Great Arguments Against I-594

[pianoman9701]

I do understand what you're saying. Absolutely.

[Bob33]

The reason many refuse to give ground or make any compromises is that the 2A has been giving ground for decades, little by little, inch by inch.

This is the same sort of thing that started in NY, NJ, CA. 
1st register, then  background checks, then the Govt passes a law to limit X, then Y.  Suddenly all you are allowed to get is a 9mm revolver that you are not allowed to carry or have loaded outside of your home or a gun range.  And you have to go buy a special permit in advance to buy the gun, and can only buy one gun every 30days.

It just gets to the point were you have to say enough is enough.  Go prosecute the criminals for the laws they are ALREADY BREAKING and leave the legal gun owners alone.  Be nice if we could initiate lawsuits for false advertising and lying during campaigns too, some of the adds I have seen are just blatant.

And as you have pointed out, that approach does not appear to be working well.

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, the criminals that are prohibited from selling to, can just fall back on the 5th for the reason for not using background checks since it would be self incriminating.  So only the law abiding folks would likely even get in trouble if they made a mistake with a sale/transfer. 

[lamrith]

I do understand what you're saying. Absolutely.

Fyi- I am like you, wa Id&cpl required, even for rifles.  Just as a means for trying to weed out prohibited people.

[Windwalker]

 
 It is well known that murder/theft/burglary/rape is against the law..yet it still happens-

The premise suggests endorsing yet another law to dictate the legality of buying a gun - allegedly sifts out the riff raff -

That's already being done with a background check when buying a gun... albeit doesn't address a micro law to individuals purchasing via the "loophole". I highly doubt the majority of law abiding citizens would sell to a criminal knowingly. Producing a cpl in some instances wouldn't erase the niggling of doubt with some private sales. I agree, insisting on a cpl or proof of eligibility would be in the spirit of all that is good. That said, I wouldn't endorse a mandate.
I'd hazard to guess that would essentially cleave off the  majority of women and 18 - 20 year olds.

The Ten commandments address the generalities better than volumes of dissertations on intricate meddling laws ever will.

The notion a segment of our crumbling society is staring into the abyss they created demanding an answer is just sad - societal maintenance would be easy if kept up- like any devise, once worn to disrepair the gaps show up.
We're seeing the effects of back filling with empty ideas and no bolstering to strengthen the fabric of family bonds or build a nation - honesty, integrity, service and empathy aren't held in the same high esteem.
Whittling away at mental services and an anything goes attitude has further enabled miscreants.
   
Throwing a bone to those without the facilities to comprehend there is no magic wand to rid the world of evil, is enabling more dysfunction.

"Good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
    - Plato

Educating those who care to listen is a good way to start. And hold the line until we can harvest more pockets of good honest hard working folks of high moral character that understand cause and effects.
 
"I'm afraid of guns"

        "Why?"

   "They can kill you"

"So why aren't you afraid
     of your car?"

"I learned to drive it"

       "Exactly".....

[Fl0und3rz]

I compiled a note to send to a sibling, who being in the King County cocoon, will not have received any contrary viewpoints.  Please consider sending it to others who might be on the fence.

Apologies to those from whom I have wholesale copied material without credit (mainly riverrat).

I suspect that you have little time to research issues on the ballot.  As such, I offer my thoughts on these pending and controversial initiatives.


Please consider voting no on I-594.

While seeming to be about the good goals of preventing domestic violence and keeping guns out of the hands of felons, dishonestly, it does so much more while, in reality, there is little to support the promise that it would achieve its goals.

Initiative 594 is poorly written, does not comply with the Federal laws governing Federal Firearms Licensees, places an unwarranted, unreasonable and unenforceable burden upon only law abiding citizens, and will result in the inadvertent criminalization of both citizens and law enforcement officers.

As a concrete example, I-594 requires background checks for any "transfer," defined as "the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans."  For instance, I could not take my nieces and nephews out to the National forest where we camp, and (presuming your blessing and supervision) instruct them in proper and safe firearm handling, without first conducting a background check (on children?), and then they could not hand the firearm back to me, without me then undergoing another background check.  Each transfer requires a trip to a firearms dealer, payment of a $25+ fee, PRIOR to the transfer.  Violation of this provision of I-594 would make me and them guilty of a misdemeanor, and the scenario I provide would make us guilty of a felony.

As another concrete example, the tragedies involving Gabby Giffords, Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, would not have been prevented by these additional background checks.  Loughner (Giffords' shooter) and Holmes (Aurora CO theater shooter) both passed background checks, the types of which I-594 would require, and Lanza (of Newtown, CT) killed his own mother to obtain the weapons for his acts.  Stunningly, I-594, addresses nothing regarding mental health issues, which were common to these high profile cases.  That is, contrary to TV ads and claims otherwise, I-594 will do nothing to prevent any of these types of attacks.

In Summary, I-594 will:
• Not improve public safety because it fails to address criminal possession and use of firearms, or the access to firearms by the mentally ill,
• Engender disrespect for the law by re-defining ordinary, safe recreational and shooting behaviors as crimes; the predictable result will be massive non-compliance,
• Divert scarce law enforcement resources to the tracking, policing, prosecution and incarceration of ordinary good citizens who merely engage in the sharing, trading or private sale of firearms, (26 of 39 County Sheriffs oppose I-594)
• Damage existing firearm safety and hunting safety training programs by preventing the temporary transfer of firearms among trainers and students,
• Create criminal penalties, up to Class C felonies, for recreational sharing of firearms, temporary loan of firearms and many other ordinary non-criminal activities,
• Register all firearms which are temporarily transferred, not just those sold, thus creating a vast firearm registry in the State Department of Licensing which largely duplicates existing federally required record keeping. This registry must accommodate millions of temporary transfers each year at huge expense to the State in computer systems, employees and facilities; the multi-million dollar cost of this registry will be borne by the taxpayers with no public safety benefit.


Please consider voting yes on I-591.

I-591 preserves existing constitutional and legal protections for citizen firearm ownership. Furthermore, I-591 provides for background check uniformity and compliance with current and future Federal firearm background check laws, while allowing Washington laws to change if, or when, Federal standards change. 591 does not reverse any existing background check laws.

[huntnphool]

I compiled a note to send to a sibling, who being in the King County cocoon, will not have received any contrary viewpoints.  Please consider sending it to others who might be on the fence.

Apologies to those from whom I have wholesale copied material without credit (mainly riverrat).

I suspect that you have little time to research issues on the ballot.  As such, I offer my thoughts on these pending and controversial initiatives.


Please consider voting no on I-594.

While seeming to be about the good goals of preventing domestic violence and keeping guns out of the hands of felons, dishonestly, it does so much more while, in reality, there is little to support the promise that it would achieve its goals.

Initiative 594 is poorly written, does not comply with the Federal laws governing Federal Firearms Licensees, places an unwarranted, unreasonable and unenforceable burden upon only law abiding citizens, and will result in the inadvertent criminalization of both citizens and law enforcement officers.

As a concrete example, I-594 requires background checks for any "transfer," defined as "the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans."  For instance, I could not take my nieces and nephews out to the National forest where we camp, and (presuming your blessing and supervision) instruct them in proper and safe firearm handling, without first conducting a background check (on children?), and then they could not hand the firearm back to me, without me then undergoing another background check.  Each transfer requires a trip to a firearms dealer, payment of a $25+ fee, PRIOR to the transfer.  Violation of this provision of I-594 would make me and them guilty of a misdemeanor, and the scenario I provide would make us guilty of a felony.

As another concrete example, the tragedies involving Gabby Giffords, Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, would not have been prevented by these additional background checks.  Loughner (Giffords' shooter) and Holmes (Aurora CO theater shooter) both passed background checks, the types of which I-594 would require, and Lanza (of Newtown, CT) killed his own mother to obtain the weapons for his acts.  Stunningly, I-594, addresses nothing regarding mental health issues, which were common to these high profile cases.  That is, contrary to TV ads and claims otherwise, I-594 will do nothing to prevent any of these types of attacks.

In Summary, I-594 will:
• Not improve public safety because it fails to address criminal possession and use of firearms, or the access to firearms by the mentally ill,
• Engender disrespect for the law by re-defining ordinary, safe recreational and shooting behaviors as crimes; the predictable result will be massive non-compliance,
• Divert scarce law enforcement resources to the tracking, policing, prosecution and incarceration of ordinary good citizens who merely engage in the sharing, trading or private sale of firearms, (26 of 39 County Sheriffs oppose I-594)
• Damage existing firearm safety and hunting safety training programs by preventing the temporary transfer of firearms among trainers and students,
• Create criminal penalties, up to Class C felonies, for recreational sharing of firearms, temporary loan of firearms and many other ordinary non-criminal activities,
• Register all firearms which are temporarily transferred, not just those sold, thus creating a vast firearm registry in the State Department of Licensing which largely duplicates existing federally required record keeping. This registry must accommodate millions of temporary transfers each year at huge expense to the State in computer systems, employees and facilities; the multi-million dollar cost of this registry will be borne by the taxpayers with no public safety benefit.


Please consider voting yes on I-591.

I-591 preserves existing constitutional and legal protections for citizen firearm ownership. Furthermore, I-591 provides for background check uniformity and compliance with current and future Federal firearm background check laws, while allowing Washington laws to change if, or when, Federal standards change. 591 does not reverse any existing background check laws.

 Well done.

[rim_runner]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

If he shows up and asks to take it for a test drive, do you ask to see his Drivers License and insurance or just hand him the keys?

IMHO, it's that kind of attitude, where gun owners don't seem to want to take any responsibility, claiming willful ignorance in the name of freedom and rights, that results in those rights being taken away. With rights comes responsibility, and when that responsibility is lacking, society/the government comes in and tries to legislate it, which is a very messy solution. 

If he has money, he gets the keys.  Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver?  After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.

Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?

There's a big difference between car ownership and gun ownership. First, one's a right and the other isn't. Secondly, if you sell a firearm to a felon, you can lose your rights. If your sell a car to a felon, you don't lose anything. Prudence might dictate that we create a law which doesn't infringe on our rights but which does take into account that there are definitely people who shouldn't own firearms. Not only should we push for stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, but we should do what we can to make it tougher for criminals to get hold of our guns. I ask for a CPL. If you think gun ownership is your right and you don't need a CPL, then you won't be buying any guns from me. If there were a way i could check someone out online before selling them a firearm, I would because gun ownership is not only a right, it comes with responsibilities. Don't leave them around kids. Don't point them at things you don't want to destroy. And don't sell them to bad people.

If we continue to give nothing, our support will dwindle and we'll eventually lose our rights. Although I see I-594 for what it is - a gun grab - I also see that the people on the fence want to know if there's anything we're willing to agree with regarding the sale of firearms and the reasonable wish to make it harder for criminals to procure them.

you made some very good points there.