Posted on 11/01/2014 12:20:49 PM PDT by richardb72
Let’s say a stalker is threatening a female friend of yours. She asks you if she can borrow your handgun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you loan her your gun?
If you live in Washington State, loaning her your gun may soon make you a criminal and will likely land you in prison.
Suppose you are a Boy Scout leader. Once a year, the scouts take a trip to a local farm where the boys earn their firearm merit badges. If you continue to stick with this annual ritual you may soon find yourself in prison.
Those two examples illustrate just a couple of the hidden consequences for ordinary citizens if Washington State voters pass Initiative 594 on Tuesday -- the biggest gun control initiative on any state ballot this year.
Gun control advocates are putting a huge effort into winning passage of the initiative. With $9.5 million from billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg, the initiative’s supporters are spending half as much asthe NRA is spending on all political campaigns and initiatives across the entire United States.
Yet, despite a huge money advantage, gun control advocates are still using totally inaccurate claims to make their case to voters. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I am hoping for a split fairly soon.
Things like this that SEEM innocuous and/or even positive ALWAYS have something bad buried in them. No one reads the fine print anymore. I don’t either. I just vote “NO”. I swear, if the liberals put forth a “Defense of Motherhood Initiative”, I’d be against it.
I voted yes on 591 already and thought I screwed up but I did not.
If 594 passes, I hope it is immediately challenged in court and stayed. The Second Amendment is clear. So is the Washington State constitution. Anyone who thinks otherwise should refer to Heller and McDonald. These kinds of massive infringements are not allowed and should not be tolerated.
I don’t know about 591, but the folks voting no may be thinking “Why do we need yet another gun law on top of the 20K already on the books? The meaning of the 2A is clear.”
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
Then the fireworks will begin.
BTW, where the HELL has the NRA been in WA?
A small sign here and there. This is the big time, and the NRA should be flooding the airwaves.
It would be an easy win for the NRA to defeat 594, if they had the balls to do so.
Even a soccer mom would understand the OP.
I’m still at a loss as to how you could be quite that ignorant. Judging from your post, it would appear that you’re not a particularly bright individual, and that you probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Let’s see if I can get through that thick skull.
You said: “Why do we want to allow a national standard change our vote?”
Let me explain how our system of federalism works. You, as an individual, are subject to local, state, and federal law. Local laws, such as that of your municipality or county, do NOT supersede and invalidate the laws imposed upon you by your state government; nor do your state-level laws supersede and invalidate those of the federal government. Your locality, or your state, can however choose to pass laws that are stricter than the next higher levels of government; and that’s dangerous to liberty.
For decades now, gun rights activists have been pushing for legislation that safeguards localities against regional gun laws. Thankfully, we’ve been relatively successful over the years in pushing for state-level preemption — laws designed to prevent local governments from adopting gun control laws more restrictive than state laws, as well as laws designed to prevent states from adopting gun laws stricter than federal laws.
This is a good thing for gun rights, as for example it prevents places like Seattle and Portland from adopting gun laws stricter than those of the state laws of Washington and Oregon, respectively. Without state-level preemption of local gun laws, both Seattle and Portland would love to adopt harsh gun control — as a matter of fact they’re still trying to, but keep butting up against their states’ preemption laws.
591 is such a preemption law. It would prevent the state from passing harsher background checks than what is required federally.
Federal law applies, period. Federal law is passed by Congress, and is subject to constitutional limitations and constitutional review by the courts.
As a good example, consider the National Firearms Act of 1934, which restricts (but does not ban) things like machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. You are subject to the NFA regardless of which state you live in, so if you want to legally own a suppressor, for example, you must meet the legal requirements under the NFA. However, states can adopt laws harsher than the NFA, and many have. Some states completely ban the possession of such items, rather than merely regulating them, and the state of Washington is one that has far stricter gun control than the NFA. You’re forbidden from legally purchasing machine guns in this state, even if you could comply with the requirements of the NFA.
Here is an area where preemption would be wonderful, it would be a boon to gun rights if we passed a ballot initiative that forbade the state from adopting a ban on machine guns, unless federally required to do so. Such wording would improve gun rights in the state, not create some magical loophole that would allow the department of education to ban guns.
You’re insane rambling about loopholes is not only wrong, impossible and irrational, it’s just effing stupid. The FDA is not going to pass a gun-buyer background check system, what you think is a loophole is simply your own dim misunderstanding. And Nancy Pelosi was NOT Miss Lube Rack, but then fact-checking seems to be something you’re abysmal at.
The wording, which you have concocted an irrational and stupid conspiracy theory about, is not some secret attempt to institute backdoor gun control. It simply ensures that, if the initiative is passed, it doesn’t violate federal law the moment it comes into existence; such wording ensures that lawful gun sales can continue in this state if the initiative is passed. If Congress were to pass a national background check, like it already has and you’re already subject to, then it’s going to be federal law regardless of what initiative 591 says.
The wording in this initiative doesn’t forbid the state from trying to adopt regulations that violate federal law, residents of the state can still pass a future ballot initiative that opens up machine gun stores or 100% background check free gun stores, just like the marijuana stores. It’s just wording that keeps Initiative 591 from violating CURRENT federal law that WE’RE ALREADY FOLLOWING.
You’re just dim, that’s all. It’s ok though, lots of people are. I’d just appreciate it if you didn’t vote stupidly as well.
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.