Gun Background Checks Pass in Washington

[The Rabbi]

All gun sales in the state of Washington will now have to go through a background check. It passed with 60% majority. I voted with the majority.

So now it will be harder for criminals, those with mental problems and domestic abusers to get a gun. They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

Interesting, when it's put to the vote of the people, background checks passes. Clearly the people of our nation want all gun sales to go through a background check. Too bad that the nra can buy gop politicians to prevent the same law at the federal level.

Lives will be saved in Washington because of this law.

Voters approve expanded gun background checks in Washington state - Local - MyNorthwest.com

delusions. crooks won't go through background checks anymore than addicts buy their drugs from pharmacies

when it fails, you will demand more gun laws

The reason why they don't go through background checks is because there's a loophole in the federal law big enough to drive a Mack truck through. All this law does is close those loopholes.

If they have to go through a background check no matter who they buy from, they're they're much less likely to get a gun.

If you say that this law won't do anything then why are you so upset that the law passed? If it's a worthless law you shouldn't have any problem with it.

not a loophole moron. for 200 years there was no such requirement

congress only had the VOTES and the Interstate commerce clause power to make federally licensed dealers conduct background checks

When a law is passed but includes a way to get around the law or the intent of the law, that's a loophole.

The federal government left a loophole big enough for a Mack truck to go through on the federal background check law.

That law only applies to licensed gun sellers. No one else. So if someone buys a gun from someone who isn't a licensed gun seller they don't have to go through the background check.

Which is how criminals get their guns without a background check.

All this law does is close that loophole.

If you're a law abiding citizen, don't have mental problems or don't beat up your mate, you won't have an problem getting a gun.

There is no loophole. That is a misnomer. The basic law is that a person is free to sell his property. There is no way to restrict that without infringing on it, and federal law cannot reach that far.

 

[turtledude]

So they go to a private seller instead. No background check.

Brain....it is against the law for anyone.......anyone to sell guns to felons......to repeat.....it is against the law to sell guns to felons...anyone....

Brain....it is against the law for a felon to buy a gun from anyone.....to repeat....it is against the law for a felon to buy a gun from anyone......

How do you stop a felon from buying a gun from someone if he or the seller doesn't care about the law?

The seller cares about getting caught. Registration and mandatory background checks makes getting caught most likely to happen.

so you do want registration-thanks for proving my point/ any gun owner who submits to registration is a fool

 

[turtledude]

You ignore how the majority of criminals get their guns. Straw purchasers.

Brain.......it is against the law for a "straw purchaser" to sell or give guns to a felon....it is against the law for a "straw purchaser" to sell or give guns to felons....

Do you get it Brain.....the straw purchaser voided your background check law....he passed the background check....and sold guns to the felons......voiding your precious law....


Gosh and by golly.....Rover...what is two plus two....

And without a background check he goes free when they can't prove he knew the buyer was a felon. Background checks make that impossible.

so how do you prove when the sale took place?

 

[The Rabbi]

PredFan -

If background checks mean that a potentially violent husband is turned down for a gun license, then it might very well actually save lives, mightn't it?

After all - you just saw the graph in the other thread that proves that safety-based gun laws work very well in other countries, no?

N, it mightent. The husband may already own one. He might steal one from his brother. He might buy one from the shady guy at the local bar. He might decide to stab the woman instead. Or run her over with the car.
There are so many possibilities this effectively does nothing

 

[The Rabbi]

PredFan -

If background checks mean that a potentially violent husband is turned down for a gun license, then it might very well actually save lives, mightn't it?

After all - you just saw the graph in the other thread that proves that safety-based gun laws work very well in other countries, no?

You cant compare the US to other countries. Such laws have done nothing to curb violence in Mexico or South Africa.

 

[The Rabbi]

And let's take the opposite tack here.
Husband and wife split. Each gets a restraining order on the other. Husband is unbalanced (that's why she split with him) and already owns a gun or has easy access to one. He's promised to kill the wife.
Now what? She is ineligible to buy a gun. The state has made her a victim-in waiting. She has no means to protect herself. And yes, I had that exact case through my shop not long ago.

 

[M14 Shooter]

On what grounds will it be challenged and why would it lose in the courts?

-The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
-Any constitutionally permissible restriction on the right to arms must, at the very very least, be "reasonable"
-The law in question cannot be enforced, and therefore restricts the right in question to no good purpose.
-A restriction on a right that serves no good purpose cannot be "reasonable"
-Thus
-The restriction generated by this legislation violates the 2nd amendment as applied to the states thru the 14th amendment.

Still laughing at you, to your face.

 

[2aguy]

nd without a background check he goes free when they can't prove he knew the buyer was a felon. Background checks make that impossible.

Not likely...he just sold a gun to a felon...which is illegal wether you know he is a felon or not...the prosecutor will decide if the guy is an actual criminal, who sells guns to felons all the time, or some innocent person tricked by the felon....

no background checks needed....or registration...

 

[2aguy]

Mass shooting in Australia...after the port arthur buy back....

2011 Hectorville siege - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 2011 Hectorville siege was a siege that took place between the hours of 2:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on Friday, 29 April 2011, at the small suburb of Hectorville, east of Adelaide in the state of South Australia, Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, later identified as Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour stand off.[2]

Hmmmm....don't here about this from the democrats when they are praising Australian gun control laws....

Mass Shooting in Australia 2)...

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment, and is currently under psychiatric care. Several of the people present in the room of the shootings have been commended for their bravery in tackling Xiang and ending the shooting.

Brain....2 mass shootings since the Port Arthur inspired buy backs....and guns are now back to pre Port Arthur levels....

 

[M14 Shooter]

so how do you prove when the sale took place?

How do you prove who sold it?
How do you prove who bought it?
How do you prove who owns it?
The state has no mechanism in place to allow for any of these things -- and so, the law cannot be enforced.

 

[turtledude]

so how do you prove when the sale took place?

How do you prove who sold it?
How do you prove who bought it?
How do you prove who owns it?
The state has no mechanism in place to allow for any of these things -- and so, the law cannot be enforced.

which is why the assholes who proposed this law did so. when this stupid law doesn't do squat, those same assholes will demand registration

 

[Dana7360]

When a law is passed but includes a way to get around the law or the intent of the law, that's a loophole.

There was no way to get around the law; it is impossible to legally buy a gun from a dealer w/o a background check.
To argue there's a loophole here is to argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Yes there is a way around the law. I've posted it several times but I guess I need to post it again for you.

The federal background law ONLY applies to licensed gun sellers. However there's more than one way to buy a gun. A person can go on line and buy one. A person can buy one from a friend. A person can buy one from a stranger. A person can buy one at a swap meet or fair. A person can buy one at a gun show from anyone who isn't a licensed dealer. As long as it's not through a licensed dealer, no background check is required or done.

This new law in Washington requires a background check from every sale with the exceptions if the sale being within a family or a sale of certain antique guns. Those are the only exceptions in Washington state when this law goes into effect. So whether you're a licensed dealer or not, a background check will be required.

To say there's no loophole in the federal law is being very dishonest.

 

[Dana7360]

All gun sales in the state of Washington will now have to go through a background check. It passed with 60% majority. I voted with the majority.

So now it will be harder for criminals, those with mental problems and domestic abusers to get a gun. They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

Interesting, when it's put to the vote of the people, background checks passes. Clearly the people of our nation want all gun sales to go through a background check. Too bad that the nra can buy gop politicians to prevent the same law at the federal level.

Lives will be saved in Washington because of this law.

Voters approve expanded gun background checks in Washington state - Local - MyNorthwest.com

That measure violates the Heller decision. Blatantly. Good luck keeping that one on the books.

It's already on the books in 6 other states and Washington DC.

Good luck getting it off the books!

The people who won't be able to get a gun had lost their right to have a gun when they committed the felony or were diagnosed with mental problems or was abusive to a mate. The law that takes their rights to a gun was established years ago.

All this law does is find out if the buyer is a criminal or has mental problems or is a domestic abuser. If they are, the old federal laws we have on the books prevents those people from getting a gun.

The honor/trust system we have now with private gun sales has not worked thus far. Not asking questions and not verifying has not worked. It's putting guns in the hands of people who clearly shouldn't have them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All gun sales in the state of Washington will now have to go through a background check. It passed with 60% majority. I voted with the majority.

So now it will be harder for criminals, those with mental problems and domestic abusers to get a gun. They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

Interesting, when it's put to the vote of the people, background checks passes. Clearly the people of our nation want all gun sales to go through a background check. Too bad that the nra can buy gop politicians to prevent the same law at the federal level.

Lives will be saved in Washington because of this law.

Voters approve expanded gun background checks in Washington state - Local - MyNorthwest.com

That measure violates the Heller decision. Blatantly. Good luck keeping that one on the books.

It's already on the books in 6 other states and Washington DC.

Good luck getting it off the books!

The people who won't be able to get a gun had lost their right to have a gun when they committed the felony or were diagnosed with mental problems or was abusive to a mate. The law that takes their rights to a gun was established years ago.

All this law does is find out if the buyer is a criminal or has mental problems or is a domestic abuser. If they are, the old federal laws we have on the books prevents those people from getting a gun.

The honor/trust system we have now with private gun sales has not worked thus far. Not asking questions and not verifying has not worked. It's putting guns in the hands of people who clearly shouldn't have them.

It won't. A similar waiting period in Californias gun law was struck down, I-594 has a 10 to 60 day waiting period after a background check. Tell me, what happens to the law then?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Too bad you listened to the liars about what that bill does. It's gonna lose when challenged in the courts.

But that will violate the will of the people and jeopardize the doctrine of 'states' rights,' certainly as a conservative you oppose an activist judge legislating from the bench and ignoring the will of the people.

 

[turtledude]

When a law is passed but includes a way to get around the law or the intent of the law, that's a loophole.

There was no way to get around the law; it is impossible to legally buy a gun from a dealer w/o a background check.
To argue there's a loophole here is to argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Yes there is a way around the law. I've posted it several times but I guess I need to post it again for you.

The federal background law ONLY applies to licensed gun sellers. However there's more than one way to buy a gun. A person can go on line and buy one. A person can buy one from a friend. A person can buy one from a stranger. A person can buy one at a swap meet or fair. A person can buy one at a gun show from anyone who isn't a licensed dealer. As long as it's not through a licensed dealer, no background check is required or done.

This new law in Washington requires a background check from every sale with the exceptions if the sale being within a family or a sale of certain antique guns. Those are the only exceptions in Washington state when this law goes into effect. So whether you're a licensed dealer or not, a background check will be required.

To say there's no loophole in the federal law is being very dishonest.

DO YOU REALIZE that if you buy a gun on line the laws are no different than if you do it face to face

meaning, If I buy a gun from say Bud's gun shop in KY I have to have the gun sent to a LICENSED dealer-pay him a transfer fee, and he conducts a check

IF I BUY IT FROM A PRIVATE SELLER OUT OF STATE-same thing

if I buy it from a guy in my own state I have to meet him face to face-he cannot mail it to me

 

[turtledude]

Too bad you listened to the liars about what that bill does. It's gonna lose when challenged in the courts.

But that will violate the will of the people and jeopardize the doctrine of 'states' rights,' certainly as a conservative you oppose an activist judge legislating from the bench and ignoring the will of the people.

for a guy who pretends to be a constitutional scholar, you sure are ignorant about the concept of rights

 

[Dana7360]

All gun sales in the state of Washington will now have to go through a background check. It passed with 60% majority. I voted with the majority.

So now it will be harder for criminals, those with mental problems and domestic abusers to get a gun. They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

Interesting, when it's put to the vote of the people, background checks passes. Clearly the people of our nation want all gun sales to go through a background check. Too bad that the nra can buy gop politicians to prevent the same law at the federal level.

Lives will be saved in Washington because of this law.

Voters approve expanded gun background checks in Washington state - Local - MyNorthwest.com

That measure violates the Heller decision. Blatantly. Good luck keeping that one on the books.

It's already on the books in 6 other states and Washington DC.

Good luck getting it off the books!

The people who won't be able to get a gun had lost their right to have a gun when they committed the felony or were diagnosed with mental problems or was abusive to a mate. The law that takes their rights to a gun was established years ago.

All this law does is find out if the buyer is a criminal or has mental problems or is a domestic abuser. If they are, the old federal laws we have on the books prevents those people from getting a gun.

The honor/trust system we have now with private gun sales has not worked thus far. Not asking questions and not verifying has not worked. It's putting guns in the hands of people who clearly shouldn't have them.

It won't. A similar waiting period in Californias gun law was struck down, I-594 has a 10 to 60 day waiting period after a background check. Tell me, what happens to the law then?

It's not a waiting period. It's a background check.

The federal background check has been ruled constitutional. All this law does is expand that federal law to all sales. Not just licensed sellers.

So if it's constitutional for a licensed seller to do a background check it's constitutional for a private seller to do the same check.

 

[turtledude]

All gun sales in the state of Washington will now have to go through a background check. It passed with 60% majority. I voted with the majority.

So now it will be harder for criminals, those with mental problems and domestic abusers to get a gun. They won't be able to do it legally in the state of Washington anymore.

Interesting, when it's put to the vote of the people, background checks passes. Clearly the people of our nation want all gun sales to go through a background check. Too bad that the nra can buy gop politicians to prevent the same law at the federal level.

Lives will be saved in Washington because of this law.

Voters approve expanded gun background checks in Washington state - Local - MyNorthwest.com

That measure violates the Heller decision. Blatantly. Good luck keeping that one on the books.

It's already on the books in 6 other states and Washington DC.

Good luck getting it off the books!

The people who won't be able to get a gun had lost their right to have a gun when they committed the felony or were diagnosed with mental problems or was abusive to a mate. The law that takes their rights to a gun was established years ago.

All this law does is find out if the buyer is a criminal or has mental problems or is a domestic abuser. If they are, the old federal laws we have on the books prevents those people from getting a gun.

The honor/trust system we have now with private gun sales has not worked thus far. Not asking questions and not verifying has not worked. It's putting guns in the hands of people who clearly shouldn't have them.

It won't. A similar waiting period in Californias gun law was struck down, I-594 has a 10 to 60 day waiting period after a background check. Tell me, what happens to the law then?

It's not a waiting period. It's a background check.

The federal background check has been ruled constitutional. All this law does is expand that federal law to all sales. Not just licensed sellers.

So if it's constitutional for a licensed seller to do a background check it's constitutional for a private seller to do the same check.

1) a state probably can impose background checks and not violate state constitutional provisions nor the 2A

2) however, federal background check requirements imposed on private citizens for INTRA-state sales will most likely be held unconstitutional based on LOPEZ

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Background checks with regard to firearms sales are perfectly Constitutional. In Heller the Supreme Court admonished the lower courts to not infer that their decision in any way undermined the constitutionality of laws prohibiting felons or the mentally ill from possessing firearms, and the only way to determine is someone is a prohibited person is via a background check.

As for the wisdom or efficacy of universal background checks, those are elements of a law not subject to judicial review. As U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger correctly observed in her ruling concerning the constitutionality of Colorado's measure limiting magazine capacity:

“Judicial review of laws for constitutional compliance focuses on only a small sliver of the issues that the legislature considers. A court does not act as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom or workability of legislation. Instead, it determines only whether legislation is constitutionally permissible. A law may be constitutional, but nevertheless foolish, ineffective, or cumbersome to enforce.”

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li..._032508_062614-Krieger-Opinion-Outfitters.pdf

That a law is bad or ineffective does not make it un-Constitutional.