“I fear 591 will pass as a sort of compromise with the much worse 594. If it does Washingtonians will be surrendering their right to control their own gun ownership policies.”
Dear God, you can’t really have misinterpreted that ballot initiative that badly.
591 doesn’t surrender anything. It does not make the state somehow, magically, MORE subject to federal gun control. It doesn’t surrender any rights, it in fact safeguards them as it would prevent this Bloomberg nonsense from being passed in this state in future.
“...unless a uniform national standard is required.” Is wording that would ONLY ensure that this law DOES NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW THE MOMENT IT IS PASSED. That wording does not in any way, shape or form imply any more requirement to follow federal law than already exists. We already follow MANDATORY federal law regarding background checks from licensed gun dealers, and without that wording the law could potentially make it VERY difficult for lawful firearm sales to continue in this state.
As far as surrendering rights to Congress, I am also at a loss as to how anyone could believe that. As a resident of the United States, you’re subject to federal law, period. No state law can change that. Around the middle of the 19th century a few states tried, but that particular issue was bloodily settled. So, barring a new round of secession, you’ll still be subject to federal law. The wording referenced up there merely prevents the state from passing laws stricter than what you’re already subject to, which is a good thing.
591 is pure, 100% gun rights, and I’m at a complete loss as to how anyone could be so ignorant as to misinterpret it otherwise.
I voted yes on 591 already and thought I screwed up but I did not.
My, my, a bit agitated are we? And why? Seems to me if the measure is good on its merits does it really require that bit and similar bluster on your part?
Ok, then, let's take a look at 591 based on the facts.
591 is also an attempt to control gun ownership. But it is a bit devious. I love the first part; due process required. But, the second part is very sneaky. No background checks! Yeah! Uh wait; unless required by a national standard. Why do we want to allow a national standard change our vote?
Think about this for a bit. The initiative does not specify what group or entity would be the ones to develop a national standard. Would it be the DHS? State Department? EPA? Dept of Ed? FDA???
It could be anyone. Even the American Medical Association. We could overwhelmingly approve 591 on November 6 and think we will not need to go through background checks. Then on November 7, the EPA implements a national standard. In this case we would have essentially voted overwhelmingly FOR background checks. Sure, we would successfully added the first part which is good. But we would have given us no one else to complain to except ourselves by voting to prevent something that had a caveat loop hole. You know some Bloomberg wannabe will try to capitalize on this the moment that I 591 becomes law.
Do you remember what Aunt Nancy said about Obamacare? “We must pass the bill so we can find out what’s inside the bill”. Well, she may have been Miss Lube Rack in 1955, but that don’t make her smart. But she got her way on that one. They passed the bill and now we are finding out what’s inside. Do you really want to do that to yourselves? Read I-591. Understand the words verbatim. Don’t get caught in the rhetoric. Read it verbatim. I did and saw this problem from Day 1. There’s a Trojan Horse loophole that is the size of all the Cabela’s stores combined inside the bill, and you know someone WILL take advantage of it at the first opportunity. Read the initiative, and understand it verbatim.
And for the law, how about these words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I like them. And we don’t have to vote on them, since they are already there.
Washington patriots, vote "no" on both 594 & 591