Barely two weeks after Washington State voters approved Initiative 594 -- a measure the NRA warned was “deeply flawed” -- our predicted consequences are beginning to emerge.
Under I-594’s restrictive language, a person simply handing his or her
firearm to another is presumptively required to broker this “transfer”
through a gun dealer. This also necessitates the accompanying
background check, fee, paperwork, taxes and, in the case of a handgun,
state registration.
Proponents of the initiative had assured
voters that fears of this overreach were exaggerated. Prior to the vote
on I-594, Geoff Potter, spokesman for 1-594 proponents Washington
Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said I-594 “simply applies the current system of background checks to all sales.”
As recounted in a Washington State news report,
however, the Lynden Pioneer Museum has opted to pull eleven loaned WWII
rifles currently on display and return these firearms to their
collector owners before the “transfer” requirement in I-594 takes effect
next month. The reason? The law contains no exemptions for firearms
loaned for museum displays, or loaned for similar educational or
cultural institution study or uses. Once the law takes effect, the
firearms could not be returned to their owners without the mandatory
background checks and all the logistics and expenses that entails.
The museum director in Washington came to this decision reluctantly but
unavoidably. “I read through the law about 10 different times looking
for a loophole,” he said. He found none. Unfortunately, there is no
guidance at the state level because Washington State Attorney General
Bob Ferguson has reportedly not formed an opinion
about I-594, and no authoritative interpretation of the initiative is
available to the public, apart from the text of I-594 itself. In the
meantime, the museum’s attorney has stated he would welcome assurances
from the state that it would not enforce the law to the detriment of the
museum or the owners of the firearms on display. To date, however, no
such assurances have been forthcoming.
For his part, Geoff Potter, according to the Associated Press, now
states that the museum scenario “is clearly not what was concerned when
I-594 was designed,” and added, "You can't craft every possibility into
every law." The fact that advocates of I-594 ignored warnings by NRA
and others of the measure’s overreach, however, tells a different
story. These consequences can hardly be considered unforeseen, and
perhaps, unintended. While even the staunchest supporters of the law do
not appear to be arguing that the museum mishap somehow promotes public
safety, it does serve their overarching goal of marginalizing the role
of firearms in American life and history.
While we await news
of other embarrassing and counterproductive consequences of the law,
what is already obvious is that this poorly thought-out and badly
drafted law goes too far, and will disproportionately, unnecessarily and
unfairly burden law-abiding firearm owners.
Supporters of
I-594 have indicated they will use the momentum from the Washington
State vote to pursue similar “background check” campaigns in other
states, including Nevada and Oregon. Yet if I-594 in Washington is good
for anything, it is to painfully illustrate how the gun-control agenda
leads to the chilling of innocent conduct, potentially creates criminals
out of decent people, requires the willful suppression of reason and
reality, and has little to do with public safety. Above all, it
counsels that I-594 is a bad decision to be corrected, not one to be
replicated in other states.
No comments:
Post a Comment