Washington State is bought and paid for by Microsoft and Bloomberg

[Big1]

No it's not good for us but let's hope it will go to court I know that a lot of people want this to pass and all of the shooting in Washington State is not helping. I also heard on the news tonight that they are getting a lot of call that they are going to shoot up a school.

Well, I guess I'm done buying guns now or I better go out now and pick up a few more.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

If there is a silver lining in a 60/40 anti-gun vote it's that it doesn't appear Bloomberg and company had much effect in changing minds or getting out the vote. I believe 60/40 actually underrepresents the general pro-background check sentiment.

I'd guess that getting expanded background check measures on the ballot will be a successful tactic in many states across the country. Too many gun owners think background checks are a wonderful thing without Bloomberg saying a word.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I hope everyone realizes the devil is in the details in these initiatives. If you read the one that just passed here you will see that it is much more than a straight up, simply worded, easy to understand initiative. No LE agency here supported it because it's poorly written and will be impossible to enforce, somewhat like the Conn. assault weapons registration law. Also, it has another effect that many don't know about. If a pistol is transferred through an FFL, they are required to file with the state your name with the model and SN that is used to build a gun registration. That wasn't in the wording of the initiative but the effect is the same.

I-594 hasn't been to the WA state supreme court yet but it will be there eventually. We will see how it fairs there.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Most don't know the details of anything, and stuff like this typcally doesn't get beyond...

Criminals with guns = Bad
Background checks = Good

 

[ChiefStealth]

(snip)Also, it has another effect that many don't know about. If a pistol is transferred through an FFL, they are required to file with the state your name with the model and SN that is used to build a gun registration. That wasn't in the wording of the initiative but the effect is the same.

That requirement is already in existing law. RCW 9.41.090. Been there for some time. It's not "another effect" caused by the initiative.

 

[LostintheOzone]

That requirement is already in existing law. RCW 9.41.090. Been there for some time. It's not "another effect" caused by the initiative.

It is if you want to transfer a pistol now. Pre I-594 you had the option to sell/buy privately with no FFL or state in your business. The result was you and your pistol were not logged into the state database. Now it is. I call that an effect of I-594 because there is no longer an option for private sale anymore. If you have transferred both ways you would know this. In WA I-594 is gun registration for people who used to sell privately.

 

[Modified]

This may be a really bad day for Washington, but this is a bad thing for anyone in any state with an initiative process.

Make no mistake, this was just the first state that this happened in, but the gun control crowd will make sure this same law is on every ballot they can manage to get it on in every state with a system in place to put it on the ballot.

 

[LostintheOzone]

This may be a really bad day for Washington, but this is a bad thing for anyone in any state with an initiative process.

Make no mistake, this was just the first state that this happened in, but the gun control crowd will make sure this same law is on every ballot they can manage to get it on in every state with a system in place to put it on the ballot.

Adding to that they will outspend the opposition 10/1. It might be a close call to start but with the money they will spend it won't be when they finish. No one winning a campaign ever said they spent too much money, but many have said they spent too little when they lost.

 

[Modified]

One of the things that makes me the most angry about this was the lack of the NRA's commitment to fighting I594.

I can't see them ever getting another dime of my money after the way they treated this vote, especially considering how important it was to stop this type of attack of our gun rights right at the start.

 

[ChiefStealth]

It is if you want to transfer a pistol now. Pre I-594 you had the option to sell/buy privately with no FFL or state in your business. The result was you and your pistol were not logged into the state database. Now it is. I call that an effect of I-594 because there is no longer an option for private sale anymore. If you have transferred both ways you would know this. In WA I-594 is gun registration for people who used to sell privately.

OK. I get your point, now.

 

[LostintheOzone]

One of the things that makes me the most angry about this was the lack of the NRA's commitment to fighting I594.

I can't see them ever getting another dime of my money after the way they treated this vote, especially considering how important it was to stop this type of attack of our gun rights right at the start.

Apparently the NRA has bigger fish to fry and see little return on any money spent here. I'm not sure I agree with that but it has been brought up here. Who knows why the NRA never showed up, I certainly don't. I would think this would have been their fight. It might be in their best interest to make an official statement on the subject. I think they just lost a bunch of support in this state.

 

[Jim R]

One of the things that makes me the most angry about this was the lack of the NRA's commitment to fighting I594.

I can't see them ever getting another dime of my money after the way they treated this vote, especially considering how important it was to stop this type of attack of our gun rights right at the start.

I think the NRA is waiting for the real fight, the court system.

I talked to our Washington state house member and getting this funded is going to be a real problem. If unfunded by the state that will put every jurisdiction on there own. The Dept Of Licensing is to keep all the records but they are 2 months behind now on the existing handgun registrations, without additional funding they will not even start a registry on long guns.

This will very interesting to watch this unfold. I called 3 weeks ago and could get no answer on how this will work with my C&R permit.

 

[Modified]

I called 3 weeks ago and could get no answer on how this will work with my C&R permit.

I'm told it invalidates it, being a 'collector' license and not a 'dealer' license, which is the trick in most of the language regarding C&Rs.

It's just a piece of paper now that just means you have some extra paperwork after going through all the rest of the newly mandated paperwork. Also, guns will no longer be able to go straight to your house under this.


I don't believe for one second that the NRA thought this through. It's not a matter of fighting in the Washington State court now, it's going to be a matter of fighting it in every state court with an initiative system.

This may be a Washington state issue right now, but give it a year, it's going to be everyone's problem. This will completely shift all the anti-gun money. Good luck everyone.

 

[Jim R]

The group that put 594 on the ballot was on the local news this morning. They are starting a new petition drive to mandate that all firearms in Washington State must have a trigger lock on them when not in your direct control.

I tried this same logic with my wife when I told her it was the forks fault that I'm fat.

 

[Bkreutz]

I think a big part in this was the voter turnout (in addition to the blanket TV pro control ads). There are about 4 million voter in WA, from what I've seen, 1.2 million of them voted. This is in a state where every vote is a mail in vote, they didn't even have to go anywhere to vote. How lazy is this?

 

[LostintheOzone]

I think a big part in this was the voter turnout (in addition to the blanket TV pro control ads). There are about 4 million voter in WA, from what I've seen, 1.2 million of them voted. This is in a state where every vote is a mail in vote, they didn't even have to go anywhere to vote. How lazy is this?

That's about 30%, not good. Someone made the statement that polls show that most people want background checks. That may be true when they are polled but most of those people don't vote. If there had been only one initiative on the ballot it might have been much closer. It was rather confusing because a lot of people voted for both of them even though they directly opposed each other. That could lead to the courts throwing out the results.

 

[Modified]

A friend just sent me this, it seems to sum things up well.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Off-year elections always have lower turnout. Otherwise, I think it likely 594 would have passed by 70% or greater. There simply isn't enough fundamental objection to background checks.

Gun owners widely support background checks. The NRA testified before Congress last year how they have long supported background checks (reflection of the members). Their objection to extending background checks to private sales is that it's an unneeded inconvenience between family members and could be abused by government. That's not a fundamental objection. It's a rather narrow objection that just doesn't sell well in contrast to the gunshow "loophole", Internet Armslist sales and all the rest. 54% of Washington gun owners polled indicated they supported 594. I believe that level of support or higher exists in many states for extending the reach of mandatory background checks

I object to ALL background checks and the entire FFL system as an offense to the 2A. The notion that some background checks are good but other background checks are bad is ultimately a conflicted losing argument. Until more gun owners share a fundamental objection to all background checks (and I doubt that very much) you can expect more and more background check schemes to become law by popular vote and by wide margins.

 

[Bkreutz]

One of the big problems with I594 was the way it was portrayed in the non stop Bloomberg ads. They kept hammering away at the background check on gun sales, now that the initiative is passed, I've seen a number of interviews where the phrase sales and gun transfers has been used. Reading the initiative, you now need to do a firearm transfer to buy a roman candle at the fireworks stand??? (it defines a firearm as any device that propels a projectile by the means of gunpowder) This is going to be a mess. I think most of the 30% that voted for the initiative didn't realize the "transfer" part. I also read the articles in the various news "rags" about "most of the gun owners favor".... I don't believe any of them. The news (print and electronic) media in this state is about as "anti gun" as they could get. Even the news reporting on the initiative was obviously biased in one direction. Too bad I'm too old and settled to move, Idaho is looking more attractive all the time. If this was 20 years ago it wouldn't even take a minute of thought.

 

[Big1]

And where all of these stupid written laws about guns are coming out people will be amaze to see that people are going to still be kill, the killing are not going to be stop.

The ones that voted yes on I-594 are going to said we pass that law and why is the killing is still going on. Still we got to fight this in court and hopefully they will see it ours way. Be safe and stay arm.