Will Washington Voters Expand Gun Background Checks—And Ban Them?

Oct. 24, 2014, 1 a.m.

Alan Got­tlieb is an un­usu­al-look­ing gun-rights act­iv­ist. With a bow tie, mus­tache, and glasses that can po­litely be de­scribed as nerdy, the 67-year-old Bel­levue, Wash­ing­ton, res­id­ent evokes Groucho Marx more than Ted Nu­gent. He may also prove to be an un­usu­ally shrewd ad­voc­ate for his cause: The long­time con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ist has figured out how to use Wash­ing­ton state’s cit­izen-sponsored ini­ti­at­ive pro­cess as a weapon against an ex­pan­ded-back­ground-check law.

(Mitch Blunt)The story began earli­er this year, when Ini­ti­at­ive 594 made it onto Wash­ing­ton’s fall bal­lot. The meas­ure would man­date back­ground checks as a con­di­tion of most gun pur­chases and trans­fers in the state (with ex­cep­tions for weapon trans­fers with­in fam­il­ies and pur­chases in­volving an­tique guns). Its main goal is “clos­ing the gun-show loop­hole,” says Geoff Pot­ter, com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or for the Wash­ing­ton Al­li­ance for Gun Re­spons­ib­il­ity, the group spear­head­ing the ef­fort. The meas­ure has drawn sup­port in the form of big money—more than $9 mil­lion so far—from the likes of loc­al plu­to­crats Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Paul Al­len, as well as out-of-state bil­lion­aires such as Mi­chael Bloomberg. Most of the money be­hind 594 “has come from just six in­di­vidu­als,” says Got­tlieb. (Pot­ter, for his part, points out that the cam­paign has some 8,000 in­di­vidu­al donors.)

In re­sponse to 594, Got­tlieb—work­ing un­der the aus­pices of the Cit­izens Com­mit­tee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms—began to pro­mote his own meas­ure, Ini­ti­at­ive 591. It would pro­hib­it the state “from re­quir­ing back­ground checks on fire­arm re­cip­i­ents un­less a uni­form na­tion­al stand­ard is re­quired.” In oth­er words, un­less the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment man­dates ex­pan­ded back­ground checks—highly un­likely in the cur­rent polit­ic­al cli­mate—the state of Wash­ing­ton would not be al­lowed to do so. Ini­ti­at­ive 591 would also ban “gov­ern­ment agen­cies from con­fis­cat­ing guns or oth­er fire­arms from cit­izens without due pro­cess.”

This past spring, it looked like both meas­ures, which stand as sep­ar­ate yes-or-no bal­lot is­sues, would pass—cre­at­ing two en­tirely con­tra­dict­ory laws. And al­though a mid-Oc­to­ber poll by El­way Re­search in Seattle found that sup­port for 591 had fallen be­low 51 per­cent, while 60 per­cent of re­spond­ents backed 594, that out­come re­mains a pos­sib­il­ity; the poll sur­veyed re­gistered rather than likely voters, so high turnout among con­ser­vat­ives could change the equa­tion.

What would hap­pen then? “We have no stat­ute or case law deal­ing on rival ini­ti­at­ives passing in the same elec­tion, so it would be up to the Le­gis­lature or “… the courts to re­solve,” says Dave Am­mons, com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or for Wash­ing­ton’s Sec­ret­ary of State’s Of­fice. If the mat­ter does wind up in court, he says, judges could re­turn it to state law­makers, who could “amend, ab­ol­ish, har­mon­ize, or pick a win­ner by a two-thirds vote of both cham­bers.”

That’s what Got­tlieb is bank­ing on. In­deed, that’s been cent­ral to his plan all along, he tells me. Wash­ing­ton’s Le­gis­lature has here­to­fore de­clined to man­date the kind of ex­pans­ive back­ground-check re­quire­ments that Ini­ti­at­ive 594 sup­port­ers want. And with the state Sen­ate gov­erned by Re­pub­lic­ans—who may also pick up seats this Novem­ber—there’s no good reas­on to think they’re go­ing to do so now. So even if 60 per­cent of Wash­ing­ton voters (or more) opt to sup­port Ini­ti­at­ive 594, a simple ma­jor­ity for 591 could carry the day by en­sur­ing that the is­sue gets re­turned to the state House. “If they both pass, the courts will hope­fully make the Le­gis­lature re­solve the con­flict,” Got­tlieb says.

Pot­ter says that if both ini­ti­at­ives suc­ceed, it will be be­cause 591’s back­ers have been sow­ing “con­fu­sion” by rais­ing the specter of “gun con­fis­ca­tion,” even though no gun has ever been seized without due pro­cess in Wash­ing­ton’s his­tory. There may be some mer­it to the “con­fu­sion” ar­gu­ment: In a twist that H.L. Menck­en would ap­pre­ci­ate, 22 per­cent of voters sup­port both ini­ti­at­ives. Got­tlieb coun­ters that people who sup­port both meas­ures “are con­flic­ted—not con­fused. They sup­port back­ground checks but think I 594 goes too far by not al­low­ing tem­por­ary loans to friends and most fam­ily mem­bers. In ad­di­tion, [people worry] that it is an un­fun­ded man­date.”

So far, the Na­tion­al Rifle As­so­ci­ation, which is act­ively fund­ing a “No on 594” cam­paign, has been strangely si­lent on Ini­ti­at­ive 591—much to the chag­rin of Got­tlieb and his sup­port­ers. In con­trast to their well-cap­it­al­ized coun­ter­parts, 591’s back­ers have raised a mere $1.7 mil­lion. Still, Got­tlieb says, “I think we’re very smart in do­ing this “… it was the only lo­gic­al way of win­ning this, es­pe­cially con­sid­er­ing they had got­ten so much money from those fat cats.” The les­son he’d like to teach the op­pos­i­tion? Don’t bring your wal­let to a gun fight.

What We're Following See More »
$19B INCLUDES NO IMMIGRATION-RELATED MONEY
Congress, White House Reach Disaster Aid Deal
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
OFFERED $16M IN LOANS FOR ADMINISTRATION JOB
Banker Indicted in New York for Bribery Scheme with Manafort
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
ANOTHER FIVE YEARS
Modi Wins Reelection as India's PM
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS
FAMILY WILL JOIN HIM
Trump Headed to UK Next Month
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
FEDERAL JUDGE WON'T BLOCK SUBPOENA OF BANK RECORDS
Trump Loses in Court Again
1 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login