The dishonest anti-gun organizations won't tell you.
The
Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) talks a lot about how
Initiative 594 will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What they
don’t report is that Initiative 594 is not aimed at criminals who, by
definition, do not obey the law.
I-594 adds a ten day waiting period to delay acquiring a firearm (Section 4, 2). The weight of 594 falls on the law-abiding citizen.
I-594 would not be
an effective crime deterrent and would only impose heavy burdens and
legal hurdles for law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their Second
Amendment rights.
The reality is that criminals will still
acquire firearms where they do now: the black market, straw purchasers,
theft and illicit sources such as drug dealers. Criminals are criminals -- I 594 does not discriminate between the law abiding and the criminals.
Law
enforcement resources, however, will be diverted by I-594 to doing
background checks on law-abiding, responsible gun owners who simply want
to gift, loan, share and borrow firearms.
The "Gifting" Rules Intended to Confuse Voters
WAGR
says that if I-594 is enacted, you would still be able to “gift” a
firearm to an immediate family member without going through a background
check. That is, in fact, one of the few honest claims they make about
I-594.
However, what WAGR doesn’t tell you is that, in
virtually all other cases, you would be committing a gross misdemeanor
if you were to simply hand a firearm to an immediate family member or
close, personal friend unless you broker the "transfer" through a dealer (I-594, section 2, part 25, new definitions),
complete the government paperwork, pay the fees, subject the transfer to
Washington State Use Tax (I-594, section 11) and, in the case of handguns, have the
transferee added to the state registration database of law-abiding
handgun owners.
Bureaucratic Burdens
WAGR
is NOT honest about the extent to which law-abiding citizens will be
impacted by their proposed 18-page monstrosity of bureaucracy,
regulation taxation and state record keeping. They claim that I-594
regulates private firearm “sales” and contains “reasonable” exemptions.
In reality, I-594 regulates all firearm “transfers” and the
exemptions are so narrow and limited that, in most cases, they will not
apply.
Let's take a look at their proposed language:
Again, I-594 regulates private firearm transfers and defines “transfer”
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. (I-594, section 2, 25)” A few minutes spent with Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary will clarify that “intended” means “intentional,”
and “deliver” means “to hand over.”
So, if you intentionally
hand over a firearm to another person, you have just committed a gross
misdemeanor under the provisions of I-594 (or a felony for a second
occasion).
What might constitute an “unintentional”
transfer? Well, someone stealing your firearm would certainly be a
transfer you did not intend. But that would not be covered by I-594
(see the first paragraph for the full ironic effect).
A Lesson in Hunting Under Initiative 594
So,
yes, as WAGR boasts about their exemptions, a father could “gift” a
shotgun to his son. But if Dad wanted to borrow the shotgun back from
his son to use for a weekend hunting trip, that transfer would be
subject to the I-594 bureaucracy. And, for Dad to return the shotgun
to his son, it is back to the dealer to go through the whole process
again!
While WAGR claims there is an exemption for hunting, it is unworkably narrow [I-594, section 4, f; (v)].
If
you are out hunting with your Dad or lifelong friend and his firearm
malfunctions, you could loan them a spare as long as they only possess
it where hunting is legal. But, as described before, you could not loan
them a firearm to take on a trip without you.
Further,
under the “while hunting” exemption, here's what happens when they cross a
road (from which hunting is illegal). Either you carry the
firearm across the road for them or
you have just committed a gross
misdemeanor.
Wide-Ranging Criminalization of Firearm Transfers
There
is an exemption for the temporary transfer of a firearm “at an
established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the
jurisdiction in which such range is located [ I-594, section 4, (f)]." By the way, Does anyone know of any shooting ranges "authorized by the governing body of the
jurisdiction" in Washington State?
While this
exemption allows you to loan your firearm to a family member or friend
to shoot at an authorized range, you would become a criminal if you make
the same loan while target shooting on public land.
When
this was pointed out to WAGR Spokesperson
Cheryl Stumbo during debate,
her response was that you shouldn’t be shooting on public land anyway
because it is not safe and that, family shooting trips on public land
are “one in a million…extreme hypothetical examples. If you want to go
on public land to shoot guns, go hunting.” (
Click Here to Watch the Full Debate)That should give you an idea where the proponents of I-594 are
headed!
Age is Everything
One
final example of the deeply flawed provisions of Initiative 594: -- There
is another exemption for the temporary transfer of a firearm to a
person who is under 18 years of age while under the direct supervision
of a responsible adult. So, if you are out shooting on public land with
your 17-year old daughter, you can hand over your firearm for her to
shoot.
But next week in the same location, after celebrating
her 18th birthday, you can no longer allow her to handle your firearm
without brokering the transfer through a licensed firearms dealer. She is adult; "bona fide" gifts are allowed, not temporary loans [I 594, section 4, (a)].
But WAGR is apparently okay with that because
they believe you shouldn't be shooting on public land anyway (You have to play the video).
For
more information about the harsh realities of Initiative 594 and why
Washingtonians must Vote No on this November's ballot, please visit and
share with your friends, family and fellow Second Amendment supporters
our website
www.VoteNo594.com.
Much text is supplied by the
National Rifle Association, a grassroots organization of 5 million gun owners.
The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility is maintained by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, with
one million dollars donated by Bill Gates.
Which organization more closely represents your interests?
