Yes, gun control, that'll really stop Mohammedan terrorists in their tracks.
Thoughts on the following argument my friend keeps making. The restrictive compliance measures for transfers and loans of guns will cause law abiding citizens to unintentionally commit crimes and possibly be convicted of gross misdemeanors or felonies.

Meaning. If I go to a gun range with my friend and borrow his gun to shoot some targets I may be convicted of a felony and or a misdemeanor.

According to the measure's backers, in states with universal background checks, 38 percent fewer women are killed by an intimate partner, 49 percent fewer people commit suicide, and 39 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed. These states also have dramatically lower levels of gun crime.

Citation needed, no sources for these claims have been provided.

thanks to the financial largesse of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

VS the financial largesse of Plutocrats Nick Hanour, Michael Bloomberg and the other rich white donors for I-594?

Remember the horror of the Seattle Pacific University shooting? Remember Sandy Hook? Remember shootings at the University of Santa Barbara? Remember Columbine?

None of those examples would have been thwarted by the proposals in I594

If it saves one life the lies and misinformation is worth it though. lol If this was that great and really needed, why the need for the hyperbole and deceit?

Or worse yet... Try inheriting a gun. Or giving or receiving a gun as a gift. (Yes. That happens).
@3, temporary and minor transfers like that are specifically excluded. There us a title heading "exclusions" to make it more obvious, but that's not going to stop anyone who won't read it.
@6 It specifically only says spouse, or minor under 18 years old, the example from @3 stands:

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the
transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group
that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms;…

There is no tile heading "exclusions" in the text of the bill.…

Transfers are defined by I-594 to include any loan of a firearm. Any temporary loan of a firearm, no matter how short the time, without FFL dealer paperwork would be a crime.

I-594 contains an exception which may allow transfer to a person under age 18 for “educational purposes…while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult….”

This exception would not permit transfer during adult classes such as women’s handgun classes, adult hunter education, other types of training , or range orientation training.

While classes for children may continue, the majority of adult training is effectively banned because the transfer requirements cannot be met in a training environment. Private firearms trainers and law enforcement instructors who train the public can probably not avoid I-594 violations.
Correction: "title" not "tile."
@3 & @5:

You obviously can't be bothered to get informed before spouting an opinion, so allow me to help by copying and pasting some relevant text directly from I-594, freely available on the internet to anyone who actually wants to know what they're talking about:

(4) This section [regarding firearms sales and transfers] does not apply to:

(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;


(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range...; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition ...;(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm.

@10 sums it up nicely. there's no point in arguing with liars/trolls.
@8, does it say some other word that means the same thing? I'm sorry, not really, fuck off.

Those sections, they are all valid individual scenarios, not cumulative. I'm sorry you can't read, not really, fuck off.
@7, same as the last response to @8. I'm not sorry you can't read. Those lower case roman numerals are individual scenarios, not cumulative. SPECIFICALLY. You're misinterpreting it because you're dumb or a liar. Your choice.
@11 I know right, @10 posted that whole block of text and no where does it say anything about friends being exempt. What a troll.

Sec. 3.(4)(a) applies ONLY to “A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift”

Sec. 3.(4)(f) applies ONLY to “The temporary transfer of a firearm between spouses or domestic partners” and then ONLY if it meets other requirements:

• If it occurs at an “established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located” and the firearm is “kept at all times at that location”

• if it occurs at a “lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm”

• If it occurs while “participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance”

• If it’s to a person who is under eighteen years of age for educational purposes

• If it’s while hunting

Neither of these clauses addresses gifts between people who are not immediate family members or temporary transfers between people who are not spouses or domestic partners.
I'm sorry, @14, I didn't realize you were retarded. I thought it was only a matter of being illiterate. Here, let me help:

From page 7 of Initiative Measure No. 594:

(4) This section does not apply to: (f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting.

I don't want to seem insensitive to your plight, so please let me know if you need help reading any other documents that are in plain English.
You are wrong @14. Quite wrong. Section 3.4.f covers all of the temporary transfers that are exempt. The various exemptions are numbered i. through v. Read it again, carefully this time.
I mean @15 in my comment above of course, though it applies to both of you.

Oh come on. "Friend" is a totally arbitrary and subjective term. Allowing such transfers would render any legislative utterly freaking meaningless.
@13 Yes, thank you. Laws are confusing, but the gun aficionados are doing their best to muddy the water by intentionally misinterpreting rather plain English.

The law governs the sale of guns. Unfortunately, it also has to govern the "transfer" of guns because people will game the system. However, a "transfer" is when somebody else takes possession of a firearm. It's not just handling a gun.

And then the exclusions are wide open. You can lend a gun to a family member. You can lend a gun to someone at a gun range, a competition, or even a performance which uses firearms. You can lend a gun to someone who is going hunting. You can lend a gun to somebody who needs protection. And of course you can lend a gun to anyone you want for any reason you want if they get a background check.
And, hey, no sales tax!

You'd think people would be excited about that!
The point of contention on the part of the pro-gun faction seems to be the fact that this law, as written, won't allow them to transfer ownership of a firearm in their possession (as opposed to a temporary loan, which seems to be rather adequately covered, per the comments above) to a "friend", by which I presume they mean, "anyone I damned well please, whether I know them personally or not", without the transferee first undergoing a background check, which of course is precisely what the law intends.
Yes, lives will be saved by keeping guns out of the hands of psychos and felons. But that is too high a price to pay for a couple of dudes at the gun range having slightly less fun because they had to stop for a 5 minute background check before fondling each other's guns.

It spoils the spontaneity of the moment. Can't you see that? Your eyes meet. You exchange a little nod. And then you just stick the butt of your gun in the other guy's hand. Just stick it in, no stopping to make sure it's safe. And then he grips it, softly at first but then, his grip tightens and he's feeling the bare surface, sliding his hands over it, smelling ever natural emission from your piece. It's real, it makes you feel ALIVE! You don't even know the other dude's NAME and he's right there HOLDING your gun. My God, the FEELING!

I for one am willing to trade the lives of any number of innocent gun victims to ensure that no barrier stands between guys touching each other's guns with the utter spontaneity.

Running the guy's background would deflate that to a mechanical, going-through-the-motions bureaucratic affair. It's so... so... cold.
So are you going to provide a citation for those statistics, or do I have you confused with actual journalists?

Also, I find it hilarious that you guys bitch and moan about the NRA's "financial largesse" as though it's even a drop in a bucket compared to that of Michael Bloomberg's. Can your ideology be consistent for once, just ONCE?

"Get money out of politics! Except OUR money! Our money good, their money bad!"
@23, running a background check before handing your gun off and then again when it get returns will be a pretty big drag. I'm voting against 594.
@16 you are correct, I am indeed developmentally disabled. because when @3 mentioned target shooting with an associate, as not being covered by the text you keep linking to. I understand that *target shooting* which is currently legal on public land, is not in fact hunting. Both of which have dictionary definitions.

Which are important, because this proposal is for a law.

Since hunting with a firearm is only open from Sept 15th to Nov 19th. There are 9 other months where recreational outdoor shooting does occur, where the felony being described by the text you are linking to would be applicable, because it already occurs legally today. That's what people are attempting to point out to the lying trolls like yourself who keep posting text and expressing opinion on what it means.

This is a bad law, because it creates more felonious activities than it claims to protect against. It uses made up claims as proof it will be successful. And it would have failed to protect against the fear mongering examples it uses as proof its necessary.

Go ahead and call people retarded though, it really proves your point about how right you are.
@24, Hannauer is all largesse and even the tightwad owner of this rag, Tim Keck, donated $2,000 for 594 (and all that non-monetary contribution of slanted publicity here).
Okay interesting. I appreciate all your feedback. Just to be clear I'm not trying to be a troll. I thought I was cultivating a nice debate about something I'm a little fuzzy on. A couple things that strike me though because I've been reading the full text of the intiative on and off today. Found here by the way...…

@16 I was reading (f) from section 4 as one big run on sentence. I didn't realize each (i) (ii) was a different exception

That being said there is absolutely no reason to use the R word. It just makes your argument look childish. I understand this is a hot topic but lets not resort to name calling (I know I know I'm living in a fantasy world)

Exactly! A drag is exactly what it is. Yes, getting shot by a felon or terrorist or domestic abuser with a restraining order is also a drag. These instant background checks are a drag drag.

I would even go so far as to call them a bummer. Give me convenience or give me death.
Even if you read them to be individual and not cumulative or otherwise related to (i), you become a felon if:
• You lend a gun to someone who is not your spouse or domestic partner,
• You lend a gun that is not at kept at all times at the range you are lending it at and/or that range is not an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located
• The loan is not for a “lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm,” or for “participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance,”
• The loan is not to a person who is under eighteen years of age for educational purposes
• Or the loan is not while hunting.
In other words, if you’re shooting with a friend, and you let him shoot your gun, you have broken the law (unless you can show you met one of the few conditions above).
I can find no exception that would even permit transfer during adult classes such as women’s handgun classes, adult hunter education, other types of training, or range orientation training, much less transfer from one friend to another while shooting in an informal setting.

But, that's precisely one of the exclusions mentioned in Section 4(f) (see @10 above), which clearly carves out temporarily loaning a gun to someone at a gun range or while hunting, so long as the gun doesn't subsequently leave the premises, or conversely, the loanee has a valid hunting permit. If you're loaning your gun to someone in any other circumstances, even if you're just out in the woods plinking, that's technically illegal already per RCW 9.41.230..
@29, does 594 finally make it illegal for a felon or terrorist or domestic abuser to shoot another with a gun ? I didn't realize we needed another law against that.

At best you're hoping it will make a gun more difficult to procure, while also inconveniencing the 99.9% of guns that aren't doing those illegal things.

I think all bikes should be banned from city streets, to prevent collisions like on 2nd avenue. Just to be safe.
"@16 I was reading (f) from section 4 as one big run on sentence. I didn't realize each (i) (ii) was a different exception"

That's because it IS one big run on sentence... there are NO periods. While you and I understand that periods are used to denote the end of sentences, trolls apparently do not realize this.
@31, what ? That RCW concerns aiming a firearm at a person, firing in public spaces, and outlaws "spring traps" using firearms. Where does that relate to having your friend take a few target shots at their Yakima cabin ?

You mean Sher Kung? She wasn't killed by a bike. She was killed by a car. You mean ban cars, right? That's your idea.

I-594 isn't a gun ban. It's a background check that reduces the availability of guns to criminals. Criminals and nutjubs would still have some guns, but not quite as many. The price is inconvenience.

That's your whole problem. Inconvenience.

To you I-594 is like a killjoy handing out condoms at a gay bathhouse. You want to go on anonymously barebacking with no accountability. That's some fucked up shit right there, you know that?

Target shooting on public land IS illegal, per RCW 94.41.230 Section 1, subsection (b) (see my comment @31 above for the link), unless the area in question is "a location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged". The language in I-594 would not change that. So, if you're plinking on public land where use of firearms isn't already specifically authorized (and I can't think of many places where that would be the case aside from during hunting season, which we've already established is an exempted activity), then you're already breaking the law as it stands today.

And @30, I would dispute your assertion vis-a-vis loaning at gun ranges, as the "the firearm is kept at all times" language is preceded by "if the temporary transfer occurs and", which indicates the intention that the exemption is invoked at the time of the transfer and remains in-effect so long as the gun remains on the premises. In other words, the loanee would not be allowed to leave the range with the gun after receiving it from the loaner, because at that point the exemption would no longer be in-effect and the transfer would then become invalid. So, all you would have to do to remain in-compliance with I-594 is to get your gun back from whomever you loaned it to before either of you leaves the range.
No... It's more like some killjoy demanding valid ID when voting. It's an infringement in a constitutional right. Not am inconvenience.
In fact... It's exactly like some killjoy demanding valid ID and a 10 day waiting period before voting (aka exercising a constitutional right just like owning a gun).

Or, if you like the other guy's gun so much that you're ready to "put a ring on it" you can get married right there at the gun range, which most interpretations of the Second Amendment already designate as basically churches already. Then your guns are common property.

It's like something out of a fairy tale. So beautiful.
Correction: "@35" not "@32".

If background checks are unconstitutional, then you have nothing to fear from I-594, do you?

Oh, wait the Supreme Court has already rule on background checks, huh? Could be they understand the Constitution better than you do.
WAC 332-52-145
Agency filings affecting this section
Firearms and target shooting.
(1) What is recreational target shooting? Recreational target shooting is the use of a firearm or bow and arrow on targets and the sighting in of rifles or other firearms on department-managed lands. The department regulates and enforces target shooting on department-managed lands.

(3) Where is target shooting permitted?
(a) Persons may target shoot in:
(i) Developed recreation facilities specifically designed for target shooting; or
(ii) Areas with an unobstructed, earthen backstop capable of stopping all projectiles and debris in a safe manner.
@33: the breaks in this case are indicated by the inclusion of letters, both upper and lower-case, and numbers, both Arabic and Roman, bracketed in parentheses. This format (a variation on the standard Harvard Outline format) has been used in the creation of legal documents for decades, and is widely understood by people who deal with such documents on a regular basis.


Is the Yakima cabin on public or private land? If the latter, then you've already answered your own question.
@36, Stumbo certainly never objected to the 591 guy's interpretation that the guns had to be kept at the range at all times (meaning that you couldn't bring your gun and exchange it at the range).…
To recap:

1. I-594 doesn't affect people going shooting together and sharing guns.

2. Even if it did, who gives a fuck? Boo hoo, you can't share guns (without a instant background check that takes five fucking minutes out of your busy life). The world has real problems and that right there is not one of them.

You know you get to spend that five minutes in a gun store, right? Your favorite fucking kind of store? You get to spend five more minutes undressing guns with your eyes. You can even rub one out while you're waiting. Stop complaining.

Exactly, the use of firearms is AUTHORIZED in those areas, precisely as I cited from the language of RCW 9.41.230, Section 1, subsection (b) above, and and as such said shooting range is exempted under the provisions of I-594, Section 3(4)(f)(ii).

I realize this is all legaleze, but really, it's not THAT difficult to understand...
@46, you suggested that it's illegal to exchange guns for target shooting in public areas now. There's plenty of areas considered "public" that have earthen backstops for target shooting. Anyone who suggests a background check takes 5 minutes probably doesn't recognize that the process isn't so straightforward for legal citizens named "John Smith" or "Ali Muhammad".

I did no such thing - you INTERPRETED my statement to mean that - BIG difference. The public areas where target shooting is AUTHORIZED (I realize that may be a big word for you, but please try to remember it from here on out) are EXEMPT. That's what I-594 states, period. If you're talking about going to some quarry somewhere to shoot at beer cans or whatever, that probably doesn't fit the definition of an AUTHORIZED range per the RCW and shooting there (again assuming it's public and not private land) is already prohibited.
The single biggest problem i have with it is that the exceptions aren't true exceptions. they are AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES! As written:

"A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of section 3 of this act. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer satisfied one of the exceptions in section 3(4) of this act."

So if you do fall under the "exeptions", what the law says is that "you have violated the law, and you are subject to arrest and prosecution, and then when you are prosecuted, YOUR LAWYER can claim, via an affirmative defense, that you should be excempt from prosecution. And then you hope the judge and/or jury agree with you, and then you pay your lawyer either way.

The law presumes you are guilty, then you have to prove that you're not.
GOD DAMN, people are incapable of or unwilling to read. I refer to people insisting that the law criminalizes lending a gun to a buddy at the range, or to a spouse.
If the bill passes. The courts will strike it down.

If Liberals really want gun control they need to push through a Constitutional Amendment. Not a State Bill.

If they could outlaw liquor, surely you can outlaw guns. If you really put all your political power behind it.

California has had comprehensive background checks for the last 23 years. And requires trigger locks and a 10 day waiting period. How come the courts haven't struck that down? And what about Rhode Island?

Why is the NRA spending so much money to defeat an unconstitutional law? Isn't that a waste of resources?
If I-594 was just about background checks for sales, I'd be happy to vote for it. That's a loophole worth closing.

But I-594 criminalizes "temporary transfers" which are defined so broadly as to make criminals out of anyone who has both firearms and friends.

There's an exception for people who are in grave danger for the entire duration of the temporary transfer, but no exception for people who just want to learn how to safely handle a firearm.

There's an exception for gun range operators to rent guns to customers but there is no exception for people who want to teach their friends to shoot. (The exception only applies to guns that are kept at the range AT ALL TIMES, not just for the duration of the temporary transfer.)

There's an exception for licensed gunsmiths, but no exception for me to work on your gun, or for you to work on mine. Imagine if the only people who were allowed to open the hood of your car (which is more likely to kill someone than my gun) were federally licensed mechanics.

A sane law would regular SALES, because there is no way that a law could possibly enumerate all of the reasonable things that two reasonable people could do with a firearm that only one of them owns.
I love how these ads always mention Sandy Hook, every gun used at sandy hook was a legal, registered gun which was legally owned by the perpetrators mother, how would a law like I-594 have stopped that? It would not but it will make law abiding citizens to spend more money and waste time since we have already gone through background checks. I-594 will not stop criminals from getting guns, if they want to get one they will. VOTE NO ON I-594!
Also note that the Washington Council Of Police And Sheriffs opposes I-594 because it will, in their words, "cause law abiding citizens to unintentionally commit crimes and possibly be convicted of gross misdemeanors or felonies."

See the full text of their letter here:…

More about WACOPS here:
@50 - There is an exception that allows "temporary transfers" at the range only applies to firearms that are kept on the premises AT ALL TIMES. That is, it's an exception to allow ranges to continue renting guns to customers.

And there is an exception for target shooting competition, which makes transfers legal during the competition.

But there is no exception to allow temporary transfers during non-competitive shooting at a range. And for most people, that's all we ever do at shooting ranges.

So if someone wants to practice target shooting, they'll have to rent a gun, they can't borrow one from a friend. But I guess that's OK if you want to keep guns out of the hands of poor folks.

There is also no exception to allow customers at gun shops to handle firearms before purchase. That'll take a background check, which costs $20 or so right now. But I guess that's OK if your goal is to keep firearms out of the hands of the poor.

Note that there is also no exception allowing a firearm owner to teach a friends basic firearm safety and operation at home. Well I guess you can do that but it has to be a look-but-don't-touch sort of lesson. Or go to a gun shop first and pay for a background check. But I guess that's OK if your goal is to make sure that poor folks don't get firearm safety lessons.
Good god. You guys are arguing with the moron who shit his pants and demanded we close the borders over the very first case of Ebola in the US. This is the level of chicken shit non-intellect with which you're engaging. He's a troll. For fuck sake. Ignore him.
@56, my nightmare scenario is that someone will have 594 transferred to a novice buddy a semi-auto weapon to be shot at their country ranch, a round jams, and they have to decide to either coach the novice in how to clear the jam or go take the jammed weapon to where they can run a background check so they can legally hand it back to the more experienced person to clear it.
Voting no.
What happened to 5280? Did his gun go off in his face or is he just getting really, really high these days?
You convinced me!

I am now very glad to know that Ebola poses virtually no threat to public health in the US because it's so hard to contract and the CDC is so well prepared to deal with it.

See! I can be persuaded by reasonable arguments.
@62, I've handled so few dead bodies that I'm not terribly worried about Ebola via traditional routes (as long as I stay off crowded metro buses and the potential for strange vomit from that).

However, if dogs are actually able to be asymptomatic carriers and it spreading to humans from their body fluids, I could see a large swath of Seattle being infected by their fur babies after they start lapping up each others' vomit/poo at the local dog park.…
Q: Can dogs get Ebola?
A: At least one major study suggests they can, without showing symptoms. Researchers tested dogs during the 2001-02 Ebola outbreak in Gabon after seeing some of them eating infected dead animals. Of the 337 dogs from various towns and villages, 9 to 25 percent showed antibodies to Ebola, a sign they were infected or exposed to the virus.
@58 If you are that much of an idiot, maybe you shouldn't play with guns.
I still don't understand why, if a few suffragettes and abolitionists, who didn't even have the vote yet, could ram through the 18th amendment in 1 year and 29 days, progressives can't repeal the 2nd amendment... Do they just not care enough? Or are they less effective than a movement made up of disenfranchised women?
I've been keeping an eye on this thread, knowing it would be a shitshow. Liberal Sloggers don't like guns and will vote for anything they perceive as anti-gun, no matter how badly written or blatantly unconstitutional.

There really is no point arguing about gun laws here. I'm coming to realize that.

One thing that everyone is missing is that this law is unenforceable and therefore useless.

Someone explain to me, if I sold a gun to somebody who turned out to be buying it illegally and then subsequently committed a crime, how could anyone prove I sold him/her the gun? I could just deny it.

Do tell.

The thing about many of my fellow liberals is they love useless feel-good bullshit legislation when it comes to guns, and many other things. In that regard, they're no better than a slack-jawed Republican, because they are just as uninformed and voting on an issue based on emotion and 'gut feeling.'
@50: why do you claim that others are unable to read, when the law clearly makes all transfers illegal, regardless of length of time, outside of _very_ narrow exceptions?

At a range, until a state supreme court judge interprets "and the firearm is kept at all times" to mean "the transferee's possession is exclusively at" or "while under the direct supervision of the owner" or similar, people shooting each other's guns at the range are in danger of criminal prosecution. Yet the fact that the other parts of section 3(4)(f) refer to how long the transferee possesses the firearm rather than the place the gun is kept at all times makes me think that kind of court decision is highly unlikely. You should really read what you're claiming others haven't.

Even if a judge ruled that way, the initiative still makes it a severe criminal penalty to go to my friend's house in Duvall and try their shotguns while clay shooting on their private land. Nor when a group of us go out to one of the many public outdoor areas where it is legal to shoot and want to try out another's gun. Nor does it exempt situations like the four years I lived with my girlfriend who wasn't yet my spouse; there were many times she was at home with the firearm and I wasn't. Nor would the hunting exemption have allowed me to do a high country buck hunt that required a few miles of hiking before being in the area where hunting was legal. If the owner had to carry both guns up that trail, there's no way I would have been invited. Finally, when I go out of town for a few weeks or have taken someone in my house who has expressed suicide ideation, the initiative makes it prohibitively expensive to store my firearms at another friend's house for responsible safekeeping.

As for any claim that those things aren't transfers? The exception of some specific types of temporary transfers proves the rule that temporary transfers including "letting someone use your gun for a few minutes" is made illegal.

@52: "[California] requires trigger locks[, background checks,] and a 10 day waiting period. How come the courts haven't struck that down?"

CA allows infrequent transfers, prior to their new law wording in 2010, it was infrequent loans up to 30 days. Now it is worded as follows: "Section 26500 [making it a misdemeanor to sell, lease, or transfer firearms without a license] does not apply to the infrequent sale, lease, or transfer of firearms." (….)

As for the waiting period: "the Court concludes that Penal Code §26815(a) and §27540(a)‟s 10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment as applied to those persons who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the AFS, to those who possess a valid CCW license, and to those who possess both a valid COE and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system, if the background check on these individuals is completed and approved prior to the expiration of 10 days. " (…)

there's nothing requiring you keep a trigger lock on a gun; the only requirement on trigger locks is that any firearm sold must include a "firearm safety device".
SECB, you dropped the ball by not addressing the transfer issue in your endorsement. It's obviously a big sticking point for otherwise pro-gun-control folks like myself. Your endorsement argument is lazy, sensationalist and wholly predictable - kind of like an NRA ad.
This argument is always a cluster fuck when really it is simple. Want to own a gun, join a Well Regulated Militia.
@64 - Ooh, I can play this game. Why haven't you guys gotten rid of that pesky well regulated militia part? Or reordered the commas so that it's clear guns are for everyone and anyone to have and to hold and to transfer to everyone and anyone til death do you part? Prohibition was repealed so it should be easy peasy.
how many people that own a gun will vote for this?

not like it matters, you're going to be treated like a terrorist for having a gun unless you've got a nice shiny badge.

don't worry the police will protect you. look up warren v district of colombia if you don't believe me.
@68, 69

Still that noise? Supreme court decisions and all.

Of course, you're being willfully obtuse. Why not take a look here:…

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
"There really is no point arguing about gun laws here. I'm coming to realize that."

This is not about convincing anyone who has already chosen their position here. Those people are posting to be publicly seen as being on the "good" side. Whether they understand what the SCOTUS has ruled on regarding the 2nd Amendment or not.

"The thing about many of my fellow liberals is they love useless feel-good bullshit legislation when it comes to guns, and many other things."

It is only "useless" in the context of addressing the points that they keep repeating to justify it. Such as "Remember the horror of the Seattle Pacific University shooting? Remember Sandy Hook? Remember shootings at the University of Santa Barbara? Remember Columbine?" This legislation would not have done anything in those cases.

The real goal is to add more hoops in the hope that it will
a. make the process of legally getting a gun too difficult or time consuming for law-abiding citizens.
b. make people who are law-abiding citizens today into criminals tomorrow so that they cannot own a gun.
@72: You still haven't explained England or Japan. wake up sheeple
They are both island nations, with feudal pasts, that have suffered humiliating defeats in war against the USA?
Canadian here. Our laws are actually pretty close possesion wise. Anyone can own a fire arm if they aren't a convicted felon, have a domestic peace bond or deemed mentally unfit. We have three classes of fire arms (that part's a fucking drag). 1)unrestricted (rifles with a barrel length over 18.5" & shotguns. 2) restricted [handguns and semi-autos under 18.5" (bushmaster type assault rifles)]. 3)prohibited [basically full auto, but followed buy a headache of inclusions on calibre (bmg, cheytac)].

To get an unrestricted, we need an unrestricted PAL liscence (possesion and acquisition), for restricted, it's another liscence.

To get either they give you a basic knowledge and safe handling test (fee comparable to driving).

To sell unrestricted (that's all three categories for you lucky bastards), it literally is a 5 minute call. Name, DOB, PAL# second piece of ID (photo, so passport or drivers). That's it. You can still go to a range or crown land (public land outside discharge restrictions), or to private land outside discharge bans.

Only other thing different is storage requirements. We aren't aloud to leave them laying around or easily accesable [unloaded and locked in a safe(restricted guns need a trigger lock as well)]. Seems like an easy fix for you guys tho, only gun worth a shit during a break in is a hand gun, so that fucker is loaded, it's strapped to the owner.

Hand a gun to your buddy? You need to be there at all times. Sell a gun? Call 1-800....... And it's confirmed due diligence.

You guys don't need to trash the second amendment on this for fuck sakes.
I can't vote for it (and I wouldn't anyway), but I don't think it'll be a destruction of justice if it passes. It's not like cops are going to start suddenly caring if someone lets their buddy shoot in the woods while they stand by.

I wouldn't vote for 591, either, though. For a group that's supposedly pro-state's rights, it ties local and federal law awfully tight.
Gosh, if only they would pass some laws making robbery and assault and murder illegal. That would solve the whole problem.

Oh, wait, those things are already illegal? And they don't stop criminals?

Then, please explain to me how *this* law is going to help. I'll wait.
@77: >implying that laws against robbery and assault and murder don't prevent SOME potential crimes

Oh look, it's that tired nonsensical argument against EVERY SINGLE LAW ON THE BOOKS.

California's laws are working really well for them too.

There are no robberies or deaths with an illegal firearm.

Sandy Hook would have never happened had there been a regulated firearm transfer between the perp and his mother.

Yes, let's pass this law. Makes sense.

*For F@ck's sake this law will do nothing except make people feel better. It does not solve anything.
How does this stop anything? Most criminals buy guns off the street and people buying from Craigslist just won't do the background check. The only way we're ever going to make guns safe is to educate people. There are to many guns in America and all we're doing by making more Gun laws is taking the guns away from law abiding citizens and making criminals hide even more. I can buy a gun on the streets in an hour there everywhere,and there not going anywhere. We need to educate people that's the only way,criminals are criminals and their not gonna follow any rules we lay down. Learn to use guns responsibly and teach your children how dangerous they are. Guns are needed these days to protect yourselves and times are only getting harder. They may not be in upper class neighborhoods but down here in the real world the Police don't come and if they do it takes forever. So for those of us living in high crime areas we need to learn how to defend ourselves in a safe manner.
I live in a situation with housemates that had to pass criminal background checks to live here. The wording of the law seems to suggest that if, for example, I fell ill on a planned range day, loaning my firearm without my presence would be at the least a gross misdemeanor. I'm disappointed that this law passed with such poor wording.

Don't get me wrong. I support universal background checks on all sales. I just shouldn't be committing a felony by loaning a firearm in such a situation as the one I outlined. Criminalizing behavior that is widely practiced and leaving it to law enforcement to decide whether to prosecute it is a fundamentally stupid idea.
Make laws happen. You can do that on and it’s free.

On you can send a message to 100 different state and federal politicians each day about what laws you want passed in just 2 seconds.

If all your supporters contacted 100 state and federal representatives each day imagine the impact that would make. Be heard by your government state and federal. No other government contact site allows you to send a message to 100 politicians in less than 2 seconds. What laws do you want passed? What are your concerns?

Be heard. Express yourself to your state and federal government. Entire state and federal legislatures, senates, governors and executive branch.

We don’t do fund raising or analytics, but we do make it easier to contact politicians than SALSA: No drop down forms, questions to answer before your message is sent, etc. We spent 100 of man hours isolating the raw email addresses and phone number contacts of 5000+ US politicians. By inauguration the database will be updated with the newly voted in representatives.

If you have questions contact me. Trace Burroughs, Director,

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.