- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Background checks expanded in proposal
By Zoey Palmer
WNPA Olympia News Bureau
Gun-control opponents and supporters packed a hearing room on the Capitol campus in Olympia Wednesday to testify about a bill requiring universal background checks for gun purchases.
Background checks are currently required by state law when buying a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, but not between private, unlicensed citizens. HB 1588 would require a background check for gun sales by private parties.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43rd District, Seattle), requires the seller to request a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check on the buyer from a licensed dealer or local law enforcement, either of which may charge up to $20 for the service.
Under the bill, the background check requirement would not apply to the sale of antique guns.
NICS checks are usually immediate, but if one is delayed for more than three days the transaction would be allowed to go through without it under provisions in the bill. The same rule currently applies to licensed gun dealers.
Pedersen explained that the bill is a common-sense approach to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those who are dangerous and mentally ill.
“I believe we have broad agreement in our society that there are some classes of people who should not have guns,” he said, speaking to the House Judiciary Committee that conducted the hearing.
Pedersen maintained that background checks are an effective way to prevent criminals from obtaining guns and extending the requirement to private transactions, which represent 40 percent of firearms sales in Washington, would help further reduce gun violence.
Don Pierce of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs stated that members of his organization support the right of a citizen to own a gun, except for those not allowed to by law.
“The only way that we can really know for sure that we’re limiting the number of gun transactions to felons is to create a background-check process,” Pierce said.
Opponents of the bill claimed it would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals, they argued, don’t follow laws and would obtain guns illegally.
“Since it’s already illegal for a felon to purchase a handgun anywhere from anyone,” said Linda Wilson, a Clark County gun-owner, claiming that responsible gun-owners are aware of the law, “how is regulating the sale of guns by a law-abiding gun-owner going to change any action by a criminal?”
Others raised concerns about the possibility of a gun-owner database being created from background-check paperwork. The original version of the bill released to the public does not require government agencies to destroy the request forms once the background checks are completed.
“What this is really all about is not really regulating private transactions,” said Brian Judy of the National Rifle Association. “It’s about creating a registration database.”
The bill would effectively create a registry for rifles and shotguns similar to federal handgun registration, claimed Alan Gottlieb of the Citizen’s Committee to Keep and Bear Arms.
A proposed change to the bill, which was not available until just before the hearing, would require agencies to destroy the forms used to request a background check and would not require a background check on buyers with state concealed-pistol permits.
Licensed dealers may be the only way for a private seller to obtain a background check.
Many police departments have policies against running background checks for private, non-licensed citizens.
Rep. Mike Hope (R-44th District, Snohomish), a co-sponsor of the bill and a Seattle police officer when not serving in the Legislature, and SPD Deputy Chief of Operations Nick Metz, said it’s against their department’s policy to run background checks for private citizens. The bill doesn’t address those policies. Judy noted that some gun owners voluntarily request checks on prospective buyers through a licensed dealer, but for a higher fee than the proposed bill provides.