- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dave, just an fyi--I never saw anyone around collecting signatures for this initiative. Although I do understand that in my neck of the woods, they'd have to stand next to the dirty hippies gathering signatures for whatever hare-brained, tofu-fueled initiative they're working for.
So if I have another petition sheet about half full, do I still have time to fill it up, or will it do any good to send it in at this point?
The first comment on the article raises an interesting question about I591
<broken link removed>
Is I591 actually just a scam initiative to trick WA gun owners into weakening the WA state constitution?
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. 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.
Isn't I591 the proposal for universal background checks in WA as long as those universal background checks adhere to a "National Standard"... i.e. federal law? Why would any reasonable gun lover propose this?
Section 1 of I591 is reasonable, but I could never sign a petition with section 2 in it:
If it was worded this way, I would sign it:
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.
Can someone explain to me why the authors of I591 want a nation-wide universal background check?
Yes, I understand that there is a far more dangerous I594, but why counter it with something worded as poorly as I591?
Yes, I understand that as an Oregonian, I can't participate in either I594 or I591..... but I don't see why you guys in WA have to choose among these two evils.
No, It's a serious measure aimed at preventing the backers of I-594 from "weakening the WA state constitution."
And your better idea is???
(and keep it in the realm of possible, not fantasy; i.e. "We vote these laws down and repeal the gun laws")
In case you missed it, we've had background checks on a national standard for many years. It's the FEDERAL Brady Law, which established the NICS system. That is the "national standard." A state can't opt out of that, no matter what your wishful thinking might otherwise suggest.
In case you missed it, Dave, my better idea was to re-word section 2 to remove the words "unless a uniform national standard is required".
In case you missed it , Dave, the Brady law is FEDERAL, and I591 is WASHINGTON. I see no reason why WASHINGTON should be embracing the (wrongful) Brady federal law.
In case you missed it , Dave, It is possible for STATE laws to be less intrusive and controlling than FEDERAL laws. (e.g. Marijuana, Gun transfer)