Don't be deceived by I-594. You might hear people say it's poorly written and even some that will say it's not perfect and can be fixed once it passes. To top it all off when you read it your likely to be confused which would lead you to the same conclusion. Don't be deceived by this though. It's craftily written that is certain. At the same time it's purposefully written with the specified intent to deceive you. This is apparent when you hear the claims made by the supporters. What is important is what they don't tell you though. Let me show you some examples. First they will claim it's to close the so called sales loophole. Note that whenever they can they leave out the part about it dealing with not only sales but all transfers of possession. When they do have to address it they will deceptively claim that the FBI doesn't define transfers as simple temporary transfers. Don't be deceived though here is what the initiative says: Section 2, “(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” and then: Section 3, “The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.” Seems pretty clear to me once you look at them both together. Next up they will tell you that transfers between family members are allowed. Once again, do not be deceived by this. There indeed is an exception however that exception is only for bona fide gifts. Sales and loans are not excepted. See here: Section 3, “(4) This section does not apply to: A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;” Once again this is pretty clear. It only includes bona fide gifts. But wait, there is an exception for loans to spouses and domestic partners. Yes, that exception is real. They will say that it's between family members to deceive you into thinking that it includes the ones listed above. Sales are not included though. Here it is: Section 3 (4), “(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;" Seems clear once you look at it and it is but you must consider the entire section. Now the next one is is a doozy. They are going to tell you that you can share a firearm while your target practicing. The deception runs rampant here. What they will not say is that the firearm must be one kept at an authorized range at all times. That my friends is a range gun. You cannot share your personal firearms at the range because they are not kept there at all times. They will tell you that your silly when you point this out. I think some of their supporters actually believe it however the initiative is quite clear on it: Section 3 (4), “(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;" Don't be misled into believing this was just poor language. It isn't. It's intentionally written to prevent temporary transfers of personal firearms when your out target practicing. One last note is that there is no exception at all for legal target practicing on public or private lands which is more common than practicing at a range. Next up they tell you there is an exception for training and education. Again deception abounds here because the exception only applies for persons under 18. Now I can tell you from experience most people that attend training classes are not under 18. I assisted a class recently with about 15 people and only two of them were under 18. The rest would have been prevented from any hands on gun safety training under I-594. Here it is: Section 3 (4), “(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms;” One last note on that is that the exception for hunting is limited to direct supervision so a youth hunting could not cross a ridge out of sight. That of course brings us to the hunting exemption which doesn't fail to be any less deceptive than the rest. What they fail to tell you is that the exception only applies when you are in the actual hunting area and both of you must have all of the permits and licenses required to hunt there. Another words you cannot borrow a rifle from a friend or family member to go hunting because the transfer can only be made in the hunting area itself. Here it is: 3 (f) (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; Pretty clever how they did that isn't it? This wasn't poorly written. It was written to be deceptive. We can go on and discuss the other items of deception as well. For instance they will tell you inheritances are excepted but conveniently leave out the part about all pistols needing to be registered with the department of licensing or the part where the department of licensing is given free range to create a registration database if it sees fit to do so. Why would you need to notify DOL if it isn't to register the firearms in a database? So don't be fooled when they tell you it isn't perfect but that the details can be worked out later, or when someone that is confused says it's poorly written. Neither is the case. It was written this way on purpose with exceptions that would allow them to say there are exceptions even though those exceptions are unrealistic once you know what they are. It was written this way to try to deceive people into thinking it is reasonable to try to get it to pass. When an initiative is written with the intention of deceiving people about everyday innocent actions there can be only one answer: VOTE NO on I-594.