Initiative 594 - not just guns? (Bellevue: violent crime, transfer, to live in)

[PS90]

Originally Posted by mkarch

I'm more concerned that the background checks don't apply to family members. As if family members are the best judge of whether their close relatives are mentally ill criminals...

There will always be loopholes in all these "universal" background check laws. Always.

I don't particularly have a problem with requiring background checks at gun shows. BUT why do they constantly push the "internet sales" angle? All internet sales from commercial dealers are ALREADY required to ship the gun to an FFL - that ALREADY requires a background check. Private-party gun sales are fairly rare over the internet (compared to commercial gun sales), and these will STILL not be regulated if the buyer and seller decide to instead meet in person, or over the phone, etc...

So, then, why do they include "internet" background checks in these referendums?

Because gun-control-nuts push for background checks, hoping that if they pass - so then the public will be softened to stricter laws in the future.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by NCDavid

Relax, folks. I think you are misreading the initiative (which is admittedly obtuse). The stuff about sales taxes refer to gun sales, not all sales. Read subsection 9 of section 11, almost at the end, and it clearly says the previous subsections on Internet sales, sales taxes and refunds refer to gun dealers and gun sales.
The initiative is about gun sales, nothing else.

Why is it ok to keep taxes on a cancelled gun transaction? How about if I only refund the portion of the transaction that represented the cost of the product and kept the profit portion? Why should the govt keep their profit on a refunded gun sale if the seller cannot?

[happygeek]

WA already collects tax on guns bought on the Internet. Since they know to do it legally you have to have it shipped to a 01 FFL in WA state to do the transfer, they know they have you over a barrel.

For example, Joe in WA goes on budsgunshop.com and buys himself a $1,000 AR. Of course he has to have it shipped to a 01 FFL. The catch is WA requires that 01 FFL to collect a 9.3% usage tax at the time of transfer. So Joe pays $1,000 + shipping + transfer fee + $93 usage tax. (The exact percentage changes by county, some are higher than 9.3%.)

So if Joe has a $1,000 hunting rifle that he wants to loan his uncle, to do so legally under the proposed I-594 Joe is looking at paying $30 transfer fee + $93 usage tax to loan it to his uncle and that same $30 + $93 to legally take possession of his gun after the uncle is done borrowing it ... yikes

I-594 will basically make it prohibitively expensive and add quite a hassle to the process of legally allowing someone to even handle one of your guns. I-594 isn't really about sales, it's about "transfers".

Originally Posted by PS90

So, then, why do they include "internet" background checks in these referendums?

Because it sounds scary, and because the average voter doesn't seem to realize that the Internet, and gun shows for that matter, isn't some magical place where Federal laws like the 1968 GCA and the 93 Brady Law don't apply. If you buy a handgun from a seller in OR it has to be transferred through a 01 FFL in WA to be legal. It doesn't matter if you physically drive to a gun store in OR (even if you pass a background check there). It doesn't matter if you physically drive to a gun show in OR. It doesn't matter if you buy it on the Internet. What matters is that it's crossing a state border. The ATF has nothing better to do then to come after you if you go about buying that handgun over that border illegally. Just ask Bruce Abramski.

[wutitiz]

Anyone thinking of voting yes on I-594: ask yourself 2 simple questions:

1) Why did the drafters need 18 pages to enact 'universal background checks?' We have the existing NICS check in place for FFL sales. Why not just require that all firearms sales be put under that system? Why the need for 18 pages of new law?

2) If I-594 will keep criminals from getting their hands on guns, why are major police groups adamantly opposing I-594? After all, who more than cops has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

Vote NO on I-594!!! If you're in King County, take advantage of your opportunity to 'vote early and vote often (haha--just (half) kidding).

[happygeek]

Forgot to mention in my previous post about I-594; under this proposed law, suppose your buddy comes over to visit. You pull your new gun out of the safe to show him, lock the slide back, check it's empty, and hand it to him. He says "I can't handle it, I-594 just passed" and hands it right back to you. Bam, you're both felons now.

When you handed it to him that was the first "transfer", a gross misdemeanor under I-594. When he handed it back that was the second "transfer", a felony under I-594.

To legally show him your new gun and let him handle it (forget shooting it, just handle it), the two of you have to head over to your friendly local 01 FFL, pay the $30 going rate for a transfer, fill out a 4473, wait for NICS to clear, and pay the 9.3% WA usage tax. Now your buddy can handle your gun. To legally get your gun back, repeat (yes, pay $30 + the usage tax, fill out another 4473, call NICS right back, all of it).

Note: I failed to clarify in my first post, when I say "transfer" I'm talking in the I-594 sense. When I say transfer (no quotes) I'm talking in the 1968 GCA sense, the 1968 GCA being the big Federal law that governs everything from dealer licensing to sales to records that are kept for 20 years.

Another sidenote: It gets even better. Suppose you're a single guy and share an apartment with a room mate. Suppose you go out of town for awhile on vacation, and he has the combo to your safe because he stores some documents in there he doesn't want to lose if there's a fire. Is that a "transfer"? Are you willing to bet your and his not going to jail that it isn't? Because you are.

[Wilson502]

Definitely voting no on this garbage piece of legislation, at least here on the East Side of King county i see yes on 591 signs everywhere.

[happygeek]

I've come to the inescapable conclusion that this thing isn't a bad bill by accident, it's setup to create as many insta-felons as possible. After all, felons can't own guns.

[wutitiz]

If this thing passes, as I still expect it will, you can thank:

Bill Gates (Microsoft)
Paul Allen (Microsoft)
Steve Ballmer (Microsoft)
Nick Hanauer (Amazon)

All billionaires who have donated 5-6 figures to it, making Linux look more and more appealing to me. I have never spent a penny at Amazon. I read sometime back about how their warehouses had ambulances on call because workers were being pushed to the point of collapse.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by Wilson502

Definitely voting no on this garbage piece of legislation, at least here on the East Side of King county i see yes on 591 signs everywhere.

Hmmm, I haven't seen a single political sign for either initiative here in NE WA. Apparently it is true that the state politicians and their flunkies really do only care about the Seattle vote.

It's just another sad comment on our political system that almost all law enforcement officials in the state oppose I-594, but yet the "Yes on I-504" ads get much more TV airtime because they have the backing of a few major players with money to burn.

[Wilson502]

Originally Posted by PS90

Hmmm, I haven't seen a single political sign for either initiative here in NE WA. Apparently it is true that the state politicians and their flunkies really do only care about the Seattle vote.

It's just another sad comment on our political system that almost all law enforcement officials in the state oppose I-594, but yet the "Yes on I-504" ads get much more TV airtime because they have the backing of a few major players with money to burn.

Definitely agree, if Seattlites want to turn this state into CA, than move to effin CA then. I didnt leave CA just to have a bunch of whiny libtrash turn this state into the same mess that CA is.