Wednesday’s hearing by the Senate Law and Justice Committee didn’t have the same “star power” as Tuesday’s House hearing without former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and former astronaut Mark Kelly to speak in favor of Initiative 594. But it did feature more questions by legislators of the two initiatives sponsors and sparked a debate over what it means to “transfer” a firearm. . .
To read the rest of this item, or to comment, continue inside the blog.
… Opponents like Brian Judy of the National Rifle Association said that puts severe restrictions on parents lending firearms to their adult children to use when the parent isn’t around, or one person trying out another person’s weapon at a firing range. Rebecca Johnson, a supporter of I-594, said the proposal doesn’t change state hunting laws and that’s not the kind of transfers in the law.
I-594 would keep dangerous people from buying guns, Cheryl Stumbo, the victim of a shooting rampage in Seattle and the chief sponsor of the initiative. But dangerous people are likely to buy guns on the black market, not from people who will submit them to background checks, Judy said.
I-594 infringes on the federal and state constitutional guarantees to bear arms, said Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, asked if current background checks, which are required when buying a gun from a dealer, violate the 2nd Amendment. When Gottlieb said they probably did not, and Pederson suggested expanding them to private sales probably wouldn’t either; Gottlieb said the fact that police could keep a record of the private transaction was an addition to current law that was troubling.
Gottlieb is the sponsor of I-591, which would only allow the state to expand background checks if a new federal standard was approved and bans unlawful confiscations. Have there been any unlawful confiscation of handguns that are registered, Pedersen asked. “To my knowledge, we haven’t per se,” Gottlieb said, but under the state’s emergency powers laws that could happen if the governor declared an emergency, such as Louisiana did when Hurricane Katrina hit.
Committee Chairman Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, said he had no plans to ask the panel to vote whether to send either initiative to the full Senate for consideration. After conversations with House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, whose committee held Tuesday’s hearing, he suspects the no action in the other chamber, either.
“The initiative we might be able to pass in the Senate can’t pass the House, and the initiative the House might pass wouldn’t pass the Senate,” Padden said.
That means under state law both initiatives will be up to voters to decide in November.