Posted on 11/03/2014 9:13:59 PM PST by WhiskeyX
Reread what you wrote. You’re contradicting yourself into knots, LOL.
“Prevent is the operative clause, the state is prevented from adopting a background check system harsher than federal law.”
How is it protective of the 2nd Amendment rights to authorize the State of Washington through I591 to adopt “a background check system” required by a future “Federal law” adopted by a Federal government dominated by politicians like Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi that is hypothetically harsh enough to virtually confiscate the rights of most citizens to possess and/or transport a firearm?
The “Common Sense” approach to gun control means YOU give up your rights.
The opposition gives up NOTHING as they have nothing to give up to you.
DON’T FALL FOR IT! The more THEY SCREAM the more you are intimidated to give up something just to get them to shut up! BUT THEY WONT! They will demand you give up MORE, MORE, MORE, in the “name” of “common sense”.
“the wording simply states that it’s unlawful for the state to adopt background checks unless required to by federal law.”
WhiskeyX wrote:
If you didn’t want the state law enforcement agencies to adopt background checks, then why do you specifically authorize them to do so on behalf of the Federal Government?
marktwain replies:
Did you read what you wrote? The law does not authorize anything more than is already law. The state can already adopt background checks if required by federal law.
So where is there any *increased* authority?
There isn’t any.
“Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.”
Assume for the sake of discussion you end up having a Federal Government dominated by people like Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi; and they use their domination of the Federal Government to dictate Federal laws with “a uniform national standard” whose draconian effect is to make it virtually impossible for most U.S. Citizens to complete or pass a background check required to qualify for the purchase, possession, transport, or use of a firearm.
In such a case, why would you want to vote Yes to enact I591 with the phrase, “unless a uniform national standard is required,” included in the initiative? Why would we want to include this particular phrase at all?
My supposition is that it is intended to allow people who do not understand the issues well, to vote for something with “background check” in the body that will neuter I-594, while adding significant additional protections to the right to keep and bear arms in Washington State.
Our problem is not with the informed voter. Our problem is with the voter who gets most of their information from the old media.
If we can inform the voters, we win.
If I-594 passes, we are in far worse condition. If I-591 passes, we are better off in some ways, and no worse off in others. If the background check verbage in I-591 allows some low information voters who are uneasy about an 18 page I-594 to vote against it, it is helpful.
To answer your hypothetical. Would you rather the future leftist regime that you hypothesis have I-594 to work off of as base legislation, or I-591?
“To answer your hypothetical. Would you rather the future leftist regime that you hypothesis have I-594 to work off of as base legislation, or I-591?”
No, you vote No on I594 to dispose of that threat. You also vote No on I591 to dispose of the threat it poses by inviting automatic Washington State cooperation in conducting draconian Federal mandated background checks designed to deny most law abiding citizens the legal authority to qualify for firearms purchases and transfers.
Instead, resubmit a future initiative which removes the potentially adverse language:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm. [Removing] “unless a uniform national standard is required.”
I hope we can get to where your proposed initiative would pass. We are moving in that direction.
I’ve decided to vote yes on 591 but not due to anything Don Rickles (unfunny version) said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.