OT Washington Gun Dealers Report 1,200 Denied Purchases In First 5 Months Of New Law

[SlyPokerDog]

Early numbers on a new Washington state law designed to crack down on felons, domestic abusers and others who try to buy a gun show that since July, more than 1,200 would-be gun buyers have failed background checks.

Of those 1,200, 49 people made multiple attempts to purchase a firearm. And 71 of them had a court order requiring them to stay away from their victims.

Alliance for Gun Responsibility CEO Renee Hopkins said the law is working because domestic violence victims are now getting notification if their abuser tries to buy a gun.

“The information that their abuser is trying to buy a firearm could literally save their lives,” Hopkins said. “It gives them the power to be able to plan for their safety and in most situations their children’s safety as well.”

An investigation by public radio and KING 5 News last year found that prohibited gun buyers are rarely, if ever, investigated and prosecuted in Washington. So far under the new law, 152 attempts to purchase have been referred to police resulting in criminal charges in at least one case.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-gun-dealers-report-1200-denied-purchases-first-5-months-new-law

 

[Further]

Ya but, you know, 2nd amendment y'all.

 

[Minstrel]

The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted felons and domestic abusers to have guns. It's why they bothered to fight a war for independence in the first place. I wish you Millennial special snowflake liberals would read a little history.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Domestic abusers should be allowed to buy guns, but their victims should be given better ones.

 

[Further]

Domestic abusers need to get out more

 

[rasheedfan2005]

As long as these people have been convicted and not just accused im fine with that.

 

[Natebishop3]

The domestic abusers part is much too wide sweeping imo.

In our current system, if a woman is in your face screaming at you and you slightly push her back off of you, you're a domestic abuser. No more guns for the rest of your life.

My friend was convicted of domestic abuse against his wife. He wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. He had witnesses willing to testify that he wasn't there. She was cheating with a former cop. He had video evidence from the cops roommate proving that his wife was cheating. The DA and the judge wouldn't allow it as evidence.

The day he found out that she was cheating, he called her and asked her to come home so they could talk. She went straight to the police. They never had a conversation about it. He hasn't spent a minute alone with her since that day. I talked to him multiple times the day that it happened. He was upset. He couldn't believe that she was cheating. He wanted to talk it out with her. He still wanted the marriage to work. He wasn't mad. Hell, I would have been furious, but he was in shock I think.

Her story changed multiple times. The judge presiding over the restraining order case threw it out because her story was so ridiculously inconsistent. It didn't matter. He had former neighbors willing to testify that they had never seen or heard anything. The judge didn't want to hear it. They were going to convict him no matter what. So now he never gets to own another gun. Can't go hunting. Can't go shooting with friends. All done because a guy who had zero criminal record was fucked over by his wife because she wanted the kid and a new life with her other man.

Great system we have.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

The domestic abusers part is much too wide sweeping imo.

In our current system, if a woman is in your face screaming at you and you slightly push her back off of you, you're a domestic abuser. No more guns for the rest of your life.

My friend was convicted of domestic abuse against his wife. He wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. He had witnesses willing to testify that he wasn't there. She was cheating with a former cop. He had video evidence from the cops roommate proving that his wife was cheating. The DA and the judge wouldn't allow it as evidence.

The day he found out that she was cheating, he called her and asked her to come home so they could talk. She went straight to the police. They never had a conversation about it. He hasn't spent a minute alone with her since that day. I talked to him multiple times the day that it happened. He was upset. He couldn't believe that she was cheating. He wanted to talk it out with her. He still wanted the marriage to work. He wasn't mad. Hell, I would have been furious, but he was in shock I think.

Her story changed multiple times. The judge presiding over the restraining order case threw it out because her story was so ridiculously inconsistent. It didn't matter. He had former neighbors willing to testify that they had never seen or heard anything. The judge didn't want to hear it. They were going to convict him no matter what. So now he never gets to own another gun. Can't go hunting. Can't go shooting with friends. All done because a guy who had zero criminal record was fucked over by his wife because she wanted the kid and a new life with her other man.

Great system we have.

It is crappy. My wife could have a record if I pressed charges over a drunken fiasco from 20 years ago. I didn't even actually get to choose to press charges, the DA took one look at the cops report and dismissed it himself.

I got abused spouse fliers and shit mailed to her house after that. I didn't ask for them, the do gooder liberals who pass the stupid laws made that happen.

 

[Natebishop3]

It is crappy. My wife could have a record if I pressed charges over a drunken fiasco from 20 years ago. I didn't even actually get to choose to press charges, the DA took one look at the cops report and dismissed it himself.

I got abused spouse fliers and shit mailed to her house after that. I didn't ask for them, the do gooder liberals who pass the stupid laws made that happen.

Were they addressed to you or her?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Were they addressed to you or her?

Me

 

[Further]

Domestic abusers need to get out more

No likes on this amazing pun? For shame!

 

[Further]

The domestic abusers part is much too wide sweeping imo.

In our current system, if a woman is in your face screaming at you and you slightly push her back off of you, you're a domestic abuser. No more guns for the rest of your life.

My friend was convicted of domestic abuse against his wife. He wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. He had witnesses willing to testify that he wasn't there. She was cheating with a former cop. He had video evidence from the cops roommate proving that his wife was cheating. The DA and the judge wouldn't allow it as evidence.

The day he found out that she was cheating, he called her and asked her to come home so they could talk. She went straight to the police. They never had a conversation about it. He hasn't spent a minute alone with her since that day. I talked to him multiple times the day that it happened. He was upset. He couldn't believe that she was cheating. He wanted to talk it out with her. He still wanted the marriage to work. He wasn't mad. Hell, I would have been furious, but he was in shock I think.

Her story changed multiple times. The judge presiding over the restraining order case threw it out because her story was so ridiculously inconsistent. It didn't matter. He had former neighbors willing to testify that they had never seen or heard anything. The judge didn't want to hear it. They were going to convict him no matter what. So now he never gets to own another gun. Can't go hunting. Can't go shooting with friends. All done because a guy who had zero criminal record was fucked over by his wife because she wanted the kid and a new life with her other man.

Great system we have.

Well that could be said for any legal action. People are convicted of murder when they are innocent. If a judge hears the case, and rulings are made, that's how it works. It sucks that it isn't always perfect but that doesn't mean you allow domestic abusers to own guns just in case the judge had it wrong. That's like saying we are going to remove prison as a penalty from murder charges just in case they get it wrong. We try to get it right, and we try to have appeal systems in place for when poor conclusions are reached, but some stuff still slips through the cracks.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well that could be said for any legal action. People are convicted of murder when they are innocent. If a judge hears the case, and rulings are made, that's how it works. It sucks that it isn't always perfect but that doesn't mean you allow domestic abusers to own guns just in case the judge had it wrong. That's like saying we are going to remove prison as a penalty from murder charges just in case they get it wrong. We try to get it right, and we try to have appeal systems in place for when poor conclusions are reached, but some stuff still slips through the cracks.

You're equating a punishment doled out from a trial to the same as automatically losing your rights for the rest of your life. They're not always the same thing, and there's a reason why zero tolerance policies are a horrible idea, no matter whether they're used in schools or in prison sentences. We see people serving life sentences over drug charges because of three strikes laws. Kids getting suspended or expelled because they were attacked by a bully and they merely defended themselves. Zero tolerance is not the way to go. It takes the decisions out of the hands of the judges.

With that said, we take murder trials very seriously. Domestic abuse trials are usually very quick, in many cases they are plead down, and the cities and counties use them as a means to get money. It's a racket and they're abusing it. How often do you see appeals on domestic abuse cases? It's because they threaten to go for the maximum sentence if you try to contest it. Whereas the sentence is usually probation and community service. So most people end up not fighting it because they don't want to serve time.... but they'll never get to own a gun again in their lives.

My point is that domestic abuse is too broad of a term/crime to take away someone's rights for the rest of their life. Do you think that someone who pushes someone away from them deserves to have their rights taken away forever? The entire point of taking guns away from domestic abusers is to protect people who are in danger. When we think of domestic abuse, we think of the guy who beats his wife repeatedly, puts her in the hospital, and threatens to kill her if she leaves him. That's the image that most people think of when we talk about domestic abuse. It should be left up to the judges to determine how much of a threat someone is to society. My friend had zero criminal record before his wife fucked him over. He has had zero problems since. But he lost his constitutional rights because of a zero tolerance policy.

 

[MARIS61]

An investigation by public radio and KING 5 News last year found that prohibited gun buyers are rarely, if ever, investigated and prosecuted in Washington. So far under the new law, 152 attempts to purchase have been referred to police resulting in criminal charges in at least one case.

http://kuow.org/post/washington-gun-dealers-report-1200-denied-purchases-first-5-months-new-law

Just like Obama's DOJ, deliberate non-prosecution of offenders in the hopes they will eventually kill someone with a firearm to push the repeal of 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[MARIS61]

As long as these people have been convicted and not just accused im fine with that.

Washington and Oregon laws apply to the accused, even if not charged with any crime at all.

Any pissed-off spouse or family member, even a petulant child not allowed to play his Gameboy, can drop a dime and start the chain of events which can lead to LEO's and legally-armed citizens killing each other.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Washington and Oregon laws apply to the accused, even if not charged with any crime at all.

Any pissed-off spouse or family member, even a petulant child not allowed to play his Gameboy, can drop a dime and start the chain of events which can lead to LEO's and legally-armed citizens killing each other.

That's why i clarified convicted. As far as i know in America one is supposed to be prosumed innocent until convicted. So if these laws are stopping accused and not convicted then they are unconstitutional.

 

[dviss1]

The domestic abusers part is much too wide sweeping imo.

In our current system, if a woman is in your face screaming at you and you slightly push her back off of you, you're a domestic abuser. No more guns for the rest of your life.

My friend was convicted of domestic abuse against his wife. He wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. He had witnesses willing to testify that he wasn't there. She was cheating with a former cop. He had video evidence from the cops roommate proving that his wife was cheating. The DA and the judge wouldn't allow it as evidence.

The day he found out that she was cheating, he called her and asked her to come home so they could talk. She went straight to the police. They never had a conversation about it. He hasn't spent a minute alone with her since that day. I talked to him multiple times the day that it happened. He was upset. He couldn't believe that she was cheating. He wanted to talk it out with her. He still wanted the marriage to work. He wasn't mad. Hell, I would have been furious, but he was in shock I think.

Her story changed multiple times. The judge presiding over the restraining order case threw it out because her story was so ridiculously inconsistent. It didn't matter. He had former neighbors willing to testify that they had never seen or heard anything. The judge didn't want to hear it. They were going to convict him no matter what. So now he never gets to own another gun. Can't go hunting. Can't go shooting with friends. All done because a guy who had zero criminal record was fucked over by his wife because she wanted the kid and a new life with her other man.

Great system we have.

Sorry but his lawyer must've sucked.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sorry but his lawyer must've sucked.

Maybe. His lawyer used to be the DA in Washington County and when I was on the stand he was asking weird questions that had nothing to do with the case and didn't seem to help my friends situation. I always wondered if maybe he did a dope deal with the DA for one of his other cases.

 

[dviss1]

No likes on this amazing pun? For shame!

I'll admit. I still don't see the pun.

 

[stampedehero]

Since innocent people were slaughtered,became headlines on news outlets, lawmakers realize it is a duty to "do something" or look good pretending they are doing something. The background check actually sorts out nuts from the responsible joes out there. I'm not surprised. I live in NJ where we have a law for every breathing creature.

 

[Further]

D

I'll admit. I still don't see the pun.

domestic means pertaining to the home.
Domestic abusers in the pun mean those who are too involved with things at home.(those who abuse being at home)

So, domestic abusers need to get out more, meaning those who are too involved in home life need to get away from the home.

It’s just a play on the words, but perhaps not the subject matter to joke about,

 

[dviss1]

D

domestic means pertaining to the home.
Domestic abusers in the pun mean those who are too involved with things at home.(those who abuse being at home)

So, domestic abusers need to get out more, meaning those who are too involved in home life need to get away from the home.

It’s just a play on the words, but perhaps not the subject matter to joke about,

 

[Chris Craig]

The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted felons and domestic abusers to have guns. It's why they bothered to fight a war for independence in the first place. I wish you Millennial special snowflake liberals would read a little history.

Didn't they all beat their wives back then

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Didn't they all beat their wives back then

They could have.

 

[MARIS61]

As long as these people have been convicted and not just accused im fine with that.

They haven't even been charged or investigated in most cases.

 

[MARIS61]

The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted felons and domestic abusers to have guns. It's why they bothered to fight a war for independence in the first place. I wish you Millennial special snowflake liberals would read a little history.

Practice what you preach.

Felons lose most citizenship rights, including the right to bear arms.

Women, and slaves, were not citizens of America back then.

Same as nearly every European country at that time.

The Washington and Oregon laws, which were written by Michael Bloomberg who spent nearly $40 million in bribes...er...donations to get them enacted without being presented for a popular vote. Neither will withstand an appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

They haven't even been charged or investigated in most cases.

Then it's unconstitutional and bullshit.

 

[MARIS61]

Then it's unconstitutional and bullshit.

As are nearly all laws passed without a popular vote.

That's why they don't ask us to vote on them, following Obama's example of just doing shit even though it's unwanted by Americans and unConstitutional.

 

[Minstrel]

As are nearly all laws passed without a popular vote.

That's why they don't ask us to vote on them, following Obama's example of just doing shit even though it's unwanted by Americans and unConstitutional.

This guy thinks America only became a representative democracy after and because of Obama and wants other people to learn history.

I'd pay real money for an entire book on American history written by MARIS61.

 

[SlyPokerDog]