You and simple Danny single out a Republican, of course.

As it turns out, a number of Democrats are "cowards" too:

http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profi…

Ugh, what a mess. Does anyone have a copy of the NRA hit piece?

That's funny, just yesterday the Boy Scout rapers of the Stranger were telling us nothing in the Seattle Times is worth reading.

The NRA called in a favor.

Will someone on the other side of this issue explain it to me? Why do we need background checks for the sale of guns when the seller is a licensed gun dealer, but we don't need a background check when the seller is not a licensed gun dealer? If we want a background check before anyone can buy a gun, then don't we want a background check before [b]anyone[/b] can buy a gun?

so, until we can make a law that stops lawbreakers from breaking laws, we can't pass a law?

gun sophistry.

From the linked article: " That may not sound like much. But it means 5,000 to 10,000 people in our state were denied a gun or gun permit last year. Usually because they were an ex-con, a domestic abuser or a fugitive, and sometimes due to mental illness.

This would be worth it if only 500, or 50, of this crowd was stopped from getting guns. Yet porous as it is, the system stopped 5,000."

Two problems with this - one, it doesn't document whether or not the denied applicant ended up purchasing a firearm or not. It just documents that they did not purchase a firearm from an FFL. (For example, the Newtown shooter was stopped from purchasing a firearm at an FFL due to the required 14 day wait, but that didn't stop him from stealing his mother's weapons..)

Two, the statistics given don't differentiate for false positives. As in, if my name is John Smith and I'm 5'10", and I decline to provide my social security number, there is a high likelihood that there is someone with my name and rough description that is a criminal is in the database, which will result in my application being denied even though I am not, myself, a criminal.

@5, I personally didn't have any problem with the proposed background check other than cost. I just don't think background checks help much. However, the typical argument is that background checks lead to Federal or State level gun-owner registration and that is a problem.

The current FFL checks do not have Federal or State (depending on state) records keeping. The individual FFL is required to keep records on each sale for 20 years, but the NICS inquiry information is required to be destroyed within 24 hours.

In most states where all transfers require a background check, there is a de-facto state level gun registration. Many gun owners take issue with that as gun registration has been used in the past to facilitate confiscation.

@5: I think the issue was fear of it creating a firearm/owner registry, even though that's not what it did. Basically, "slippery slope" nonsense. That's conjecture on my part, which is why I wanted to see a copy of the publication against it.

It's completely unfair to target Walsh on this. That is her district. And I know that district very well. That district has support for gay marriage but not gun control. It's close. Most people there probably would support universal background checks. But there is a faction that has been trying to target Walsh for years since her vote on civil unions. And this is would be the "ammo" they need to whip up a frenzy. And trust me, these folks are complete nut cases. They hijacked the local county republican party and they are full of a bunch of religious zealots. You know that legislator Klippert in the 8th? Those are his people. We don't want one of their ilk in the State Senate. It will definitely make matters worse.

Bottom line is, if we are going to universal background checks in this state, you are going to have to do it with strong democratic support, and good republicans who aren't up against other bat-chit crazy republicans.

Don't hit Walsh on this. It could be much worse without her.

@10: by all means, let's keep as many spineless center-right pols in office as possible, at all levels, in both parties. this is clearly the best way to solve the nation's pressing issues.

like the way Rodney Tom ("D") will solve WA's revenue crisis.

There's too much speculation in that article.

"They don’t break the figures out by state. But the typical reject rate nationally is 1 to 2 percent."

And then:

"This would be worth it if only 500, or 50, of this crowd was stopped from getting guns. Yet porous as it is, the system stopped 5,000."

So he's going from what seems to be an estimate of the average rate in the nation and then claiming that it is a fact that 5,000 BAD people were denied.
Why are they BAD people?

"Usually because they were an ex-con, a domestic abuser or a fugitive, and sometimes due to mental illness."

So why did he skip over errors in the system?
How many people who were initially rejected had the error fixed and then legally purchased a gun with a background check?

It's easy to skip over things like that when you do not know of anyone with a gun or who has ever had a problem with that database.
But when many of your friends own guns and some of them have had problems with that database then they have legitimate concerns.

@11

You entirely miss the point but anyway...

Walsh is not spineless by any means. But if you want conviction out of pols not in your district, that's what you will find in the field of candidates that want to replace her. Hardcore, batshit crazy, God fearing, bible humping conviction.

Bean FTW. Also, let me point out yet again that the majority of gun owners and Republicans support closing the gun show loophole. It's a fucking embarassment that a D gov, D house, and D-ish senate can't get this massively popular policy passed.

So, the concern about background checks is that they could lead to or essentially create a gun owner registry. And that is dangerous because it could facilitate confiscation.

That's quite a string of unlikely contingencies. It sounds fairly irrational to me. Like, I shouldn't leave my room because it could result in leaving my house which could eventually lead to getting hit by a bus. So, since I don't want to get hit by a bus, I won't leave my room.

Gun confiscation is not a rational fear, consequently a gun owner registry is nothing to fear, consequently background checks are nothing to fear or oppose.

@13: oh, i don't miss the point. i voted for obama.

No, @15, it's not an "irrational" concern when it's happened numerous times in the past. Pay attention.

I love the smell of freedom in the morning.

@17 Question about the whole gun registry thing--this seems to be the biggest fear of people against expanding background checks. While it is true that both England and Australia did have weapons registration and did confiscate almost all firearms, neither country has a Bill of Rights. Even if we did have a gun registry in the US, wouldn't the 2nd amendment, which has been unambiguously affirmed by the Supreme Court, protect gun owners?

In theory, yes, @19. Of course, in theory, it also prevents the establishment of a registry in the first place.

@19
"Even if we did have a gun registry in the US, wouldn't the 2nd amendment, which has been unambiguously affirmed by the Supreme Court, protect gun owners?"

Today it would.
But in the future the court will have different people.
And at that point in time a group sulk of "But you SAID you wouldn't confiscate guns" won't be very useful.
So if precursor legislation can be stopped today then it will never get to that point tomorrow.

@21, the current trampling of the 4th and 10th amendments by organizations like the NSA is truly chilling, and the recent ruling that only a person who could prove the NSA was recording their communications would have standing to sue the government is a genuinely un-American and Kafkaesque precedent.

But this would be hard to do with guns. The second the police confiscated a gun in the name of a seizure law, that person would have standing to take it to court. I concede that is is possible for the court to refuse to hear it, or for precedent to change but I fear that happening a lot less than the outright ignoring of fundamental rights which happens in secret.

I only bring this up because there are a lot of gun owners who do think that universal background checks are not unreasonable. It seems impossible to have a real conversation about what's reasonable when both sides so quickly down their respective slippery slopes.

@20: how does the 2nd prevent registration? is that an infringement, whereas regulations limiting the general populace's possession of fully-automatic firearms or military weapons are not infringements?

seems like registration would be part of well-regulating the militia.

some slopes just aren't that slippery.

Well, I happen to believe that limiting the possession of full-auto weapons also infringes on the second amendment, so I'm probably the wrong guy to ask that question.

@24: Let's hear your explanation anyway. The right to vote is firmly enshrined in the Constitution, and you have to register for that, right?

@22
"I only bring this up because there are a lot of gun owners who do think that universal background checks are not unreasonable."

Gun owners have a wide range of opinions on most topics.

"the current trampling of the 4th and 10th amendments by organizations like the NSA is truly chilling, and the recent ruling ..."

And the phrase "the recent ruling" is why some people oppose things such as universal background checks.
You only have the rights that you are willing to support with your time, money and votes.

@26, another though experiment--would you be opposed to universal background checks if they could be done without any kind of registry?

In my opinion, UBC is most important for the SELLER not the BUYER. I own guns. I support the right to own them. I also think that the straw buyer who makes a living selling to criminals is the biggest threat to legal ownership. Anyone who supports civilian legal ownership should want straw buyers to go to Federal prison for a long, long time. UBC might be a hassle, but it would put a crimp on sellers looking the other way (or not looking at all) if they knew they'd have to do the paperwork.

I'd like to hear a bit more about these mass confiscations based on registries here in the U.S. Citations, data please.

@27
"another though experiment--would you be opposed to universal background checks if they could be done without any kind of registry?"

I already support them.
At the federal level.
And I've contacted Cantwell and Murray to show my support for that.
At the state level it is too easy for a criminal to go to a different state to buy a gun without a background check.

But I have friends who oppose them because they do not trust the government NOT to implement a registry in secret.
I can see their point on that.
Here's a thought experiment for you - how would you write a law that prevented such a registry (even in secret) and also prevented a different law from superseding that law in the future?

And we also need an exception for guns that you inherit. Otherwise it is too easy for this to become a "backdoor" for confiscation.

"Anyone who supports civilian legal ownership should want straw buyers to go to Federal prison for a long, long time."

The problem is that we already have laws on the books that do not seem to be actively enforced regarding that.
Read the article that started this thread.
He talks about 5,000 rejections.
I doubt he is right but if he is then where are the prosecutions for those?

Related - how about a law to limit plea bargaining for gun-related offenses?

fairly unbalanced, I repeat my question: could you please show me data or citations that justify fear of mass confiscations preceded by a registry here in the U.S.?