Is there anything good about WA I-591?
Here is the full text:
Initiative Measure No. 591 (I-591)
PROTECT OUR GUN RIGHTS
AN ACT Relating to protecting gun and other firearm rights; adding new sections to chapter 9.41 RCW; and creating new sections.
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 unless a uniform national standard is required.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act is known and may be cited as the "Protect Our Gun Rights Act."
- END -
Now, I like the part about confiscation. But section 2? I'm not so sure I like the way that's worded.
Initiative Measure No. 591 (I-591)
PROTECT OUR GUN RIGHTS
AN ACT Relating to protecting gun and other firearm rights; adding new sections to chapter 9.41 RCW; and creating new sections.
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 unless a uniform national standard is required.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act is known and may be cited as the "Protect Our Gun Rights Act."
- END -
Now, I like the part about confiscation. But section 2? I'm not so sure I like the way that's worded.
0
-
Seeing as how I-594 is showing support on the order of 60%, Section 2 will, at a minimum, cause considerable problems with enforcement.
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 unless a uniform national standard is required.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Seeing as how I-594 is showing support on the order of 60%, Section 2 will, at a minimum, cause considerable problems with enforcement.
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 unless a uniform national standard is required.
Good point.[:)]0 -
WHERE'S THE NRA!! They have shown tepid support for I-591 and I have yet to see an NRA sponsored ad against I-594 which is clearly bad for gun owners. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
WHERE'S THE NRA!! They have shown tepid support for I-591 and I have yet to see an NRA sponsored ad against I-594 which is clearly bad for gun owners.
The NRA is is a political entity. My guess is that believe they would lose support by coming out against background checks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
WHERE'S THE NRA!! They have shown tepid support for I-591 and I have yet to see an NRA sponsored ad against I-594 which is clearly bad for gun owners.
The NRA is is a political entity. My guess is that believe they would lose support by coming out against background checks.
They were for background checks before they were against them and apparently they're, at the very least, indifferent or quietly for them again. This initiative is bad news. even for cops who are largely against it but are no match for the Bill Gates, Paul Allen's, Michael Bloomberg's and the rest of the moneyed elitist scum.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
WHERE'S THE NRA!! They have shown tepid support for I-591 and I have yet to see an NRA sponsored ad against I-594 which is clearly bad for gun owners.
The NRA is is a political entity. My guess is that believe they would lose support by coming out against background checks.
They were for background checks before they were against them and apparently they're, at the very least, indifferent or quietly for them again. This initiative is bad news. even for cops who are largely against it but are no match for the Bill Gates, Paul Allen's, Michael Bloomberg's and the rest of the moneyed elitist scum.
Local sheriff has come out and stated that he will not enforce it.
He is up for re-election, however....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
WHERE'S THE NRA!! They have shown tepid support for I-591 and I have yet to see an NRA sponsored ad against I-594 which is clearly bad for gun owners.
The NRA is is a political entity. My guess is that believe they would lose support by coming out against background checks.
They were for background checks before they were against them and apparently they're, at the very least, indifferent or quietly for them again. This initiative is bad news. even for cops who are largely against it but are no match for the Bill Gates, Paul Allen's, Michael Bloomberg's and the rest of the moneyed elitist scum.
Local sheriff has come out and stated that he will not enforce it.
He is up for re-election, however....
I hadn't heard that. Would have impacted my vote, I think.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments