Washington Voters Gleefully Swallow the 594 Background Check Blue Pill

By Philip Van Cleave

I594 Protest Art 3
I594 Protest Art 3
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Citizens Defense League

Covington VA –-(Ammoland.com)- Washington State gun owners were handed a serious gun-control defeat Tuesday in a referendum.

By a 60% – 40% vote, they are going to be saddled with a Universal Background Check law.

This is the first step toward what will eventually be Universal Registration of all their guns. Confiscation being the end goal of the scheme.

While you may wonder how this might affect you, it is one of those things like the “assault weapon ban” in 1993, where the anti-liberty groups are counting on deception and ignorance to strip away your rights.

They will now be trying to do this in other states, including ours, eventually. To avoid this becoming our fate, we need to start a massive education effort for both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. More on that in an upcoming alert announcing the beginning of that campaign and how you can help.

This was a case of getting all the gun control that money can buy. Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and other anti-liberty billionaires poured millions of dollars into Washington State to pass this atrocity using deceptive ads.

Gun-rights groups are looking at challenging the law on constitutional grounds, amongst other things. Let’s hope they are successful.

Here’s an article on the referendum, titled “The Gun-Control Movement is Learning How to Win:” http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwkoLO5B8

Here is a description of the new law from a Washington State government web site. You can bet that all the exceptions in the law will come under fire and will be removed as time goes on.

For now they have put a little sugar on the poison pill:

This measure would apply the background check requirements currently used for firearm sales by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers where at least one party is in Washington. Background checks would thus be required not only for sales and transfers of firearms through firearms dealers, but also at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed private individuals. Background checks would be required for any sale or transfer of a firearm, whether for money or as a gift or loan, with specific exceptions described below. Background checks would be required whether the firearm involved is a pistol or another type of firearm. Violations of these requirements would be crimes.

The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.

Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check.

A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol.

Firearms could only be sold or transferred through licensed firearms dealers. If neither party to the sale or transfer of a firearm was a firearms dealer, then a firearms dealer would have to assist in the sale or transfer. Before a sale or transfer could be completed, a firearms dealer would perform the background check on the buyer or recipient of the firearm. If the background check determined that the buyer or recipient of the firearm was ineligible to possess a firearm, the firearms dealer would return the firearm to the seller or transferor. The firearms dealer could charge a fee for these services.

Firearms dealers could not deliver any firearm to a buyer or recipient until receiving background check results showing that the buyer or recipient can legally possess the firearm. But a firearms dealer could deliver a firearm if background check results were not received within ten business days (as opposed to the five business days currently allowed to conduct the check). If the buyer or recipient did not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or identification card, or had been a Washington resident for less than 90 days, then the time period for delivery of a pistol would be extended from ten days to 60 days, the same as under current law.

If a firearms dealer violates this measure, his or her license could be revoked. The violation would also be reported to federal authorities.

Sales tax would not apply to the sale or transfer of firearms between people who are not licensed firearms dealers, so long as they comply with all background check requirements. Using a licensed firearms dealer to assist with such sales or transfers would not result in sales or use tax.

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org

12 thoughts on “Washington Voters Gleefully Swallow the 594 Background Check Blue Pill

  1. The U.S Virgin Islands has the strictest gun controls, so strict that an antique must be certified useless. can be for show only. one cannot buy a gun on that island. there was 42 murders involving a firearm. law abiding citizens cant defend themselves but criminals still get a gun on an island. population 110k. 52 murders 10 involving other weapons makes the U.S virgin Islands the highest per capita murder rate of any state or territory.

  2. The laws past under the SAFE Act (hasn’t detered crime or saved anyones life, just makes law abiding citizens into criminals just for owning accessoriesor passing them down) in New York State are a lot more stringent. So much so I’ll be moving my guns and residency to another state so my kids can have my guns when I pass away. Land of the free? Where is any freedom in that?

  3. So Jim , you believe we should have to get permission to own a firearm from the government, in order to protect ourselves from the government. After all that is what the second amendment is mostly about, citizens being armed in order to protect themselves from foreign and domestic (the government) enemies. Allowing the government to decide who gets a gun and who doesn’t is like trusting the fox to guard the hen house. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea has to be a moron. Please Jim, help skim the gene pool and go jump off a cliff. Moron!

  4. Under 594 you loan a friend a handgun to go hunting , he gets in an altercation eating lunch , He stops the incident without firing. You are arrested for an unlawful transfer of a handgun without a backround check , even though it was for hunting he went and had lunch that is not hunting you go to jail. This is the reality this bill sets up.
    Next you want to sell you firearm collection off got to wait for the backround checks. Next who pays for the backround check oh every transaction going to a FFL . Raise the transfer fee to anything he wants, making your $1000 rifle $500.
    This bill will not deter any criminal from getting a firearm. Furthermore ATF fails to prosecute 78000 attempts by felons to purchase a firearm. Once again failure of government to enforce the law.
    5-10 days to purchase a firearm is infringement as ruled in CA.
    4 minutes I had a ffl call fbi nics and bought a firearm in AK.

  5. Firearms are purchased without any paperwork or ‘background checks’ on the black market.

    594 will do NOTHING to stop this.

  6. I am all for gun rights and am aware that anti-gun activists are trying to curtail our ability to own firearms. I’ve read Initiative 594 and believe that it is a good thing, regardless of school incidents, etc. We are so used to measures coming out that clearly and, many times, deceptively, try to curtail our 2nd Amendment freedoms. However, to think that there is some underlying deceptive scheme in every measure results in ignorance born out of fear. Read the initiative – it is a good thing, don’t you think? I don’t want firearms to be freely purchased by those who aren’t allowed to possess a firearm or to those would normally fail a background check. If we need to defend our rights later on, then so be it; if we need to weed out attempts by anti-gun activists to modify good, wholesome laws, so be it. Don’t vote against something because you fear deception. Even anti-gun activists can make a good initiative once in a while. If we blatantly refuse any initiatives because we fear some underlying deceptive motive, we become irresponsible gun owners.

    1. Great you think it’s a good thing. What is good about it when all the statistics show that criminals don’t get their guns this way. So what is the need? You want to pay a dealer $40 each time you sell your property? Or if you add the cost to the buyer there goes that sell. How long do you believe it will be when there is no decline in murders, rapes, robberies, assaults etc. before they come back saying there must be a problem with the provisions for loans and do away with them? And now for the most egregious part how do they know who is selling what without every firearm in Washington state bring registered and placed on a list? They can’t it’s impossible unless they know who owns the guns. That is why it’s a terrible piece of trash. I don’t want to see guns in the hands of criminals either but when every mass shooting except Newtown (stolen firearms used) was committed by someone who passed the 4473 check how is this going to help? It is only a “foot in the door” by desperate millionaires that want to have their armed bodyguards by you aren’t to be trusted and are “a criminal waiting to happen.” It must be prevented at all costs in every other American state or we are all going to be disarmed.

    2. You’re not thinking in the right mindset. Only law abiding citizens will suffer this harassment. Criminals don’t obey laws and they don’t go through government channels. The U.S Virgin Islands has 100% gun control, you cant buy a gun on that island. it has the highest per capita murder rate of any state or territory.

  7. In my humble view the sad and tragic incident at a school in upstate washington had the voter effect that that DAMN bloomberg wanted .am I the only one who sees the timing a little off ?

Leave a Reply

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