Why I support firearm background checks...and oppose Washington Initiative 594

I am a long time gun owner and was a firearms safety instructor for over 10 years. Where guns are concerned, I am all about safety and responsibility. I support background checks.

But Washington's Initiative 594 is bad legislation and I am encouraging friends and anyone who will listen to vote against it.

Here is the short version of why I oppose I594:

• most sales and transfers in WA state already include a background check, a process developed by gun owners to police themselves. I 594 is a punitive attempt to punish and hinder a civil liberty the 1% dislikes, primarily funded by the 1% (e.g., Bloomberg).
  
• I594 requires all sales AND TRANSFERS to be completed through a firearms licensee and the DOL. Note the word transfers carefully...it includes non-sales such as inheriting a firearm and loaning a firearm to a person for most purposes, e.g., safety classes.
  
• law enforcement organizations also oppose I594 because they do not feel it necessary and because it can interfere with their duties

• I594 takes the state a step closer to California's crazy gun laws by registering legally owned firearms and prohibiting private transfers

More details:
Why would someone who thinks background checks are a good idea be against I594? For starters because most gun transactions in Washington state already include some form of background check. This includes all sales through licensed dealers, as well as sales taking place in the state's largest gun shows. Yes, despite all the news fear and panic about closing the so-called "gun show loophole", the gun community has complied with laws and instituted their own practices involving background checks that already accomplish most of what this initiative claims to be seeking.

Most gun sales in the state now involve background checks (FFLs, large gun shows, most private sales).

• Purchases through dealers include the federal NICS check.

• Purchases at Washington Arms Collector shows involve background checks. You cannot become a WAC member without successfully completing a background check.
• Private individuals can also effectively verify the background of the person they are selling to by verifying that they possess a state Concealed Pistol License. This is a common practice...every private sale of a firearm that I have made involved verifying and recording CPL data

Here's an ironic part. With WAC and other gun shows already working in good faith to restrict firearm sales to those with a clean background, legislators in Olympia have repeatedly attempted to make them responsible for preventing all sales within several blocks of the show. Whether the participants were at the show or not.

I 594 (text available here) requires all sales AND TRANSFERS in WA state to go through a licensed dealer and the Department of Licensing. What constitutes a transfer?That is a very important question and one that the initiative's sponsors and backers are treating as a minor quibble. I594 includes some transfers such as inherited firearms and temporary transfers for firearms safety classes. Yes, the people who are trying to co-opt the "gun safety" label not only don't teach gun safety (unless you count abstinence training), they are now making it more difficult for people to obtain firearms safety classes.

Note that the background check at a dealer will involve tracking firearms sales and transfers through the department of licensing. It does not provide for the costs of this new DOL task. In any case, it effectively
creates a mechanism for starting to register all firearms sales and transfers in Washington state. This is a very bad thing because the primary thing that registration facilitates is confiscation.

Who opposes I594? A lot of people, including the majority of law enforcement. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs favor the more sensible I591and oppose I594. So does the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (here). Both note the potential for I594 to create a firearms registry (useless if it doesn't, a civil liberties infringement if it does).

Initiative 594 is bad law. Please check for yourself and vote against it.