I-594 being ignored

Posted on by

I reported some on this last December but KING 5 News has more:

But analysis of federal data by the KING 5 Investigators raises questions about how effective that law has been.

Only 2% of background checks in Washington in 2015 stemmed from “private party” sales of guns, according to data in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check – or NICS – system.

That number is surprising to researchers Philip Cook of Duke and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who study gun violence.

They say that their own research – and studies by others – have shown that up to 40% of gun sales nationwide are between private citizens. They’re skeptical that the 2% reported to the FBI is an accurate picture of the private gun market in Washington state.

“I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.

And that doesn’t even count the “transfers” covered by the law which don’t involve a sale. I’ll bet they would be unable find anyone who did a NICS check on someone they loaned a gun to for a short period of time. I-594 is probably, and justifiably so, going to be ignored as much as other stupid laws such those against recreational drugs, underage drinking, and oral sex.

Share

44 thoughts on “I-594 being ignored”

  1. Also… how do they know that 40% number is right?

    Isn’t that really hard to track for?

    And correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t other experiences similar to I-594 found a far lower rate of private sales?

    Heck for the 40% number to be even remotely correct that means that a good fraction of used gun sales would have to be private. Right?
    (What is the breakdown between new and used sales anyway?)

    • Of course the 40% number is bogus and was a bad estimate taken before NICS was even started. The actual number is usually studied to be in the 4% range or lower. Even so, it means that half of the private sales are not having a background check or being recorded.
      I-594 is a bad law and should be repealed.

  2. friends:

    if it is a bad or a stupid law, do not obey it. disobey it. and, i would suggest you consider not paying taxes to the feds. you choice. as for me, i don’t mind being a slave so much, but, i’ll be go to hell before i’ll pay for it. think about it.

    john

  3. “Only 2% of background checks in Washington in 2015 stemmed from “private party” sales of guns, according to data in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check – or NICS – system.

    That number is surprising to researchers….

    “I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said….

    Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » What if they passed a law and no one followed it?

  5. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that 40% ‘statistic’ already debunked as being over 20 years out of date since it was arrived at prior to (and IIRC as a talking point in favor of) the 1994 AWB/NICS implementation?

    • I don’t think it had anything to do with the 1994 AWB. But other than that I think you are correct.

      • My memory is a bit fuzzy, but wasn’t NICS part of the negotiations in AWB?
        (Antis wanted 5 day wait period as part of AWB, Pros pushed for NICS instead)

  6. What’s the percent for California? That would give them something to compare it to.

  7. “A firearms enthusiast in Snohomish County, who did not want to be identified, told KING 5 that he backed out of a deal when a background check identified the buyer as a felon.”

    I’m guessing this is a lie. Unless Washington has some special dispensation in the law, a dealer isn’t told why the NICS office denied a sale. So, this “unidentified firearms enthusiast” doesn’t actually know what the background check uncovered.

  8. Random thought. Anyone know a friendly FFL to perform the following experiment with?
    A) Transfer a gun (not a purchase, just the letter of the law loan at a range), to a friend, do a NICS check, complete with serial number and state transfer form.

    B) Transfer it back, doing all the same paperwork again. Maybe even with photocopies to make it faster easier.

    Repeat steps A and B until you are told to knock it off or investigated. Record the interactions and make a story out of it.

    Either it gets established that it’s not required, or else waste a LOT of their time with a stack of stupid paper, or make them look like fools.

    Just a thought.

  9. If 40% of sales are “private”, and only 2% of recent REPORTED sales are identified as “private”, then that means that approximately NO PERCENT of private sales are being reported (rounded off to the nearest significant digit), because we know this is “Massive Civil Disobedience”. It’s not “breaking the law”, it’s protest to an unjust, unworkable, unenforceable and burdensome ARBITRARY legislation.

    I think this is something that Washington legislatures should look at. When their new laws turn honest citizens into criminals, there’s something wrong with the law, not with the people.

    Also, Oregon legislators should be aware of this, ’cause we just got the same law crammed down our throats here.

    And Nevada legislators ought to rethink their proposed law.

    • Yes, the WA legislature should look at this. But please don’t BLAME them for it, I-594 was a (bloomberg-and-buddies-financed) initiative.

    • Is it really Civil Disobedience if the two people involved aren’t even aware that their actions are against the law?

      How many gun owners are vaguely aware that some sort of Universal Background Check law has passed–perhaps even voted for it themselves–completely unaware that loaning a gun at an informal range without background checks both ways is now illegal? That loaning a rifle for a hunting trip is now illegal?

      How much noncompliance is occurring simply as a result of sheer ignorance? And if so, how long will it be before this law becomes the equivalent of Minnesota’s ban on children buying ice cream without a permission slip from their parents? One that is a hundred years old, but no one is even aware of it, let alone trying to enforce it…

      To be sure, it’s best to get such laws off the books, but while they are there…is it really an advancement of the Gun Grabber Cause that they think it is? Or does it merely reinforce a false sense of security for those who wish to ban guns (we don’t need to do anything, because we have Done Something!) while making politically active gun owners rather angry…

  10. “I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

    Stun me with a mullet.

    Perfesser.

    Perhaps someone should get out more. Elevator in the ivory tower all busted?
    Good.

  11. When the “40%” number began to bandied about, it was generally held to be a massive over-estimate, 4x or more the actual number. 10% vs. 2% seems reasonable and could indicate either noncompliance or fuzzy numbers.

    Actual sales isn’t the main problem with this law. The problem is the creation of inadvertent criminals when a firearm is innocently loaned. Our laws and justice system are supposed to lean the other way — remember, “better ten guilty men go free than one innocent one be wrongly punished.”

    • Sadly this concept has been abbandoned in law. It’s more of a “Better to invent laws and permissions out of thin air, then let anyone off for even a minor infraction.

  12. Gun buyers may not be following background check law.
    “They say that their own research – and studies by others – have shown that up to 40% of gun sales nationwide are between private citizens. They’re skeptical that the 2% reported to the FBI is an accurate picture of the private gun market in Washington state.”

    Always repeating the 40% lie.
    DEBUNKED.
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150805/forty-percent-of-guns-don-t-go-through-background-checks-lie-debunked

  13. The purpose wasn’t to make anyone safer, it was quite simply to hinder (infringe) the common gun owner or perspective owner. They never for one moment intended the law to actually work. It’s intent was to add yet another useless law on the books that all the anti-liberty prosecutors could use to pile-on to an innocuous traffic stop charge, causing panic among those who just want to be left alone to “keep and bear”.

    It’s just sitting out there waiting to be used. Deterrence, in other words. They don’t care that it isn’t working…… it will be useful later.

  14. So what’s the big deal about breaking the law? Sure, I am a law abiding citizen, but when “Sanctuary Cities” can openly thumb their noses at federal law and simply say “we are not going to follow the law of the land!” it certainly sets a bad precedent.

    Also when our President himself is openly thwarting current immigration law for political expediency, it sets the same bad precedent. Why is immigration law any different than any other law? If it is openly acceptable to ignore laws because (insert reason here), why can’t others ignore laws that they don’t feel inclined to follow because (insert reason here).

    • Ayn Rand explained it well. The purpose of modern “law” is to ensure that everyone has broken some laws. Then those in power can choose who to prosecute: if you’re a friend of power, you get a pass; if not, you’re hammered.
      This is why people like the creep senator from Iowa oppose a proposed reform that makes explicit the requirement of mens rea on the grounds that it makes it harder to convict people. Well, yes, that’s the idea. I suppose he prefers the Communist way — just accuse someone and conviction is automatic.
      This 594 mess seems to be tailor-made for promoting the cause of Jury Nullification.

  15. South Carolina does not have background checks for private sales, although a gun-grabbing Democrat introduced a Bill to do that (it won’t pass), and I have sold 3 guns so far in 3 years. 2 to people with a Concealed Weapons Permit which is NICS exempt in South Carolina and my Savage .22LR to a person who came to buy it with his 2 children in a VERY expensive SUV. I seriously doubt he was a Bad Guy.

  16. As a Washingtonian, I proudly violate the transfer language of I-594 on a regular basis….I consider it my civic duty.

  17. “That number is surprising to researchers Philip Cook of Duke and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago…”

    Smart People are surprised when reality disagrees with them. I guess reality is expected to fall in line with what Smart People say. These people have titles, salaries and benefits packages after all, and they get published. Can reality say that?

  19. I’ve heard it called Irish Democracy when the peasants ignore stupid laws. We have UBC law in Colorado and it’s widely ignored here as well.

  20. I have stopped selling guns since I-594 passed. I have two or three that I would have other-wised sold, but I don’t feel like adding another gun to the registry.

    There are others that feel the same, and could be another reason for the low private sales numbers that the FBI knows about.

    I will wait until the law gets overturned. If it doesn’t get overturned, I will probably want the guns anyway, if you know what I mean.

  21. Watch your six. The conclusion that the law is not being obeyed will require the registration of all firearms so that the government can properly enforce the “common sense” laws enacted buy the right thinking majority. That will be the next rallying cry by Bloomberg.’s cohorts. And they will use this “study” to support it.

  22. Pingback: Weekly News Links – Edition 26 | Shall Not Be Questioned

  23. The people are ignoring it, but the question remains if the law will continue to ignore it. Hopefully they treat it like laws against oral sex and not like they treat laws against recreational drug use and underage drinking.

Comments are closed.