Saturday, October 18, 2014

I-594 in Washington State

This is the mandatory background check initiative on the November ballot.  As I have shown here there is no evidence that mandatory firearms background check laws reduce murder rates.


  1. I glanced at your paper and find the conclusion/outcome interesting. Helpful work for sure.

    I understand there is also a WA bill to require a greater level of background check than required from NICS. What do you know about that? Not sure how it is greater, but I guess it means they would spend more time checking other lists they have. Is that legal, have other states done that and would it hold up?

    I also understand polling is saying the greater background check bill is going to fail, but I-594 elimination of private party sales is expected to pass.

    I have to think the private sale elimination is really about:

    1) Punishing law abiding gun owners (the majority of course) because they will be the only ones to follow the law regardless of how onerous it is.

    2) Lead to universal registration of all guns--that is the real intent of these laws. Of course that would not fully achievable, but how else are they going to punish the sellers of guns who don't do background checks? I'm talking about law abiding otherwise--so I don't mean the standard criminal "dealers" of course who are already breaking the law and would not comply.

    What do you think of that? They may fail at #2 but that has to be their ultimate goal---no? That is the only logical conclusion I can see and in fact that is the logical outcome/requirement of these laws otherwise how would they work.

    If only we could get access to the NICS to sell a gun. I would use that provided it doesn't mean they will track me---that's the only breakdown I see with that. I have never private party sold a gun and honestly am scared to without trying to do some level of background check (google their name, make sure they have a state ID and check them out on the states courts system for criminal and civil history). I would also make them sign a release saying they are not a convicted criminal and I will not be held liable, etc.

    Or a way to say make the buyer pay $25 to have the dealer do a check would be ok, but I doubt we would ever get that.

    In a strange way I see these laws as being a business boom for dealers. Has that happened in the states that passed it? That is, people take in guns and sell to dealers for at least 30%-50% below retail and then dealer resells--that must be the case. Bad deal for someone selling their estate and needing money to live on/pay bills!

    The last time I went to a local major gunshow was last year (Garden City so you know where) and there were several guys with lots of guns on tables without FFL's making it a point that it was cash-and-carry without background check. Those people are not helping the cause and will likely get us forced with "universal laws" in the end. That show is no more though because of the huge insurance spike after the "accidental" discharge. I bet those sellers are working the other two shows held there every year though…since they are a large percentage of those shows the operators won't turn them away.

    Thanks for continuing the fight Clayton. These b@st@rds will stop at nothing till they eliminate private gun ownership.

  2. States may and often do have stricter rules than NICS.

    The private party sellers are definitely hurting us.