City Council Will Discuss Supporting Increased Gun Sale Background Check Requirements

The Tacoma City Council is scheduled to take up what could be a pretty controversial topic. A resolution in support of Washington State Initiative 594 appears on the agenda for next week's Council meeting.

A resolution expressing support for the passage of Initiative Measure No. 594 submitted for the November 4, 2014 General Election which reads as follows:


Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers. This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No [Mayor Strickland]

The resolution, put forward by Mayor Strickland, and sponsored by Deputy Mayor Woodards and Council Members Mello and Walker, would give the City Council's support to the statewide initiative requiring background checks for all gun sales in the state.

Currently background checks are federally required for sales by firearms dealers, but allows for the dealer to complete the sale if the background check is not returned within three business days. Washington state law only requires background checks for the sale of pistols, and only if the seller is a firearms dealer. The sale is also allowed to proceed if the results of the background check don't come back within five business days.

I-594 would apply the Washington state requirements for firearm sales by licensed dealers to all firearms sales where at least one of the parties is in Washington. This would include sales and transfers at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed private individuals, and would apply to all firearms, not just pistols.

The City has declared next week (September 22 through 26) to be "Gun SafeT Week," and is asking all Tacoma gun owners to be safe in their use and storage of their weapons. You can expect to start seeing gun safety ads on posters, buses, and television. There will be events all week, including a community discussion on Wednesday.

Do you want to help the folks at Exit133 pay our bills and keep up with of all things Tacoma? Do you want to see even more coverage? Exit133 has always been free to read and comment, and it will stay that way. However, over the years, readers have contributed to the bank account to help us keep up our coverage of goings-on around town. Contribute and this message disappears!

Support Exit133



People wake up, registration always leads to confiscation.  Confiscation to democide.  The largest cause of death in the last 100 years.  Go to ballisticburial dot com and get ready you will need this.

September 19, 2014 at 3:05 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

5 | 5


Cardiovascular Disease is the largest cause of death by far and so are other many other medical conditions/diseases.

September 25, 2014 at 7:21 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

3 | 1

Tim Smith

You can’t change criminal behavior by criminalizing lawful behavior. 594 is punitive to lawful firearms owners. Proponents want you to “pass it so you can find out what’s in it.” Before you vote, consult your attorney to see how it criminalizes your behavior. Want to lend your sister-in-law a gun to protect herself? Want to loan your adult sons shotguns to go hunting? 594 makes you a criminal! A police officer who loans a personal firearm to a fellow officer would face criminal prosecution. Virtually every temporary transfer of a handgun under the provisions of I-594 is subject to dealer regulation and completion of the Pistol Transfer Application, a copy of which RCW 9.41.110(9) requires be sent to the Department of Licensing for inclusion in the state database of law-abiding handgun owners.
The council SHOULD examine the depth and nature of their Police Dept violation of CFR 28. That would be a good discussion.

September 20, 2014 at 5:13 am / Reply / Quote and reply

5 | 5

wayne holt

Even if you support background checks this flawed initiative goes way beyond background checks. If they wanted to expand background checks to private sales they could do that with a clear and concise document. Instead they have 18 pages of confusion. The issues with transfers are one of the weaknesses of this initiative. Not only does this go way beyond what the supporters describe it as, it goes beyond the federal laws are. I feel that the supporters have been less than honest with the public about what is in this initiative. Everyone should read the entire text of I 594 before they make their decision.

September 20, 2014 at 8:50 am / Reply / Quote and reply

3 | 5


Seems like commenters think that loaning your gun out to friends and relatives is considered responsible gun ownership.  Scary.

September 20, 2014 at 1:53 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

6 | 3



There are a lot of people who have been raised in families that teach responsibility and they also chose friends who are worthy of being trusted.  If you cannot relate to that it says a lot about what kind of family you were rased in and even more about the company you keep.

September 20, 2014 at 2:04 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

7 | 7


You’re assuming I’m talking about trust.  I am not necessarily.  I’m mainly talking about the fact that if someone needs your gun in a fast enough manner as to skirt the background check and training, then they shouldn’t have a gun. 
Why is it ok to loan someone a dangerous object like a gun without license?  I wouldn’t loan out a helicopter, plane, race car, sword, or any other dangerous object to someone untrained and unwilling to try and obtain one legally and ethically.  Why a gun?

September 20, 2014 at 2:21 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

6 | 5


Just exactly what is unethical to ask a cousin to borrow a hunting rifle?  Why should it be illegal for this transaction to take place?

Ya’ wanna’ know something, I bet more mayhem happens with borrowed automobiles than happens with borrowed firearms.  I had Mustang Mach 1, Boss 302 and Mercury Cyclones when I was in my 20’s, if a 16 year old had asked to borrow one   ...I would have said “No F******g Way.”  I owned my first Mach 1 hen I was 17, but I bought it.  I also damn near killed myself driving those cars, but I would never in a hundred years have turned over the keys to a 16 year old. 

Today a man can walk into Titus Will and buy a Shelby Mustang that would have eaten any of my very fast mustangs for breakfast and corner like there is no tomorrow.  What that means is that when they get away from you they are going MUCH faster. 

Are you also willing to propose a backgroung check before you turn over the key to a Prius to a relative?  How about a Camaro?  How about if I want the handy man to use my F150 that has 400 HP and 440 Ft Lbs of torque to make a dump run?  That truck has more horse power out of an EcoBoost six cylinder than any of the fore mentioned Mustangs and the 428 Cobra Jet Cyclone had from the factory and it weighs ~6,000 lbs too.  That combination means that the handyman could hit 130 mph in a three ton truck and it is just a normal everyday truck that anyone who tows a heavy trailer might own.  Even, given that it is the most fuel efficient F150 other than a base six, it is a truck any family might own. 

So do we demand a background check, or is the fact that you sixteen year old has a license and can legally drive make this a non starter?  OK, so if a car has over a certain horse power maybe that is where we draw the line.  But consider that a 2,000 lb compact passenger car comes with a 185 HP motor in it and could eat my F150 for breakfast off the line because it has a power/weight ratio that is a third greater.  I could not loan that compact passenger car to my 90 year old mother because some outside party has decided that doing so puts the community at an unacceptable risk because it is just too dangerous?

So where does it end?  I will bet you whatever you want to bet that more deaths and injuries have been caused by 80 plus year old drivers driving borrowed and rented cars with a higher power to weight ratio than a 1970 Mach 1 Mustang had from the factory than by all the begged, borrowed and….

...well I won’t say stolen firearms.  So you want government to protect our comunity from what you see as an unacceptable risk.  Right?  Well here is where your faith in a “government” solution really falls apart.  A couple years ago a Daffodil Princess had a chrome plated and rindstone encrusted tiara stolen.  That was front page news in The News Buffoon and law enforcement made that cause number one.  The tiara was recovered and the community was saved from some scallywag beating an innocent to death with it.

You government put finding freebooters that are stealing hundreds of thousands in property including firearms THAT ARE IN THE HANDS OF KNOWN bad actors aside to track down a man that stole a pot metal tiara, AND you think they are concerned about your safety.

You have to know that the number of guns that lawfully change hands that are misused in any way shrinks to insignificant when compared to firearms that are stolen and change hands in a drug den.  But you are comfortable having the police prove to the public that they are competent to locate and arrest a Goddamned car prowler who stole a tiara while taking time away from finding and prosecuting firearms thieves.

So what legislation would I support?  You steal a firearm, you go to prison for ten years without possibility of of parole.  Period.  Full stop.  You knowingly buy a firearm, or trade drugs for same and it is also ten years and if you have multiples from multiple burglaries that is evidence enough that you are trading in stolen firearms.  Got it?  It ain’t all that difficult to get your mind around IF your cause is making this community safer. 

No plea bargaining it away by liberal minded prosecutors.  No nothing.  You get caught with a firearm that does not legally belong in your possession according to the laws already on the books and you and you are HISTORY.  No if’s, and’s or but’s about it.             


September 20, 2014 at 10:27 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

5 | 6


I had a cousin move here about twenty years ago and he had an opportunity to go elk hunting, but didn’t have a rifle.  I loaned him a Remington 30-06 and he left to go hinting with his boss the next morning and he returned it two weeks later along with a couple rolls of summer sausage. 

As for whether or not he had a hunting license, I assume he did or intended to get license and tags.  I trusted that he wasn’t going out poaching.  As far as my loaning him the rifle, that was my business and not yours or anybody else’s.

September 20, 2014 at 3:43 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

6 | 6


Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the manufacture and distribution of arms is a significant economic driver.

Likewise true, sometimes bad things happen to good Tacoman’s.

Let modern science and technology record the confused intuitions of uncivil servants in favor of capitalism under an authoritarian regime.

September 22, 2014 at 9:26 am / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

Tim Smith

For sure this Mayor and council will continue their pattern of undermining and subverting the Bill of Rights. Long ago suppressed 1st amendment activities, continue to blow holes in the 4th and 5th amendments with pervasive use of STINGER II and LARIAT, and now the 2nd and 10th amendments get put in the shredder. Bravo Tacoma!

September 22, 2014 at 4:16 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

2 | 3

Potentially Related Articles