Rep. Jamie Pedersen knew from the get-go that it would be an uphill battle. Still, there was hope, he said, that somehow House Democrats could cobble together 50 votes to require background checks for all gun sales.
But in the bitter end, House Bill 1588 came up three votes short, despite an extraordinary full-court press by Speaker Frank Chopp, Gov. Jay Inslee, and even calls to crucial legislators from Gabby Giffords, whose astronaut husband, Mark Kelly, recently bought an assault rifle at a Arizona gun store to demonstrate the cursory nature of most background checks.
“Chopp worked liked a dog. He was crushed that we couldn’t get there,” Pedersen, the bill’s prime sponsor, told Seattle Weekly in an interview yesterday afternoon. “It’s the most disappointed I’ve ever seen him.”
If there is a ray of sunshine, it’s that the measure to expand background checks to private gun sellers came nearer than ever to passing. The bill passed out of committee before Chopp decided against bringing it up for a floor vote, knowing it would be defeated. “It’s been quite a disappointment, but this kind of thing has never even gotten out of committee,” noted the Seattle Democrat.
From the outset, Pedersen figured he’d need three Republican votes. All he got was that of Rep. Mike Hope of Snohomish County, who Pedersen called “courageous.”
Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-Walla Walla, was on board for a time. In fact, she was an original co-sponsor, but was unable to weather the enormous pressure put on her by gun-rights activists, including the NRA.
“I knew we couldn’t get Walsh,” Pedersen added. “That vote was too tough for her, what with the district she’s in. But I did think Linda Kochmar [R-Federal Way] was possible, and she should have been for it, and I think this is going to hurt her in 2014.”
Pedersen, a Yale law graduate elected to the House in 2006, said he and Speaker Chopp were able to get all the Democrats that “were gettable,” which basically left six Democrats—most of them hailing from either heavily Democratic though conservative districts or tough-to-hold swing districts—who would not and could not be budged.
They are: Reps. Brian Blake and Dean Takko, who represent southwest Washington’s 19th District; Kevin Van De Wege, whose 24th District encompasses much of the Olympic Peninsula; 31st District Rep. Christopher Hurst of Snohomish County; Kathy Haigh, whose 35th District is centered in Shelton; and 17th District Rep. Monica Stonier of Vancouver.
The central argument against the bill was probably best summarized by Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, who said, “There were a lot of concerns from people that we were going to criminalize law-abiding citizens.” (To read how an ostensibly legal gun dealer put thousands of guns on the street, see page 10).
On Tuesday night, after it looked as though the bill was off the table, the House Democratic Caucus gave Pedersen a loud ovation.
Democratic consultant Christian Sinderman conceded that the bill’s defeat took some of the wind out of the sails of the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Funded by venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, the Alliance is a new activist group, which Sinderman is advising, that intends to launch a public campaign to pressure lawmakers to pass gun-control legislation. Mandating background checks is priority #1.
Of the defeat, Sinderman says “When you have one narrow interest group defining the debate, it’s difficult to turn that around. . . . We’re going to stay engaged.” Ellis E. Conklin
Will Voters Get Checks Anyway?
To shore up votes for his ill-fated bill, Rep. Jamie Pedersen had hoped the addition of a referendum clause, to put the issue on the ballot in November, might persuade some of the less-dug-in gun-rights advocates on both sides of the aisle to reconsider their opposition.
That effort backfired—and actually caused some background-check supporters to argue that it would be terribly unwise to run a referendum in an off-year, low-turnout election.
“Some said it would be too risky to put it on the ballot, because if it lost, we [the legislature] might never take the issue up again,” Pedersen said.
But it might not be such a crazy idea.
To understand why, listen to David Roland, point person on the issue for the libertarian Freedom Foundation, a strong supporter of gun rights. While raising objections to other bills, like a proposed ban on assault rifles, he tells Seattle Weekly that the background check bill was “far less of a concern. A lot of gun activists are perfectly happy to see background checks.”
Indeed, even the region’s most combative and influential gun activist, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, considered supporting Pedersen’s bill. Dave Workman, editor of the Foundation publication TheGunMag, recalls that he and Gottlieb drove to Olympia for the hearing last month so that Gottlieb could testify against the bill. But after the hearing, he saw Gottlieb and Rep. Mike Hope, the lone Republican to support the bill, in a corner. “They were having an intense conversation,” Workman says.
Afterward, Workman says Gottlieb told him that Hope had asked what bill supporters could do to make the legislation acceptable to gun activists. Gottlieb had some ideas, the most central of which was to remove a state registry of gun owners compiled from background checks.
The registry is what gun activists “are really worried about,” Roland confirms. They may not mind background checks, but they consider a database of their names to be a “significant intrusion.”
Gun owners aren’t the only ones to fear a government registry. Ironically, a proposed registry has also long been a sticking point for marijuana activists—usually on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the gun crowd—as various bills on pot have moved through the legislature.
Ultimately, the failure to work out that issue in the background-check bill played a large part in its demise. It is sure to resurface if an initiative goes on the ballot.
Workman doesn’t discount the possibility that common ground could be found. But even if it isn’t, he doesn’t dismiss the initiative’s chances. “The voting demographics have changed” to become far more liberal since the last time a gun-control initiative was put before the voters in 1997, he says. “We’re one of two states in the country to legalize marijuana. We have gay marriage. We voted twice for Barack Obama. The voters elected Jay Inslee over Rob McKenna.”
Plus, he says, he doesn’t know whether the national gun-rights lobby “wants to throw a few million dollars into Washington state when there’s a lot going on around the country.” Nina Shapiro
Why Government Assistance and Medical Pot Sometimes Mix
Want to buy medical marijuana with your state-issued Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card? If the state Senate has its way, you won’t be able to for long. That’s because on March 12, by a vote of 39-10, the Senate passed Senate Bill 5279, which would add marijuana and medical marijuana to the list of items prohibited from EBT-card purchases—a list that includes alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, bail bonds, tattoos, and body piercings.
Sponsored by Sen. Mike Carrell (R-Lakewood), SB 5279 is being sold as a way to keep state cash benefits intended for “items related to child care,” as The Capitol Record blog put it, from being used for pot. But whether or not you support the idea, this description doesn’t fully tell the tale of how EBT cards work or the implications of the proposed legislation.
Carrell’s point seems sensible enough, but it’s only partially accurate. While the bulk of state and federal assistance doled out via EBT cards is intended for single parents and families, other programs—like the state Aged, Blind, or Disabled Cash Assistance Program—also use the cards to distribute funds. The ABD program provides a maximum monthly cash grant of $197 to Washington residents who meet income and resource requirements and are 65 or older, blind, or have a long-term medical condition that meets federal disability criteria.
In other words, these are folks who could benefit from the use of medical marijuana. But SB 5279 prohibits the purchase of medical marijuana via EBT cards no matter what program the money on the card comes from. Moreover, parents can use cash assistance for a wide array of things: housing, food, transportation, and over-the-counter and prescription drugs, among others.
So why can’t the state allow qualified medical-marijuana patients who happen to be parents to use cash benefits for this legitimate medical purpose—as medical marijuana has been classified under state law since voters approved it in 1998?
Because of the stoner stigma attached to medical pot, of course.
Battling this stigma, and fighting for the medical rights of the poor, is the exact reason that Tacoma’s Sen. Jeannie Darneille pushed for an amendment that would have excluded qualified medical-marijuana patients from SB 5279’s restrictions. “There are all kinds of reasons for people to utilize medical marijuana,” Darneille tells Seattle Weekly. “Even poor people.
“Over the years the legislature has just added more and more ways the EBT can’t be used,” she continues, noting the injustice of preventing a parent receiving cancer treatment or battling pain from obtaining a state-sanctioned treatment option simply based on their economic status.
“This one just goes a little too far,” Darneille says. Matt Driscoll
E
news@seattleweekly.com
