Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« How Can We Stop Frank Gehry? | LPFM Advocates Are at SXSW »

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Guns / Olympia Political Cowardice Threatens Universal Background Checks Bill in Olympia

Posted by Goldy on Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:13 AM

"Why take a bullet from the NRA when you can just put it on the ballot?" That's what one Olympia operative privately speculated about the reluctance of a handful of legislators to pull the trigger on a bill that would finally require background checks on most private sales of firearms. A floor vote in the House on HB 1588 was twice delayed yesterday as sponsors attempted to scrounge up the two or three final votes necessary for passage.

Public opinion polls show overwhelming support for the sensible measure, but several House members are suspected of balking out of fear of retaliation from the pro-gun lobby. There have been whispers that if the bill fails, a well-financed gun control initiative will be put on the ballot next fall. The politically smart move, some fence-sitters may be thinking, is to let voters decide the controversial issue.

Smart maybe, but awfully damn cowardly. I guess this is what comes from progressives failing to punish their elected officials as aggressively as the folks on the right do.

So what can you do to turn this around? "I don’t think that there is anything that folks outside can/need to do at this point," bill sponsor Representative Jamie Pedersen responded last night when I asked him whom I might rhetorically pummel in support of the measure. Pedersen says that he is continuing to work the votes, and insists that he remains "cautiously optimistic."

Others were not so politic, and I'm hearing that the softest targets are Democrats David Sawyer, Pat Sullivan, and Steve Kirby, along with Republican Linda Kochmar. So give 'em a call and let them know how you feel.

And speaking of Kochmar, it's important to note that so far only one Republican has signed onto this bill: Co-sponsor Mike Hope (R-44), a Seattle police officer. Whatever it is that Republicans claim they stand for, commonsense gun control legislation is clearly one thing the Republican Party party stands against.

FacebookShare

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Thanks for posting on this. I was wondering what was going on and why there was no coverage of this vote in the media.

Posted by can't think of a name on March 12, 2013 at 9:50 AM

What percentage of media sensationalized shootings in the news ( because historically gun crime is at a record low ) would have been stopped by a UBC?\

We know sandy hook would not have been.

Posted by meanie

on March 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Thanks for the list of representatives that we need our newest PACs to help unseat. I'm looking at you, Michael Bloomberg and Gabby Giffords. If these folks won't vote the will of the majority of their constituents, it's time to replace them with people who will. Sadly, I think these legislators still think they need the NRA and its money. But it's a new game out there now. They'll see next time they run for re-election.

Posted by fan of representative democracy on March 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM

@2 So let me play Lot to your God. If I could show just one documented case where a background check on a private sale would have saved a life, would that be good enough to win your support? Or are you saying that there is a reasonable percentage of lives that should be sacrificed?

Posted by Goldy on March 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Goldy, you fat hypocrite, if this is so popular then why are you so afraid of the voters?

Posted by Unbrainwashed on March 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM

5 Probably not afraid of the voters but dismayed at the process for something common sense that could be handled now. Let the NRA try to waste their money smearing legislators. They no longer have the clout they once had. Their brand hurts politicians more than it hurts in all but the most backwards parts of our country.

Posted by wl on March 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM

@4 אלוהים עוזר למי שעוזר לעצמו

Your refusal to address it with anything but hyperbolic taunts suggests the data is not in your favor. UBC's sound really good to liberal minded talking heads who know very little actual facts about firearms, but are a solution in search of a problem, in this state at least.

Posted by meanie

on March 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM

@7 What was hyperbolic about my question? I asked what your threshold was? For example, the seven women shot and three killed in a Wisconsin day spa in October, by a gunman who bought his weapons without a background check via a private sale, just days after a court ordered him to surrender his weapons... does that meet your threshold? Or is the convenience of our current law worth that price in blood?

Posted by Goldy on March 12, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Instead of requiring background checks, we just need a law that says IF you sell your gun to someone without obtaining a background check, and that person commits a crime with the gun, then you are liable for damages in a civil suit. Let the plantiff lawyers do the work of the state. Isn't that what the free market is all about?

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on March 12, 2013 at 2:50 PM

@8
"What was hyperbolic about my question?"

Everything. Let's take an example, shall we?

"For example, the seven women shot and three killed in a Wisconsin ..."

Wisconsin is not Washington.
This bill is in Washington.
Like I've been saying for months, if you want facts then YOU have to start collecting them.

"Or is the convenience of our current law worth that price in blood?"

Again, Wisconsin is not Washington.
Therefore, "our" current law or future law would not have had any effect on that instance.

Sarcasm is not journalism.
Learn that.

Posted by fairly.unbalanced on March 12, 2013 at 3:30 PM

@9 so people who kill the person they got it from get off scot free?

I see ...

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM

@10: I am very glad this killer was caught before he was able to obtain a weapon and harm someone else. And where would a six-time convicted felon from Washington look for his next weapon?

Detectives learned that Boysen was conducting online searches of gun shows across the Pacific Northwest and Nevada just before or after his grandparents were slain.

At a gun show, of course, where no background check is required. That's why we need universal background checks.

@11: Will, you are a stupid fucking moron. The saloon keeper is liable for overserving a patron who drives drunk and kills someone, but that doesn't mean the drunk driver gets off scot free. I can't believe I just wrote that. The stupid hurts.

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on March 12, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Looks like the bill died in the House:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2…

Let's get started on the progressive legislator punishment.

Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on March 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM

@12
"At a gun show, of course, where no background check is required."

Probably not at a gun show in Washington.
Possibly via a private seller in Washington.
Possibly via a gun show in a different state.

"That's why we need universal background checks."

At the FEDERAL level.
At the state level just means that the buyers will go to a different state.
Now read the link from #13.
I've already posted here how we need universal background checks.
And how I've contacted Murray and Cantwell to support that.

Would you like a link to the post from Fnarf decrying my efforts at that because I chose to work at the Federal level instead of the state level?

The reason that even these state bills fail is that the most vocal pro-gun-control advocates leave no room for anyone who has a more nuanced view than they do.

Posted by fairly.unbalanced on March 12, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Wow, musta been a really BAD bill if the Dumbocrats didn't go for it.

Though, I'm sure they will keep coming at our Constitutionally-protected rights until they get something out of this Sandy Hook tragedy. Those little kids can't die for nuthin' you know...

Posted by GeneStoner on March 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Gotta love those lefty nutters. The only thing they seem to be capable of coming up with is ineffective "solutions" to non-existent problems. But hey, as long as it makes life more difficult for the 99% of people in this country who will never break a single law, they're OK with it.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on March 13, 2013 at 1:08 AM

41
http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Ch…

No 'ironic' headline from Goldy? What, gang bangers killing other gang bangers' babies isn't funny? Doesn't fit the Stranger's bogus narrative that there are only white mass-shooting bogeymen terrorizing the country every hour of every day?

If only guns were banned these two thugs would've just hugged each other.

Posted by GangBangersMakeUsSafer on March 13, 2013 at 7:26 AM