Hb 1588

‘Universal background check’ bill has problems, say rights activists

Problems abound for a bill now being considered by the Washington legislature that would require “universal background checks” on the transfer of any firearm, according to gun rights advocates who testified in Olympia Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.

http://www.examiner.com/article/uni...problems-say-rights-activists?cid=db_articles

I spent my drive home calling up each member of the Judiciary Committee. Even if you are not their constituent, they are supposed to listen to you and take what you say under consideration as they are serving all WA citizens while they are sitting on the committee.

When I called them up I told them:

-I didn't appreciate what happened at the hearing with switching out the substitute bill beforehand and then trying to blow smoke at all those opposed.
-That the bill would effectively back-door ban all firearms private commerce in WA since no dealer will do a background check for $20 or less and law enforcement is forbidden under federal law, so no way to get the actual background check for the sale.
-For CPL holders the seller is required to get a copy of their CPL, I'm sure judges won't accept smartphone pics and who carries a copy machine around in their pocket?
-The bill does not have any teeth and would not solve any problems since police have no way of knowing if a firearm was sold or given away.

Call these Judiciary Committee members up and let them know what you think, or email, or both!
http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx
Representative Room Phone
Pedersen, Jamie (D) Chair LEG 436B (360) 786-7826
Hansen, Drew (D) Vice Chair JLOB 369 (360) 786-7842
Rodne, Jay (R) * JLOB 430 (360) 786-7852
O'Ban, Steve (R) ** JLOB 424 (360) 786-7890
Goodman, Roger (D) JLOB 328 (360) 786-7878
Hope, Mike (R) JLOB 466 (360) 786-7892
Jinkins, Laurie (D) JLOB 311 (360) 786-7930
Kirby, Steve (D) LEG 437B (360) 786-7996
Klippert, Brad (R) JLOB 410 (360) 786-7882
Nealey, Terry (R) JLOB 404 (360) 786-7828
Orwall, Tina (D) JLOB 326 (360) 786-7834
Roberts, Mary Helen (D) JLOB 420 (360) 786-7950
Shea, Matt (R) JLOB 437 (360) 786-7984

Could someone clarify on the bit about federal law preventing law enforcement from running these checks? That was a new element I had not heard before.

Venya said:

Could someone clarify on the bit about federal law preventing law enforcement from running these checks? That was a new element I had not heard before.

Click to expand...

I am not sure exactly and am curious too, most LEO today expressed that it was against policy. Although that is not entirely true. As an employee for a gun store I had to occasionally pick up a stolen firearm that was recovered. In order to do so the local PD ran a background check on me, which did not include a 4473. I gave them my DL and after a few seconds the recovered firearm was returned to my possession.

1588 Video of testimony today

Thank You to the supporters who made the trip to the capital today. If you were not able to attend you can watch the video using the following link, H.B. 1588 starts at 31:20

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013020111

~Whitney

ETA: clarification
Thank you to all who made the trip to the capital today. I did not mean to infer I support H.B. 1588.

gogodawgs said:

I am not sure exactly and am curious too, most LEO today expressed that it was against policy. Although that is not entirely true. As an employee for a gun store I had to occasionally pick up a stolen firearm that was recovered. In order to do so the local PD ran a background check on me, which did not include a 4473. I gave them my DL and after a few seconds the recovered firearm was returned to my possession.

Click to expand...

I was always told that in situation like that police just run you for warrants and such, not an actual NICS check. As far as I know a 4473 has to be filled out before you can use the system. I'll do some research.

Access to the NICS is restricted to the following three circumstances:

An FFL can initiate a background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., § 922(t)(1).

Pursuant to Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 25.6 (j)(i), to provide information to local, state, or federal criminal justice agencies only in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related or an explosives-related permit or license.

Title 28 C.F.R. §25.6 (j)(2) permits the NICS to respond to inquiries by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in connection with a civil or criminal law enforcement activity relating to the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-overview

Passed out of the house judiciary

Today the substitute bill pass out of the house via a 7-6 vote

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...ves-universal-background-check-for-gun-sales/

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013021189

The senate bill now MUST BE defeated. It is... 5625 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5625&year=2013

I urge all of you to email, call and visit the members of the committee as well as your own senator.

Committee is:

Committee Members

gogodawgs said:

I urge all of you to email, call and visit the members of the committee as well as your own senator.

Committee is:

Committee Members

Senator	Room	Phone
Padden, Mike (R) Chair	INB 105	(360) 786-7606
Carrell, Mike (R) Vice Chair	INB 102	(360) 786-7654
Kline, Adam (D) *	JAC 223	(360) 786-7688
Darneille, Jeannie (D)	JAC 226	(360) 786-7652
Kohl-Welles, Jeanne (D)	JAC 219	(360) 786-7670
Pearson, Kirk (R)	INB 115D	(360) 786-7676
Roach, Pam (R)	INB 112	(360) 786-7660

Click to expand...

My advice is avoid all the Ds on that list. I called up all the Rs and what I gleaned especially from Roach's office and Padden's office is that if these bills don't get a hearing by this Friday they are dead. Encourage them to make sure these bills don't get a hearing. Calling up those idiots like Kline and Welles will just provoke them to try and force a hearing.

gogodawgs said:

Today the substitute bill pass out of the house via a 7-6 vote

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...ves-universal-background-check-for-gun-sales/

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013021189

The senate bill now MUST BE defeated. It is... 5625 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5625&year=2013

Click to expand...

Well, here is how this works.... The substitute (amended) HB 1588 with the new language has gotten out of the Judiciary committee in the House. Its next stop will be the House, Rules committee, where it will sit until it is called to the House floor for a vote.

Pay attention to it here....contact the Rep's on the House Rules committee and voice your opposition. The members of the "Rules" committee are here.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/RUL/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx

Some of them are the same as sponsors...

When/if it clears the rules committee it goes to the floor of the House (on another list, along with many others)...if/when it gets called for a vote by leadership, it will then pass over to the Senate and be read. It will get assigned to the committee that the current SB 5625 is in....Law and Justice.

At this point, SB 5625 will be allowed to die, so there is no reason to try and "defeat" this bill. It will not be heard....and they will pick up a public hearing on the HB1588 with some new assigned nomenclature....This is the bill to defeat. If/when it passes out of committee with no additional amendments, then it goes to the "Rules" committee for the Senate and if it gets out of there, then to the floor of the Senate for a vote. If it is identical to the bill that was passed over from the house, and the Senate passes it, it goes into law...if there are amendments on the Senate side, they need to be reconciled, voted on again by both houses, and then passed.

Be careful of Mike Carrell (as in you may not depend on his position here)..he has told me directly that "no Right is absolute"....when we were talking about 2A issues last year.

This bill still has a ways to go...but has legs.

Edit, nevermind, I thought you were talking of someone else

Now SAF is trying to help get it passed....

in exchange for the destruction of the current 'database' of handguns...

To support it now, Gottlieb is requesting several tweaks, including asking state officials to conduct the checks, not the feds.
But the thing Gottlieb wants most is the elimination of the so-called state gun-owner database, which is actually a loose collection of records from the background checks of handgun purchases already being conducted for licensed dealers.

Click to expand...

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020389406_backgroundcheckxml.html

gogodawgs said:

in exchange for the destruction of the current 'database' of handguns...



http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020389406_backgroundcheckxml.html

Click to expand...

I understand what gottlieb wants, but I don't like it. Will the state officials be willing to allow someone to privately transfer a handgun to an 18 year old as allowed by state law? Or will there have to be a legal fight over it?

Gottlieb keeps trying to play the politics game and do it harder then he has to. He has media resources and clout, he needs to take the position that there is no public safety benefit from this bill in any form. That violent crime is already decreasing, and that Washington is one of the safest states in the union, with Seattle being one of the country's safest major cities. There is no law needed. Very disappointing Alan....

It's time to bombard the SAF with calls and boycotts. They shouldn't bite the hand the feeds them. How much money has Jamie Pederson donated to SAF? Thought so...

Saf

Just when I thought it was worth my money to start supporting SAF, CCRTKBA. I'm not politically astute. I am a draw a line in the sand sort of person. Unfortunately that line was crossed about 20 years before I was born.

Workman's follow up on the bill...

http://www.examiner.com/article/firestorm-erupts-over-story-about-ccrkba-and-background-checks

Those “tweaks” include something monumental: Destruction of Washington state’s long-standing handgun registry, a database that has existed for years on every retail handgun purchase. For those gun owners who did not realize this, when a potential buyer fills out paperwork at a gun store, in addition to the federal Form 4473 which is done for the background check, there is a State of Washington Pistol Transfer Application.

Click to expand...

I am curious, there was something during the testimony in the hearing for 1588 that involving the dealers to do a private sale background check would somehow create a de facto registry by them temporarily handling or holding the weapon somehow, or am I mistaken? If that is so, then isn't this just trading one registry for another? Anyone know about this?

Alpine said:

I am curious, there was something during the testimony in the hearing for 1588 that involving the dealers to do a private sale background check would somehow create a de facto registry by them temporarily handling or holding the weapon somehow, or am I mistaken? If that is so, then isn't this just trading one registry for another? Anyone know about this?

Click to expand...

Yes there were questions as to whether a dealer needs to 'acquire' the firearm in their 'bound books' (A&D) and whether the firearm would be traceable under the current system. What seems to be the answer to that question is that no firearm would be listed on any form. The 2nd substitute bill refers to a 'background certificate' under a new state system. And the current NICS system with the FBI does not have a de facto registry, but a trace system that is in the hands of dealers.

gogodawgs said:

Yes there were questions as to whether a dealer needs to 'acquire' the firearm in their 'bound books' (A&D) and whether the firearm would be traceable under the current system. What seems to be the answer to that question is that no firearm would be listed on any form. The 2nd substitute bill refers to a 'background certificate' under a new state system. And the current NICS system with the FBI does not have a de facto registry, but a trace system that is in the hands of dealers.

Click to expand...

so what's a background certificate mean? that I get one piece of paper saying I passed a NICS check, or like the Illinois FOID card?

I still don't like it. in fact to be honest, ad I hope Mr. Gottlieb reads this, I'd much rather that the state maintain a pistol owner database then have to show my papers when buying a gun private transaction.

EMNofSeattle said:

so what's a background certificate mean? that I get one piece of paper saying I passed a NICS check, or like the Illinois FOID card?

I still don't like it. in fact to be honest, ad I hope Mr. Gottlieb reads this, I'd much rather that the state maintain a pistol owner database then have to show my papers when buying a gun private transaction.

Click to expand...

From my understanding it is a piece of paper that says you passed a NICS check and is good for 10 days. There is no record of it kept by the state/feds. It is only for those people without a CPL.

The state, the police, the gun control types keep saying they are not for registration/confiscation. Gottlieb has now asked them to put their money where their mouth is and back it up, by doing away with all record keeping regarding firearm transactions. (Which by the way makes this unenforceable) In essence it takes the system of firearms transactions out of the hands of the state and puts it in the hands of private sellers. Whether you keep a copy of the buyers CPL or background certificate is up to you the seller, as there is no requirement in the substitute house bill.

(99% of private sellers will ask to see your papers when buying a gun. To make sure you are a WA resident and that you have a CPL. As it is still a felony to sell to a prohibited person, these two litmus tests are pretty much normal in private transactions amongst strangers)