“the wording simply states that it’s unlawful for the state to adopt background checks unless required to by federal law.”
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? There is already a centuries old traditional means for doing so with the Federal Government conducting background investigations as needed through the U.S. Marshall and/or the County Sheriff. using existing means permits a State and its citizens to exercise the power to nullify unconstitutional Federal laws, as part of the Constitutional separation of powers.
“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?”
Please stop lying.
Nothing in 591 prevents the state, or voters, from choosing to violate federal laws. The wording simply ensures that initiative 591 doesn’t do so, as you are still required by federal law to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a licensed dealer (or presenting your concealed carry permit as proof of having completed a background check).
Nothing in 591 prevents voters from pulling a marijuana-gambit on gun rights, like we did with our state level marijuana stores.
Nothing in 591 forces our congressmen or senators to support federal gun control, or harsher background checks.
The wording of the law simply ensures that voters, by voting yes on 591, are merely voting to keep the state from adopting harsher background checks.
Arguing against 591 because it doesn’t go so far as to violate federal law, like our marijuana sales, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
591 protects gun rights, period.
“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.