot of guns off the street and back into the hands of people who appreciate defensive weapons. Keep up the good work sir.
Those guys did absolutely nothing wrong Saturday. And BTW, that guy on the left is the average age of the dudes on the frontlines protecting your pathetic free-riding tyrant ass...
Thanks again to Mayor McGinn for providing such an outsanding gun buy event. We got a lot of guns off the street and back into the hands of people who appreciate defensive weapons. Keep up the good work sir.
16
Cool, so I guess Tyrone and Jamal will head on down to their local FFL to file the appropriate paperwork when that sweet high point that's killed two homies already, changes hands! I wonder of the FFL will take crack instead of cash?
After all, it would finally be illegal for felons to buy guns!!!!!
After all, it would finally be illegal for felons to buy guns!!!!!
17
Gene- save that shit for your teabagger buddies.
These kids are the age that they get brainwashed into joining the military to be a killing machine of the 1%. Or they could be white supremacists with that buzzed short hair. Either way they need to find something better to do than play with guns.
These kids are the age that they get brainwashed into joining the military to be a killing machine of the 1%. Or they could be white supremacists with that buzzed short hair. Either way they need to find something better to do than play with guns.
18
@13, Lew wrote, "The type of background check I refer to is the kind they do every I buy a gun at a store. Nothing more, nothing less."
I don't know what that means. Is a query performed to find public information about the potential buyer, evaluating him against a publicly-known set of criteria? If that's the case, I'm generally comfortable with the idea, as there would be clearly-defined rules that one must follow in order to exercise one's right to bear arms. We could learn if the rules are lawful, we could know precisely why someone had his rights restricted. The check would be repeatable, and thus one could verify the accuracy of the results computed by any one party to learn if mistakes were made or if unwarranted restriction was intentionally levelled against a particular person.
If, on the other hand, it's simply a check to find out if that person's name is on a list of people who are prohibited from bearing arms, and if we are not allowed to know who puts people on that list, why, or how to get off the list, then I don't like it a bit. Blacklists can, and almost certainly will, become tools of repression.
The ease with which the executive branch of our federal government has been able to use such secretly-managed lists to restrict people's freedom of movement, and thus to restrict their freedom to associate, leaves me with reduced confidence in our ability to resist the implementation of more blacklists.
In short, the "background check" we perform on people to determine if they are at any given time allowed to travel via common carrier commercial airline (which, in the United States, is a right guaranteed by federal law and international treaty obligations), is an abomination of justice. Let's proceed with extreme caution when doing anything remotely similar.
More...
I don't know what that means. Is a query performed to find public information about the potential buyer, evaluating him against a publicly-known set of criteria? If that's the case, I'm generally comfortable with the idea, as there would be clearly-defined rules that one must follow in order to exercise one's right to bear arms. We could learn if the rules are lawful, we could know precisely why someone had his rights restricted. The check would be repeatable, and thus one could verify the accuracy of the results computed by any one party to learn if mistakes were made or if unwarranted restriction was intentionally levelled against a particular person.
If, on the other hand, it's simply a check to find out if that person's name is on a list of people who are prohibited from bearing arms, and if we are not allowed to know who puts people on that list, why, or how to get off the list, then I don't like it a bit. Blacklists can, and almost certainly will, become tools of repression.
The ease with which the executive branch of our federal government has been able to use such secretly-managed lists to restrict people's freedom of movement, and thus to restrict their freedom to associate, leaves me with reduced confidence in our ability to resist the implementation of more blacklists.
In short, the "background check" we perform on people to determine if they are at any given time allowed to travel via common carrier commercial airline (which, in the United States, is a right guaranteed by federal law and international treaty obligations), is an abomination of justice. Let's proceed with extreme caution when doing anything remotely similar.
19
@12, Do you have a better suggestion on how we keep guns out of the hands of known criminals, gang members, people with a history of spousal or child abuse, terrorists, etc? If you do, I'm all ears.
@15, As far as any of us know those guys have no criminal background and there's no reason they can't legally buy a gun. Then again, as far as any of us know, those guys have a history of beating their girlfriends/wives/kids or just got out of Juvie for beating some guy to death in high school. Goldy's article never suggested that these guys should not be allowed to buy a gun. He clearly said that they should simply have to go through the same background check for any gun purchase and just because they're not buying through a licensed dealer doesn't mean they shouldn't have to go through the same background checks as everyone else.
@15, As far as any of us know those guys have no criminal background and there's no reason they can't legally buy a gun. Then again, as far as any of us know, those guys have a history of beating their girlfriends/wives/kids or just got out of Juvie for beating some guy to death in high school. Goldy's article never suggested that these guys should not be allowed to buy a gun. He clearly said that they should simply have to go through the same background check for any gun purchase and just because they're not buying through a licensed dealer doesn't mean they shouldn't have to go through the same background checks as everyone else.
20
@18,
"Is a query performed to find public information about the potential buyer, evaluating him against a publicly-known set of criteria?"
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
"Is a query performed to find public information about the potential buyer, evaluating him against a publicly-known set of criteria?"
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
21
@18 If you don't know the difference between the type of background check used for gun purchases and the no fly list, you really have no authority to speak on the matter.
Did I do that right?
Did I do that right?
22
Suggest you add safe storage like MA law to your wish list. Background checks and safe storage do more to create a culture of gun safety and responsibility than any list of assault weapons or gun features or magazine capacity. I have no problem with those measures, but the way that people are going after them first makes no sense and will not make people safer. A safe storage law is the only thing that would have made a meaningful difference in Sandy Hook. It forces people to take full responsibility for the use and misuse of their firearms -- something that every responsible gun owner already does. It also keeps legal guns from continually feeding the illegal market through theft. This is a bigger source of guns for criminals than corrupt gun stores or gun show vendors.
Every responsible gun owner already practices safe storage when the gun is not under his or her control. Any gun owner who opposes it is simply supporting irresponsibility and a reckless disregard for his community and calling it "freedom".
Every responsible gun owner already practices safe storage when the gun is not under his or her control. Any gun owner who opposes it is simply supporting irresponsibility and a reckless disregard for his community and calling it "freedom".
23
After background checks, the second best way to keep guns away from criminals is to prevent them from being stolen. Many irresponsible gun owners keep their firearms in the bedside table. If they really irresponsible, they keep them stored in their troubled son's bedroom (hello Nancy).
In MA, we have a comprehensive safe storage law. When a gun is not under your immediate control or being worn on your person, it needs to be locked in some way. Trigger lock, biometric lock, gun safe, container with a padlock -- there are many options. You can buy a simple electronic handgun safe for 20.00. The gun does not need to be disassembled (previous law in DC) or unloaded. It simply needs to be not freely available to the criminals who will break into your home or to your mentally deranged uncle who comes to visit sometimes.
It's very simple -- the owner of the gun is responsible for it. Fully responsible. All the time. And it works without banning anything.
If we could take all of our current focus off the assault weapon and high capacity magazines and put all of that effort towards a background check for every gun and safe storage that still respects the right to self-defense, we would be hugely ahead. Then, we could take a break and see how things look.
It's not that I care about assault weapons or 30 round magazines. Personally, I don't. But the handguns Adam Lanza used were just as deadly as the rifle. And no one is willing to ban all semi-automatic handguns. They are extremely common. We are no where near any kind of consensus like Australia to remove semi-automatics weapons as a whole from circulation.
The problem is ultimately irresponsible gun owner behavior. Leaving guns around for anyone to use them is directly linked to both mass murder and to criminal gun use. So with safe storage, you kill two birds with one stone and you also start to create a culture of responsible gun ownership. That is a better focus than the gun.
Irresponsible behavior does respond to regulation. This is known. It is as true of gun ownership as it is of anything else.
More...
In MA, we have a comprehensive safe storage law. When a gun is not under your immediate control or being worn on your person, it needs to be locked in some way. Trigger lock, biometric lock, gun safe, container with a padlock -- there are many options. You can buy a simple electronic handgun safe for 20.00. The gun does not need to be disassembled (previous law in DC) or unloaded. It simply needs to be not freely available to the criminals who will break into your home or to your mentally deranged uncle who comes to visit sometimes.
It's very simple -- the owner of the gun is responsible for it. Fully responsible. All the time. And it works without banning anything.
If we could take all of our current focus off the assault weapon and high capacity magazines and put all of that effort towards a background check for every gun and safe storage that still respects the right to self-defense, we would be hugely ahead. Then, we could take a break and see how things look.
It's not that I care about assault weapons or 30 round magazines. Personally, I don't. But the handguns Adam Lanza used were just as deadly as the rifle. And no one is willing to ban all semi-automatic handguns. They are extremely common. We are no where near any kind of consensus like Australia to remove semi-automatics weapons as a whole from circulation.
The problem is ultimately irresponsible gun owner behavior. Leaving guns around for anyone to use them is directly linked to both mass murder and to criminal gun use. So with safe storage, you kill two birds with one stone and you also start to create a culture of responsible gun ownership. That is a better focus than the gun.
Irresponsible behavior does respond to regulation. This is known. It is as true of gun ownership as it is of anything else.
24
@11, Lew wrote, "I have no problem with background checks."
@12, I responded, "@11 If background checks that are used to restrict our constitutionally-protected freedoms are performed in a very transparent manner, then maybe they're okay. But when they become another blacklist, onto which people can anonymously place us (see our so-called "Terrorist Watch Lists"), they are an affront to freedom. Please excuse those of us who recoil in horror at the thought of yet another list that can be used to lock down anyone who threatens the status quo."
@19, Root responded, "@12, Do you have a better suggestion on how we keep guns out of the hands of known criminals, gang members, people with a history of spousal or child abuse, terrorists, etc? If you do, I'm all ears."
As I wrote @18, I'm generally comfortable with background checks if the criteria used are known. We should be allowed to know the reasons for which our freedoms are restricted in the event that they are. I am vehemently opposed to blacklists.
@12, I responded, "@11 If background checks that are used to restrict our constitutionally-protected freedoms are performed in a very transparent manner, then maybe they're okay. But when they become another blacklist, onto which people can anonymously place us (see our so-called "Terrorist Watch Lists"), they are an affront to freedom. Please excuse those of us who recoil in horror at the thought of yet another list that can be used to lock down anyone who threatens the status quo."
@19, Root responded, "@12, Do you have a better suggestion on how we keep guns out of the hands of known criminals, gang members, people with a history of spousal or child abuse, terrorists, etc? If you do, I'm all ears."
As I wrote @18, I'm generally comfortable with background checks if the criteria used are known. We should be allowed to know the reasons for which our freedoms are restricted in the event that they are. I am vehemently opposed to blacklists.
Comments (24) RSS