Universal background checks on all gun purchases consistently poll with 85-90% support among Americans. Thanks to the NRA and the numerous legislators too scared of them to vote with their conscience or their constituency, we can't seem to pass even the most basic and widely-supported gun control regulations. Let's break that pattern.

If emotional toddlers don't have the right to gun down whomever they choose, the terrorists and atheists win.

@1 - a well worded universal background checks on all gun purchases initiative or law could get support, even from the NRA or its members. I-594 doesn't do that, it goes a leap further and requires a background check on all transfers, regardless of length, and defines transfers so broadly that it can be reasonably construed that knowing changes in constructive possession constitutes a transfer.

I could support an initiative that required background checks on sales (and, perhaps, loans lasting longer than 30 days), provided those checks could be completed by private citizens without requiring going through an FFL and paying $40 + whatever penalty percent is charged by the FFL for buying a firearm from a third party rather than from them. Make it readily available, anonymous enough, and required for sales only, and you'd defang the majority of opposition (e.g. making it readily available eliminates concerns about costs, anonymous enough mitigates concerns about universal registration, and required for sales gets rid of the problems related to transfers in this initiative).

Yes, because buying marijuana was sooooooo difficult when it was illegal, right?

@4: I daresay almost all Gun Owners/2nd Am. Advocates would find fault with any initiative put forth. Nothing is going to be perfect, so you're going to vote no, no matter what. Holding up convoluted theoretical scenarios does nothing to change any minds on Slog.

the perfect is the enemy of the good.

This is precisely the point. The seller here did not have any liability for this sale. As long as they know nothing about the buyer they are in the clear.

I-594 would require them to meet at a licensed dealer to perform the transaction, which could only occur legally once the buyer passed the background check.

Currently, there's no way for a seller who wants to ensure they aren't selling to a felon or someone with a restraining order to practically do a background check. I-594 would make it easy and required.

No, it does not prevent black market dealers from making a sale under the table, but it does make that a crime.

No, it does not prevent black market dealers from making a sale under the table, but it does make that a crime.

You know in Breaking Bad when Walt buys a gun from an illegal dealer? What, exactly, about that sale was illegal under current law? Because it sure didn't seem any different from what Newport did.

You know all these red states run by gun humpers with A++ ratings from NRA? The ones who say background checks don't work?

Look how many run background checks on childcare providers. They know damn well that when you put up screens to keep out the creeps, you will never keep out all of them. But you will keep out some. It helps.

They know that. But with guns they pretend they don't know that.

Is the identity of the seller of the gun available?

@10 The new law would not require any additional records to be kept than those that are already generated with the sale of a firearm from a licensed dealer. Generally, the records of positive background checks are destroyed within a short time frame and by federal law no database of gun purchasers or sellers is maintained by the local, state, or federal government.

Both the buyer and the seller however would probably want to maintain documentation just as they would for any other legal sale. And the seller is expected to remit sales tax.

@4 is spot-on. I eagerly signed the petition to get 594 on the ballot, but once I read into it, decided I will vote against. I'm strongly for universal background checks and I support amending the second amendment to restrict gun sales. I own a shotgun and use it maybe once a year to shoot targets with friends. It's my understanding that 594 criminalizes us lending guns to each other for hunting, or even trading for moments to shoot skeet.
@6, "perfect is the enemy of good" usually implies that a law does not go far enough. In that case, I agree, because we can continue to chip away. In this case, the law should have stopped at the ownership loophole. If we found people exploiting that by "borrowing," we could enact further laws.

@12

Because it's OK to give a gun to a felon or psychopath if they're your bud? Can somebody explain that to me.

"Oh, we're FRIENDS! Who cares about terrorist watch lists. It doesn't matter that they were dishonorably discharged. What difference does it make that they committed armed robbery? Sure, they're a sex offender. So what? Who cares if they have a restraining order. This dude is my FRIEND! We hang out together! Get it? We're buds. So I should be able to hand him a gun, no questions asked."

America!

@13, you have some fucked-up friends.
How about this - if I lent a gun to a friend and they committed a crime with it, I, the owner would be at least partially at fault. Kind of like the parents who let their kids play with guns. I'd get behind that.

@13 Jesus Christ dude find some new friends. You're running with a pretty bad crowd.

@13 was being ironic.

Nick Hauer, the founder of I-594 And WAGR wrote this initiative not with public safety as the intent, but rather to prepare for an uprising of commoners against the rich folk. He talks about it in this publication titled "the pitchforks are coming for us plutocrats"



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2…

This law makes it a FELONY to teach my fiance how to shoot on where it is legal (currently) to do so because simply handing someone a gun meets I-594's definition of transfer and every transfer requires an individual trip to the dealer, a background check, a fee, a waiting period, and use tax on the value of the firearm. Said background checks are not logistically possible while shooting with family or friends and criminal to not do them every time a change of possession occurs.This law keeps guns out of the hands of all people, thereby empowering the criminals who don't abide by the restrictions. I-594 targets hunters, recreational shooters, rural families, target shooters, firearms instructors, competitive shooters, collectors, hobbyists, hunter educators, but criminals remain undeterred by unenforceable legislation.

No on 594. Yes on 591

@14

If you're going to be held to account for what people do with the guns you hand out to them, wouldn't you like some functional mechanism to check them out before you hand it over? You're imagining some kind of penalty that makes you your brother's keeper, but only guesswork as to if you can trust them?

How about a system that makes a quick and reliable background check possible? Like, say, I-594?

"Derp, I known the guy for couple three months. He seem all right," is not good enough for me. If he's such a stand up dude let him buy his own gun. Who the hell are these millions of Washingtonians running around who can't get through the day without borrowing some other guy's gun?

Maybe they can't get a good enough job to afford one because they just got out of prison? I dunno, you tell me.

Well this whole loaning a gun to a friend thing could be handled simply. 1) to legally handle a gun you first have to get a "I'm Well Regulated license", gun license for short. Think of it like a drivers license and learners permits are cool, renew em every 4 yrs. 2) From point of manufacture onward ownership of the firearm itself must be tracked, think car titles. Your hunting and target shooting loans to friends and relatives are taken care of, no problem so long as they have an "I am Well Regulated" license too.



Put it another way, separate handling the gun from owning the gun, regulate both.

@19, no. Again, you must deal with some fucked-up folks, because I don't need a "mechanism" to decide whom I trust. Do you let friends sleep on your couch? How do you know they're not going to kill you in your sleep?
@20, I would vote for that. 594 is not that.

@21

So we should have faith that whom you trust is trustworthy with a gun? I'm sorry, I don't give a flying shit.

So, you guys don't link to the police report ( http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/h… ) and then 22 commenters fail to call you on your story having no basis linking this tragedy to any story on how the gun was obtained ?

FWIW, I think the law should require someone be given a copy of the criminal record of anyone they cohabitate with. And cute nurses shouldn't date felons who have served jail time, only chefs.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/05/22…
Newport had a history of domestic violence dating back to a former relationship with his ex-wife, records show.

He was convicted in 2008 of fourth-degree assault and first-degree criminal trespass in connection with going into her apartment and biting, choking and threatening to kill her. He was sentenced to a year in jail.

@22 Oh idk as long as McBomber owns a legally registered gun is on his own property I've no problem with him target shooting and or hunting (assuming he owns the land for it) with who ever he wants to lend the guns out to. Now if he lets them off the property with the gun and they aren't separately licensed with a " I am a Well Regulated gun handler license", then yeah Mcbomber should be held liable, even more so if whomever he gave the gun to committed a crime.

Yeah I'm wandering far from Washington's 594 initiative but since I don't have a vote in that fight I'm just running a well what if thought.

He commited a felony by attempting to purchase a gun in the first place. Why wasn't he behind bars?

This man committed a felony by trying to purchase a gun in the first place. Why wasn't he behind bars?

Sounds like a lack of enforcing current laws contributed to this tragedy.

@23

Oh, look, a single incident that may or may not be affected with this particular law. I guess that means that this law is no longer applicable to any scenario! You know, because all it takes is one break of the rule to make it obsolete! I guess there aren't any uses for crimes against murder anymore!

"I think the law should require someone be given a copy of the criminal record of anyone they cohabitate with. And cute nurses shouldn't date felons who have served jail time"

Oh, look, a retarded.

@24 I think you're "aiming" at the wrong person.

@18: This law makes it a FELONY to teach my fiance how to shoot... criminals remain undeterred by unenforceable legislation.

So this law makes law abiding gun owners into felons but is at the same time unenforceable? Sounds like you don't have much to worry about then.

@29 One gets whiplash countering the "logic" of the gun aficionados. The law is at once duplicative of current law, a severe overreach, unenforceable, creates a police state, ineffective, and impossible to comply with.

Or, here in reality, it simply requires background checks when selling a gun. Not when loaning a gun on a hunting trip, borrowing a gun at a range, or gifting a gun to family. Is everyone here an arms merchant?

Oh and I see, fiancée. The problem with carving out a specific exemption for fiancées is that it is a transitory relationship without any documentation. However this is where prosecutorial latitude comes into play. If your fiancee goes on a crime spree with the gun you gave her then the prosecutor is going to have to consider whether your gift of a gun was to a family member or not.

Tired of arguing with liars.

I'll just say gun nuts are despicable people with tiny penises.

@21

And that right there is what is wrong with the typical gun owner. You think you're qualified to make decisions that are beyond your competence. You have undeserved confidence in your own judgement.

Typical gun owners would fight to the death to avoid having to pass a test before owning a gun. Or pass a background check. Or prove their qualifications like a car driver or airplane pilot.

You guys think you're competent but you can't stand the thought of proving it. Why? Because you're not competent. If you were competent, millions of your guns wouldn't end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

Look, if you feel such a powerful need to handle your friend's gun, admit what this is really about: You want to suck each other's dicks. Admit it. You pass guns back and forth because you're too chickenshit to come out and say to your bud "Let's suck each other off." Well, now it's time.

No more guns as metaphor for gay sex. Go have your gay sex now. Real gay sex, like you've always wanted. It's safe, it's legal, it's healthy, and nobody gets shot.

@34

Driving a car or piloting a plane are privileges.

Owning a gun is a personal (Heller) and constitutional right.

As importantly, nobody bothers to show any reason to believe violent criminals are going to stop, entirely baffled by a background check. Violent ex stalking you? Yep I'm POSITIVE he/she will stop it because you hate the 2nd amendment! Basically, this initiative violates a constitutional right in a laughable attempt to solve a problem.

Now, I get it. Liberals think at a kindergarten level, on a good day. Cause and effect, accurate problem statement for effective problem solution, tying your own shoes- these are as foreign to you as Farsi. I know you're not very bright. Only thing that puzzles me is how eager you all are to shine a spotlight on your imbecility.

@34

Oh, and buddy? If you're any indication of the mental health of someone who chose homosexuality...

Well, that's just sad.

To those arguing against this law on transfer grounds- stop. That's like arguing that the problem on the Titanic was that each person jumping into the water didn't have a bathtowel. This initiative is poorly written and entirely incapable of(very expensively) solving the problem it claims to solve. While it's tempting to show every reason for not believing stupid lies the details really aren't important in countering such lies.

@25
Which is the problem that keeps popping up with this issue. Where are all the prosecutions?

I'm planning on voting for this, because I don't own guns, don't plan on owning any guns, so it doesn't impact me in any way. Plus I want to drink the tears from gun owners who think this law is akin to nazi socialism.

@35: The point of universal background checks isn't to scare felons away from buying guns. It's to scare away unlicensed dealers from SELLING guns to Joe Blow off the street who may or may not be a convicted felon.

@36: You're the guy who's deluded himself into thinking he has higher legal authority than the SCOTUS, Congress, and the POTUS combined. Splinters and planks, ya meshuggana.

@37: Details never seem to be important to you.

@35, 36, 37:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

If you ask me is the fucking Second Amendment that's poorly written.

It's one thing to toss a bone to the gun kooks, but don't let the illiterate motherfuckers write their own Amendment. It won't make any fucking grammatical sense and nobody will ever be able to agree on what it means.

Now the same dumb bastards are here to tell us what a properly written state Initiative looks like. We let you morons speak once and look where it got us? Now we're trying to clean up the mess you motherfuckers made.

Now go rub one out on your gun, Jethro. The grownups are busy trying to fix Washington.

I know its great when some tragedy gives everyone a chance to flog the latest gun control initiative, but if he'd broken into her house and strangled her to death, we wouldn't be discussing it. Sentence these guys appropriately on the first offense, and you won't have to trifle about their gun ownership.

Nah I'm increasingly leaning towards turning over gun control to the DMV. Oh don't scream and withe in pain think about it.
I was able to buy and register a car in my own name (cash) with the DMV at the age of 13.

I could even get plates for it at 15. The car was registered in my name so the plates had to be too, thought it odd my not being able to legally drive it didn't come into play but tow trucks get expensive and sometimes the car had to be moved around to get work done on it. So I legally owned the car, had it licensed to be driven on the street all prior to me being legally able to drive it in the public sphere.

So why should guns be different? Track the ownership from the point it leaves the factory record every transfer of ownership. Ownership includes responsibility for how that object is used and control of its possession.

Want to go hunting or target shooting on public lands you need to pass a test for that. That is get a "I'm a Well Regulated Gun Owner" license.

Want to be able to conceal carry in populated areas you need additionally training and a rider on that license.

Open carry.... fuck you now your just an asshole.

Done. You have the Right to Bare Arms and its Well Regulated.

Plus if you're a dickwad the Black Woman in Charge at the DMV&Guns will slap your bitch ass down.

@49

Again? This really isn't difficult.

First, we have a privilege to drive. Not a right. So in order to operate a car on the roads we agree to abide by the laws governing the exercise of that privilege.

We have a Constitutional right to bear arms. This is conditional only on necessary government limits.

Solving a numerically small problem (gun violence) with massive federal and state oversight of law abiding citizens isn't merely pointless and stupid. It's also a violation of a basic right.

But hey, show me where Chicago and DC have turned the tide on gun violence by ignoring the 2nd Amendment and I'll think about your ideas, m'kay?

What? Their draconian laws didn't actually work? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

@42: Was Article 1 Section 24 of the state constitution written in such a way that it confuses you as much as the second amendment to the federal constitution does?

@50 I know your thick as a brick so I'll clarify. You still get to buy a gun you (as long as you haven't through your own actions i.e. being convicted of a violent crime made your self ineligible) you just have to register that purchase with say the DMV&Guns. If you later sell that gun that too needs to be registered.



Your free to keep that gun on your own property and play with to your hearts content. You just can't take it off your property without a separate license. Unless in a locked box for safe transport. Want to carry in public get a "I'm a Well Regulated gun owner" license.



I'm free to own a car, even drive it on my own property without ever getting a drivers license or a license plate for that matter so long as I don't take it onto the public roads without a drivers license and plates.



So your "driving is a privilege" argument is bunk. A driving license has nothing to do with owning a car.



Now I realize you likely don't know you can buy a car without having a driver's license. But you don't know much of anything so that isn't much of a surprise.

@52, I think I can agree with that. CPL becomes license to carry in public, private use and transport is A-Okay. Selling, buying, possessing, using, etc are not a matter of the state unless said item is to be used on the road/in public.

@53 private use is ok as along as it is on private land.

Transport from one private site to another would have to be in a locked box.

Sales and purchases would have to be registered / recorded.

Your responsible for the gun you own.

Want to carry in public space without a your gun in a locked box, that's a separate license.

Simple. We do it with cars all the time.

@50: "But hey, show me where Chicago and DC have turned the tide on gun violence by ignoring the 2nd Amendment and I'll think about your ideas, m'kay?
What? Their draconian laws didn't actually work? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!"
That's funny. Chicago instituted an outright ban on handguns in 1982, which was struck down in 2010. If you look at this graph you'll see that homicides continued to rise for another few years, leveled off, and fell for about two whole decades. Then in 2012, after the law was struck down (consistent with the lagging effect), there was an uptick in homicides. Draw your conclusions where you may, but facts don't lie.

I support expanded background checks, but, as usual, the mainstream media has left out most of the story. For instance, WHY IS A MAN WHO SUPPORTS BACKGROUND CHECKS, ALTHOUGH HE IS A GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE, LEADING THE OPPOSITION TO I-594? The reason is simple: I-594 is about much more than background checks. I-594 changes the definition of a "transfer" from transfer of ownership, to simply handing a firearm to another person. As a result I-594 would:



Make most firearms instruction illegal

Make hunter safety classes illegal

Make it illegal for a parent of small children to store their firearms at a relative's home.

Make it illegal for friends to share a firearm - under the direct supervision of the owner - unless it takes place at an "established range" (most shooting takes place in forest and on private property).

Make it illegal for a parent to loan a shotgun or rifle to their adult child for a hunting trip unless the parent was with them at all times

And much, much more..... THAT'S WHY EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION IN WASHINGTON STATE OPPOSES I-594!!!!



Don't take my word for it - the independent site Ballotpedia says: "The measure will also criminalize, with few exceptions, all temporary transfers of possession of firearms that do not involve purchases, such as for safekeeping, hunting, loan, recreational sharing, safety training, coaching, transport, etc." (http://ballotpedia.org/Washing... )



Billionaires - lead by Michael Bloomberg are spending millions to spread outright lies about this measure. (See: http://reasonedpolitics.blogsp...



The biggest lie? "I-594 simply expands background checks to private sales." This is totally false. As noted above, it completely redefines what a transfer is - with massive effects. IT DOESN'T TAKE 16 PAGES OF VERY COMPLEX LEGAL LANGUAGE TO EXPAND BACKGROUND CHECK TO PRIVATE SALES.



PLEASE VOTE NO ON 594.