WA state - Gun Show Loophole SB 5197 - Passed Committee - Call Your Senator NOW.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope everyone understands that a private seller or buyer can't get a background check made, except by going through a federally licenced dealer. (FFL). In that case the dealer has to transfer the firearm into his or her records by logging it into their "bound book," and then transfer it after the potential buyer fills out a #4473 form and the dealer makes the background check.

What the anti's really want to do is make every sale one recorded on a #4473 form, but of course this is never mentioned.

Once sellers see what's going on they will simply make their face-to-face sales somewhere other then gunshows. This of course will cause the anti's to demand additional legislation to close still another loophole.

Washington state gunowners should contact their legislators and demand to know just how a individual seller or buyer is supposed to get the background check made. Once all of this comes out (if it does) some minds may get changed.
 
Washington State Gun Prohibitionists: Learn about "disappearing ink".

I look forward to you making fools out of yourselves by blabbering about the "disappearing ink" loophole, and proposing a new law requiring that we fill out 4473 forms using PENCILS.
 
It states in the bill

that all transfers will be made via an FFL. And the promoter must provide the srvices of an FFL to process all transfers.

In addition to the obvious 4473/bound book audit trail (and state registration on handguns) that this accomplishes (and that is the principal intent of the bill), there are other problems unstated in the bill as well.

If your contracted FFL doesn't show up, no (legal) gun show.

The FFL has to be there for the show set-up and tear-down, not just the hours the show is open to the public. Many deals, mostly trades, are concluded between vendors whilethey are setting up or tearing diown.

The FFL will (typically) charge anywhere from $20-35 to process the transaction, thereby tilting the playing field in favor or the FFL who makes no additional charge for sales from his inventory.

Retail handgun transfers require a five-business-day (seven calendar day) waiting period before delivery if the buyer does not possess a valid, current WA concealed pistol license. When does the buyer pick up the handgun? At the next gun show, one or two months hence?

Ditto "delay" responses from NICS.

Once the FFL has entered the gun into his bound book, if it is determined via a NICS check that the buyer is prohibited, the dealer must then paper (4473/bound book) the gun back to the original owner as the gun is already on the dealer's records. So a "no sale" results in the FFL making a profit anyway.

If the original owner of the gun pops "prohibited" on that NICS check, what happens to the gun? Is it turned over to local law enforcement and the original owner charged with <prohibited person> in possession? Does the FFL get a free gun?

And finally, as Kevin Schmadecka notes in his excellent electronic letter-to-the-editor published in today's online Seattle P-I, if the FFL transfer rule is violated, the seller and the gun show promoter are held criminally liable; the buyer is NOT. This will encourage "sting" operations by anti-gun activists. This is the only transaction of its kind that I am aware of where the buyer is not equally guilty as the seller.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/306315_webltrs7.html

SB 5197 is an insidiuosly crafted bill that will shut down gun shows wherever and whenever. Also, even if you are not a Washington resident, understand that this is "model legislation" being promoted by the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), a San Francisco-based attorney group that writes model gun control legislation for use all over the country. It doesn't stop at gun shows: "assault weapons," .50 caliber rifles, mandatory safe storage, "crime gun" tracing and others are all in their sights -- and available free to any anti-gun legislator in the country. Coming soon to a state legislature near you!

IIRC, LCAV is funded by the Tides Foundation, which in turn gets at least part of its money from the Heinz Foundation. As in Maria Teresa Simoes-Ferrara Heinz Kerry. Just if you were wondering.
 
ChestyP is dead right, on what he pointed out - and if or when the Gunshow Loophole bill is passed it won't be long before its provisions are added to all private sales, without exception.

Michigan has somewhat of a similar situation. There all handgun sales, regardless of what kind, require the buyer to obtain a purchase permit from a police or sheriff department. This process includes a background check. If the subsequent sale is made through an FFL, a second background check is made. All of this has been in effect since about 1934.

Of course we all know that as a result Michigan is now entirely free of handgun crime, and all is warm and fuzzy... :scrutiny: :rolleyes:
 
Ginny Burdick is a jerk.

If ONE felon buys a gun from a show, that's one felon too many. The background check in WA is FREE. If you're legal to buy a gun, you shouldn't have any problems with a background check. If your selling, you shouldn't have any problems ensuring that you're not being an accessory to a crime by selling a firearm to a felon.

I know dealers, sheriffs, BATF agents. Gun shows attract felons who can't buy guns elsewhere. Doesn't matter if it's one half of one percent of sales, or of felony crime. It's too much.
 
45/70

I doubt that the background checks will be free. Somewhere along the line someone will have to pay.

Then in addition some dealer will have to keep track of all of the No. 4473 forms this will require. But then, getting all sales logged onto No. 4473 forms is the real point of the bill.

The system in Michigan (in place since 1934) is much more inclusive, as it requires a prior-to-purchase permit for all handgun sales or purchases. Yet criminals don't seem to have much trouble obtaining the handguns they want through a black market.

If the bill in Washington is passed, private face-to-face buyers and sellers will simply do business outside of the gun show - most likely in the parking lot.

Guns are not the problem. Criminals using guns are. When the authorities decide to deal with the criminals the gun problem will go away.
 
45/70 said:
I know dealers, sheriffs, BATF agents.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't know any dealers, sheriffs or BATF agents. I think you are a few grains short of a 45/90. The guy you brought in to testify for the bill is a fraud:

Bob Ricker of American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) Unmasked
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/31/37/

Don’t Blame Gun Shows for Killers’ Access to Weapons
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/26/37/

Evidence Says Gun Laws Don't Work
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/25/37/
 
Last edited:
45/70 is a TROLL

he was pimping the same line a few threads ago, under another name. The text of his message

Background checks by an FFL for guns in his own inventory are free. Background checks conducted by an FFL to process third party sales typically run $20-35. That the average for such processing nationwide. So rather than "level the playing field," it actually creates an imbalance in facor of FFLs.

45/70 may know several people in favor of SB 5197, but most of the police officers and federal agents I work with consider it a waste of resources. In fact, when Washington Ceasefire (I'm sure 45/70 knows who they are -- a very small special interest group from Seattle) ran Initiative 676 ten years ago -- that would have required all handgun owners to obtain a state-issued license to keep their handguns -- 85% of the law enforcement officers in the state came out AGAINST the initiative, and they did it publicly.

What name will you pick next time for your next trolling attack, 45/70?
 
"Takes about five minutes most days."

Sorry Jack,
I'm in Eastern WA and I've purchased a total of 5 rifles/handguns in the last 2 years and was made to wait out the minimum waiting period every single time... The process just seems so inefficient to me. (And no, I don't have a police record.)

Smitty
 
Jack and 45/70 don't have a clue

No doubt it is the same jackass pretending to use viable information alleged to have come from law enforcement officers. I have been in the law enforcement business for 35 years. And yes I have met a few "big city” types who believe they should be the only ones to be allowed to own guns. The vast majority of real police officers have no use for gun control laws or the background nonsense. Most of the guns we pick up from CRIMINALS are STOLEN! I would estimate in 35 years that 95% of the guns we have come across that were being used in a manner violating the law, that the guns were stolen. I can think of a couple of suicides or attempted suicides where family guns were used. Most were taken without the actual owner's permission or knowledge. All the guns that we’ve taken from gang members were stolen either by the perp or by another and sold to the gang member.

Those of us here that are legitimate can only keep up the fight to keep our right to bear arms. The gun nuts will never stop, no matter how many laws they get until they are able to have the government declare a prohibition and they would rejoice if we were killed by government agents in the process of refusing to be disarmed.

I have made a statement to the anti-gun acquaintances I’ve known over the years and it is simple: Police officers rarely ever save a citizen from harm. They are very good at drawing a little chalk line around YOUR BODY and trying to catch the bad guy. This does the victim NO DAM GOOD. HE’S DEAD and isn’t coming back because they caught the killer. Privately owned guns protect many people from harm or intended harm. It is a fact that the armed citizen is our best deterrent to crime. Not a bunch of cheesey assed police cars sitting on the interstate writing tickets. But that’s another bitch of mine that I’ll leave alone for now. Can’t help but add a saying that applies in regards to traffic cops: If I had a brother and a sister, I’d rather she was working in a whore house then him being a traffic cop! Really want to piss one off remind him that he can be replaced by a camera……that doesn't sleep on the job, never eats donuts, etc...

VOTE and call or write your anti gun congressmen/women so they hear from you. If they don’t, they’ll assume you don’t exist. I’ll guarantee you that they are hearing daily from our enemies. Our enemies are a lot like the Islamic enemies in that they never stop working to defeat us.
 
FYI, I don't see anything about this bill being read on the floor today (March 14th), if it is not read by the end of the day it will be dead for this year!!!!!
 
Actually it looks like the deadline was yesterday the 13th, so it appears that it is dead this time around, unless I am missing something or the state site was not properly updated.
 
The deadline was at 1700 today (14 Mar). The Senate shut down two hours early, at 1500. The bill is dead for this session (barring some tragic incident involving gun shows that gives them the excuse to make an exception to the (internal) rules.

Many thanks to those of you Washingtonians who took the time to call your Senators to urge them to vote "no" on the bill. I spoke with a couple of Democrat Senators just before the shut down, and they said there was no enthusiasm in their caucus to run the bill. Except for the bill's sponsor (Senator Rodney Tom (D-Medina)). He asked Majority Leader Lisa Brown to run the bill for a vote anyway -- she said no.

Grassroots power rules!
 
I assume all of this to mean that HB 1026 (the companion bill from the House) is likewise dead? I don't recall even hearing that it was even heard in committee.
 
1026 died two weeks ago at policy committee cut-off. We had commitments from enough Democrats to kill either bill (5197 or 1026) had it gone active in the House.
 
Joe:

I tried calling you a few nights ago to learn how you do some things, but missed you. I'll try again. Maybe you can answer one of my questions here.

It seems that you have two competing objectives:

1) Kill off bad legislation as quickly as possible.
2) Get legislators to go on record as voting for good legislation, or against bad legislation.

Objective # 1 was achieved at the expense of objective #2.

How do you balance these objectives? Furthermore, if you need to get the bad legislators out of office, how do you smoke them out without running the risk of letting them vote on a bad bill that would screw us over should they win?

It seems like a conundrum to me.
 
I've been emailing my State Senator, Steve Hobbs, over the course of this bill. Early in the session, he said he was undecided. Now, when SB5097 came out of committee, his latest reply was:

Thanks for following up. You will be pleased to know that after further review of the bill, I have decided to vote against it.

Take care,

Sen. Hobbs
Click to expand...

I have to give him credit for a non-canned response each time.

So it goes to show that even the Democrats were having a hard time with this bill. Maybe he knew it was going to die, but who cares? Keep it up people, letting your representatives know how you feel can work!
 
"It seems that you have two competing objectives:

1) Kill off bad legislation as quickly as possible.
2) Get legislators to go on record as voting for good legislation, or against bad legislation.

Objective # 1 was achieved at the expense of objective #2."



Objective #2 is ALWAYS secondary to objective #1. You always kill a bad bill as early in the process as possible. You don't screw around, you don't take chances. Most gun control bills are driven by emotion. We were very lucky last year that the Seattle Capitol Hill massacre occurred the week AFTER the session ended. Despite the factr that Kyle Huff bought his guns legally from a gun shop in Montana, that would have been enough to suspend the rules and bring the gun show bill forward.

It's nice to get a public vote on any bill, and every interest group involved in the legislative process "takes notes" just for that reason, but internally we know where most legislators stand on the issue. It may take a session or two for th enewwbies to come out of the closet, but eventually we can run them up and disc them -- good or bad. There are half a dozen hot button issues where most legislators' positions are well known, guns close to (but not at) the top of the list.

Dain Bramage: Senator Hobbs was one of the Democrat swing votes on 5197 -- we were working him hard, as were you and his other constituents. Let's hope we can keep him on our side of the fence. Be nice to him, thank him. Positive reinforcement never hurts.
 
From the Democrats point of view this bill was bad news, because so far as voters are concerned the subject of EBR's isn't on their radar right now. So as they saw it the issue had the potential to cost them votes in rural areas, but not pick up much in the cities where the folks would probably vote for them anyway. They might personally like the idea of a gun ban, but in the end votes are the name of the game.

If the situation should change, and some incident or incidents cause the general public to bcome concerned, you can bet the Democrats will be back with a new bill. For the moment you've won, but don't drop your guard. :uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Virginia State Senate Committee Kills "Gunshow Loophole" legislation
Replies
6
Views
569
blahpony
B
L
  • Locked
WA Gun Bills-Senate Dems Going Weasel on "Gunshow Loophole"
Replies
3
Views
416
Old Dog
Old Dog
carnaby
  • Locked
Washington state gun show loophole baloney
Replies
5
Views
639
Standing Wolf
S
C
  • Locked
WA SB 5197 -- gun show loophole -- dead
Replies
5
Views
387
thumper723
T
G
  • Locked
'Gun Show Loophole' Compromise Is Rejected
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
keeleon
K
Back
Top