How you can support Washington gun control Initiative 594

A February 2013 march across Capitol Hill against gun violence (Image: CHS)

A February 2013 march across Capitol Hill against gun violence (Image: CHS)

The Washington Alliance for Gun Safety will lead a push in 2014 for voter approval of I-594 extending the background check system currently required for commercial dealers to all firearm sales in the state:

Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers.

This measure would apply the currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

You can learn more at wagunresponsibility.org and make a donation here.

Saturday, community groups are gathering at the First United Methodist Church of Seattle near Seattle Center for a candlelight vigil marking the first anniversary of the Newtown school shootings.

No More Silence: A Call for Remembrance and Resolve
Saturday, December 14, 5:15 PM / 150 Denny Way
PLEASE JOIN US for the one year anniversary of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, to honor the 26 lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as the thousands of Americans lost to gun violence every year. Our short, non-denominational program will culminate in bell ringing (please bring your own!), to remember the victims as well as to show our resolve to never again be silent about gun violence.

22 thoughts on “How you can support Washington gun control Initiative 594

    • “This measure would apply the currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.”

      I’m not seeing a justification, just a mode of action. The prop doesn’t claim to be able to stop anything at all. To me, it sounds like this is closing a loop hole.

      Is it perfect in protecting us? Probably not. It’s certainly better than a gaping loop hole.

      “This group is using Sandy Hook for their own anti-American ends.”

      ?????????… *SMH*

      Tinfoil hats for sale!

  1. Before I support this or any other initiative, I’d like to know the nature of the problem the law is intended to remedy. The sponsors should be able to cite specific examples of the problem and explain how this law would provide a remedy. As far as I know, most shootings in this state are committed by people who were in fact subjected to background checks. It seems it would be more effective to start by enforcing the laws we already have on the books before we enact more laws that public officials will not enforce.

  2. It blows my mind that it is still so easy to buy firearms without a background check. Its even crazier that gun enthusiasts go out of their way to hinder these checks as long as possible.

  3. I blows my mind that people want to infringe on my constitutional rights without any shred of evidence that that infringement would make us safer in any way. Tell me how this law would have stopped any of the tragedies in the news. The bottom line is that this law will do nothing to stop a criminal from getting a gun. It will only make things more difficult for law abiding gun owners. I was clearly against the law for a gun to be carried into the Sandy Hook school. Did that law stop anything? Why don’t you “progressives” understand that it is your interference in society that is the problem? You can’t allow a teacher to discipline a brat in the classroom. You want to legalize drugs. You demonize religion. You think its never an individual’s fault but society’s. You are unraveling the fabric that made this country the greatest in the world and you call us crazy?

    • Since the inception of the Brady Bill there have been nearly 2 million denied firearms sales, the majority of which were violent felons and active fugitives. However there are still loopholes in which these same people can bypass the background checks. Why would anyone fight against blocking these people easy access to firearms?

      Hey, this guys on the run from the law, let’s make sure he can easily buy a gun!

      And how did this turn into a debate about drugs, school discipline, religion and progressives?

      • Sources? And even if some were denied by a background check it doesn’t mean they didn’t eventually get a gun from another felon’s trunk.

        Why would anyone want to block this? If I want to give my son one of my guns on his 18th birthday, why should I have to go the the gun store and pay for a background check?

        If you don;t understand how the destruction of our society is the cause of the violence and not guns then I can’t help you.

        • I do remember going into K-Mart back in the 70′s to buy a machine gun. Nobody screamed and ran for cover when the salesman handed me the rifle.

          Now, if it’s the wrong color it’s banned.

          If you have a criminal conviction not only can you not own a gun, you can’t be in the same house with any part of a gun or bullet. In our state you can’t have a 1860′s black powder gun like in “True Grit” (other states are fine with it since the federal government doesn’t count them as weapons).

          Ban gun free zones since that is where all the mass shootings occurred.

          • “I do remember going into K-Mart back in the 70′s to buy a machine gun. ”

            THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE.

            Machine guns have for 80 years been highly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. K-Mart never sold them, they require a special FFL License and take a year or more from the time you pay until the time the ATF approves the sale.

            Please stop lying.

  4. Sources? How about the DOJ: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf

    “If I want to give my son one of my guns on his 18th birthday, why should I have to go the the gun store and pay for a background check?” So money is the real issue… not stopping dangerous people from purchasing firearms…. check.

    “If you don;t understand how the destruction of our society is the cause of the violence and not guns then I can’t help you.” Homicide rates have dropped considerably (pretty much by 50%) since 1993 the same year as the Brady Bill was signed into a law. That may be correlation but I can’t find any source that says people became less safe with that measure. Source (CDC): http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6227a1.htm

    I’ll let you have the last word, my work is done here.

  5. “Progressives like you…”

    I don’t agree with the name calling. People have been herded into particular lines of thought for a number of generations. You have no way of knowing on here if someone has come to the beliefs they have on their own, or are just reciting what they’ve always been shown without question.

  6. It is useless to try and have any kind of reasonable dialogue with self-righteous gun fanatics (like Feltre here), so I’m not even going to try.

    It’s not a total solution to pervasive gun violence, but it’s just plain common sense to think that closing the “gun show loophole” would help significantly.

    • Washington State doesn’t exactly have “gun show loophole”. There is no weapons registration in Washington, aside from NFA firearms.

      For private sales of rifles and handguns in Washington, you pay the person the money agreed upon, they hand you the gun.

      The background check is all for firearms purchased at a licensed dealer.

  7. I am surprised to see the gun enthusiast come out of the woodwork on this blog. The more hurdles to getting a gun the better. All the proof you folks request is in the headlines every single day, all across this country. Your stubbornness and ignorance is baffling! I donated to this initiative and pray it passes. The second amendment has screwed this country for far too long! An antiquated amendment that at the very least should be curtailed. Right to bear arms, I have to laugh! If we were talking about flintlocks and muskets, maybe I could see the point.

  8. Are all these gun advocates really from Capitol Hill. I would be curious to see their names and addresses. Why are they so paranoid about background checks?
    I would think that legitimate and responsible gun owners would find no threat in background checks. Don’t they want guns kept out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths?
    They might consider that with greater gun violence there is an increased chance of amending the constitution.
    It has been done before the 21st amendment repealed the 18th ‘prohibition’ amendment.
    Personally I find the notion that my neighbor is carrying a gun unnerving. Is he a George Zimmerman who might shoot me because I don’t look right.

    • “Are all these gun advocates really from Capitol Hill.”
      I don’t know about Feltre, but I live here. Then again, I’m not really a gun advocate per se.

      “I would be curious to see their names and addresses.”
      That’s kind of threatening.

      “Why are they so paranoid about background checks?”
      It’s the history of what was done with the compiled lists of lawful owners that has “gun advocates” against it.

      I’m more against social engineering via regulation. Guns are tools like a hammer or pencil. All of which can be used in unlawful manners to kill. It’s the intention of the individual person wielding the tool.
      The fact that a large chunk of the city population currently believes compiling lists of lawful owners is going to somehow reduce criminals access to firearms is very worrisome to me.

      • You want to maintain the loopholes to controlling the sale of firearms to criminals and the mentally unfit.
        Should government be allowed to license people to drive?
        I don’t see a whole lot of difference.
        I am in favor of both. I am going to find one of the petitions and sign it. I might even volunteer to gather signatures, and I am definitely voting for it. I really don’t think that is going to take away any of your guns or restrict your purchases unless you are a criminal or are mentally unfit.

        • “You want to maintain the loopholes to controlling the sale of firearms to criminals and the mentally unfit.”
          Ok. What loopholes in Washington State are you talking about?

          I think I’m not making myself clear. I don’t believe the measure does anything to keep criminals from getting any firearms. They already could not buy from a dealer. The term “mentally unfit” is ambiguous. Lawful owners in other states have suddenly found themselves “mentally unfit” because they received a prescription several years before for anxiety or depression. It’s a honest concern.

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>