I-594 is bad news, tell your neighbors, friends, family, etc............

[GunRightsCoalition]

Hey @GunRightsCoalition is Guns Across America WA State part of your group? I was asked to share their YouTube channel with videos on 594 on this forum so here it is

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCeK58tFka0UmVyZQ5VEAAng

Gun Rights Across America - WA? Yes, it is. Owen Welling and Travis Nugent are both team leaders in the coalition.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I actually have a You Tube Playlist I've been putting together.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOYEsJ1R_blVwXo_OHtDBCU-ZjrNi4ZvY

 

[Sgt Nambu]

As of this AM I have asked, begged and wheedled every relative, friend and acquaintance in WA to vote down I-594!
This thread has helped that work along considerably! Good luck Washington!

 

[Kable]

First place I went today the cashier asked about my shirt, after explaining the bill she was shocked at how horrible it is and thinks it's a combination of the writers being clueless about guns but also thinks some of the traps in the bill are intentional. I'm at another store with the wife so well see if I'm asked about it here but this store is next to signs pro so I'm going to swing in and see how much a big back window decal will cost

 

[4Freedom]

I was told by another member here to read the entire I-594 to diffuse my fears of all the preconceived notions that I-594 would equate to incrimination of law-abiding gun owners for anything but an unlawful gun transfer. However, after reading the entire 20 page I-594 initiative I was very disturbed and the lack of provisions for the loaning of guns and the vague wording and lack of explanation of what is considered legal and illegal gun possession.

My concern stems from Section 3 of Chapter 9.41 RCW:

(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) 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;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such
transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately
necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent
the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her
employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections
officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the
United States or the national guard, or federal official;Code Rev/AI:eab 9 I-2745.1/13
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely
for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to
its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
domestic partners; (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; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the
transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group
that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (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; or
(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; or
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by
operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
(ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the
former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the
end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully
transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of
licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of
the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in
compliance with all federal and state laws.

I have made bold some of the few excerpts of the law that have me serious distraught. Also, the very vague terminology and omission of several various scenarios, such as gun loans or somebody else being in temporarily in possession of your gun are hardly addressed. As you can see from where I bolden, it appears that a husband/wife cannot lend their gun to their own wife, unless at a shooting range. Does that mean if the husband has a gun in the house and goes on a business trip and the police find that the wife was in possesion of the gun she is now a criminal? Does it not sound like a bold infringement on our constitutional rights that we are now incriminated by simply letting our husband/wife hold our gun are even bring it to the shooting range without our presence? From what I read in the law, it appears that it will simply be the case.

Many spouses will unknowingly be criminals by these new laws and according to the vague wording, it would appear that you would have to remove your guns from the house and leave them in an storage facility or gun range if you leave the presence of your home. Yes, I am sure nobody would probably prosecute anybody over it, but from the wording of the law, it appears that will be the case and the only place where the husband or wife's gun can be in possession of the other spouse is at an authorized shooting range or event. So much for this law just being a means to keep mentally disturbed people or felons from owning guns! You cannot even let your own husband/wife touch your gun!

Now, let's extend upon this very vague and draconian sounding law further.. There is only a provision for lending a gun to your husband or wife and that is only at an authorized shooting range or event. Now, what if you want to let your friend shoot your gun? As bad as is Colorado's private sale ban, at least in Colorado they made a 72 hour provision for the loaning of guns if they are to be returned. There is no such provision in the Washington I-594 law. In effect, the vague wording with such harsh enforcement, would very likely in any court with a skilled prosecutor be very easily conveyed as that any lending or handling of a gun by anyone else but the license owner would be a Class A Misdemeanor and a second offense would be a Class C Felony.

Some may (mistakenly) in my opinion, interpret the gifting of a relative as a means to circumvent the laws entailing temporary loaning of a firearm between relatives/spouses. However, if the gun is considered a gift, but then is returned, would this not be considered a loan? I suppose somebody could argue that the gun was gifted back and forth, but how would a jury and judge look at this scenario? A gift is considered a one-way street and I would be interested as to what the legal definition of "gift" according to the terminology used in Section 3 of 9.41 RCW of the initiative.

One more question I am having about the law is the lack of explanation of the grandfather rules. What is to happen about all the guns that were purchased in private sales before I-594 was passed? WOuld this, in fact, be a means of forced gun registration , where anybody in possession of an unregistered firearm is now guilty of breaking the laws specified by the legislation? Or, is the grandfather laws an inferred rule that we can just hope will be recognized, yet doesn't seem to be discussed in any detail by the initiative, unlike the grandfather clause I read in the Assault Weapon Ban that Obama tried to passed just recently.

The irony is that Washington has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country, yet in Chicago where there is a complete ban on any handgun possession they have the highest handgun homicide rate in the nation. All the I-594 initiative will do is bring a large business of straw purchasers and gun street dealers who can very easily peddle their goods and will be much more low key in their dealings via anonymous forums and anonymous connections.

How will the government handle all the firearms declared loss, stolen, etc.. Will they have the means of even prosecuting unscrupulous street gun dealers who will now gain more prowess as a result.

Anyway, I feel very sad that my beloved Pacific Northwest is being infested with anti-freedom outsiders and left-wing fascists who wish to strip us of all the freedoms we have enjoyed in this beautiful part of the country for so many years. They want to help turn the beautiful and peaceful Pacific Northwest into the hellholes they left..

Anyhow, it all seems like a mess.. Just the fact that Washington is implementing harsh gun control measures makes me want to start packing my bags, but I am going to hope that this bill doesn't pass or that by some miracle it is overturned in court or that I-591 passes to trump the I-594 initiative.

I thought after reading the law I would share my concerns and hear the input of others on those concerns.

 

[Kable]

I was told by another member here to read the entire I-594 to diffuse my fears of all the preconceived notions that I-594 would equate to incrimination of law-abiding gun owners for anything but an unlawful gun transfer. However, after reading the entire 20 page I-594 initiative I was very disturbed and the lack of provisions for the loaning of guns and the vague wording and lack of explanation of what is considered legal and illegal gun possession.

My concern stems from Section 3 of Chapter 9.41 RCW:


I have made bold some of the few excerpts of the law that have me serious distraught. Also, the very vague terminology and omission of several various scenarios, such as gun loans or somebody else being in temporarily in possession of your gun are hardly addressed. As you can see from where I bolden, it appears that a husband/wife cannot lend their gun to their own wife, unless at a shooting range. Does that mean if the husband has a gun in the house and goes on a business trip and the police find that the wife was in possesion of the gun she is now a criminal? Does it not sound like a bold infringement on our constitutional rights that we are now incriminated by simply letting our husband/wife hold our gun are even bring it to the shooting range without our presence? From what I read in the law, it appears that it will simply be the case.

Many spouses will unknowingly be criminals by these new laws and according to the vague wording, it would appear that you would have to remove your guns from the house and leave them in an storage facility or gun range if you leave the presence of your home. Yes, I am sure nobody would probably prosecute anybody over it, but from the wording of the law, it appears that will be the case and the only place where the husband or wife's gun can be in possession of the other spouse is at an authorized shooting range or event. So much for this law just being a means to keep mentally disturbed people or felons from owning guns! You cannot even let your own husband/wife touch your gun!

Now, let's extend upon this very vague and draconian sounding law further.. There is only a provision for lending a gun to your husband or wife and that is only at an authorized shooting range or event. Now, what if you want to let your friend shoot your gun? As bad as is Colorado's private sale ban, at least in Colorado they made a 72 hour provision for the loaning of guns if they are to be returned. There is no such provision in the Washington I-594 law. In effect, the vague wording with such harsh enforcement, would very likely in any court with a skilled prosecutor be very easily conveyed as that any lending or handling of a gun by anyone else but the license owner would be a Class A Misdemeanor and a second offense would be a Class C Felony.

Some may (mistakenly) in my opinion, interpret the gifting of a relative as a means to circumvent the laws entailing temporary loaning of a firearm between relatives/spouses. However, if the gun is considered a gift, but then is returned, would this not be considered a loan? I suppose somebody could argue that the gun was gifted back and forth, but how would a jury and judge look at this scenario? A gift is considered a one-way street and I would be interested as to what the legal definition of "gift" according to the terminology used in Section 3 of 9.41 RCW of the initiative.

One more question I am having about the law is the lack of explanation of the grandfather rules. What is to happen about all the guns that were purchased in private sales before I-594 was passed? WOuld this, in fact, be a means of forced gun registration , where anybody in possession of an unregistered firearm is now guilty of breaking the laws specified by the legislation? Or, is the grandfather laws an inferred rule that we can just hope will be recognized, yet doesn't seem to be discussed in any detail by the initiative, unlike the grandfather clause I read in the Assault Weapon Ban that Obama tried to passed just recently.

The irony is that Washington has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country, yet in Chicago where there is a complete ban on any handgun possession they have the highest handgun homicide rate in the nation. All the I-594 initiative will do is bring a large business of straw purchasers and gun street dealers who can very easily peddle their goods and will be much more low key in

How will the government handle all the firearms declared loss, stolen, etc.. Will they have the means of even prosecuting unscrupulous street gun dealers who will now gain more prowess as a results

Anyway, I feel very sad that my beloved Pacific Northwest is being infested with anti-freedom outsiders and left-wing fascists who wish to strip us of all the freedoms we have enjoyed in this beautiful part of the country for so many years. They want to help turn the beautiful and peaceful Pacific Northwest into the hellholes they left..

Anyhow, it all seems like a mess.. Just the fact that Washington is implementing harsh gun control measures makes me want to start packing my bags, but I am going to hope that this bill doesn't pass or that by some miracle it is overturned in court or that I-591 passes to trump the I-594 initiative.

I thought after reading the law I would share my concerns and hear the input of others on those concerns.

Ok my understanding of the bill and the exemptions are after the ; then the seperate sections (i), (ii), (iii) etc. these are all separate types of exemptions. so temporary transfers to your spouse are exempt, you don't have to be at a range that is a separate exemption.

The range exemption is not really an exemption as it says "as long as the firearm is kept at the range at all times" IE range gun. Some people may think that actually just means while they are at the range the guns never leave but if you look further down at the other exemptions you'll see the hunting exemption says WHILE hunting. The range exemption doesn't have the WHILE statement so it appears the intent is for firearms that never leave the range. Another interesting note about the exemptions that was brought up on an interview with someone from West Coast Armory on the radio is that the range has to be "authorized by the local governing body" which since they don't define exactly what that is you are left to assume it is the local city. So if you have an anti gun city council they may not recognize a range as an official approved range. They may not shut that range down per say but if they say it isn't an approved range than that exemption would not apply.

Speaking of the hunting exemption, like I mentioned the exemption is WHILE hunting. You cannot lend your buddy a gun before you go hunting. You can't do it at the camp site and you can't do it while crossing a road or something where hunting is not legal.

Another key to look at with the whole exemptions piece of it is that some of them apply to temporary transfers yet the propenents are trying to claim that simply handing your firearm to someone is not a "transfer" yet according to their definition of transfer it would be plus if that is the case why is there an exemption for a life threatening situation but ONLY for as long as the threat exists.

This bill is just bad bad news and we must do everything we can to educate everyone and convince everyone we can to not only vote NO on it but to spread the word. Everyone in my spherical influence is convinced so now I'm just trying to do what I can to educate strangers and people I don't know. I had a shirt made up and 1 person asked me about it today and I could tell several others were reading it. I just made a quick trip to the grocery store and as I was grabbing the bags the clerk was most obviously reading it and looked like he was about to ask something but then glanced over and saw a line behind me so he just said to have a nice night. I tried to get a window decal for my car but all the sign shops are closed on weekends so that will be something I pursue on Monday as long as it doesn't cost too much I'm kinda broke but this is very important so I've been trying to spend money where I can to make the biggest impact.

EDIT: almost forgot, the guns already purchased are not required to be reported to DOL but any and all transfers going forward (except for the very few exemptions) would need to get the background check which then has all the details added to the WA state pistol registry if it is a pistol BUT there is a provision in 594 that allows the DOL to make changes to the record keeping however they want so they could just start requiring ALL firearm info to be kept. Even if they don't the legislation could add that in at any point.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

The only other thing I would add is that bona fide gifts are allowed for family members however loans and sales are not (excepting loans for spouses). So no loaning adult children or parents firearms. Also the inheritance portion is scary as well.

 

[donaldc]

I keep hearing that the sales tax does not apply but that a use tax would. I didnt see anything in I-594 about a use tax. Does anyone have any information on how the use tax applies? Just trying to be well informed here.

 

[TMJ76]

Here's some more confirmation of the draconian rules on lending weapons from a state senator who supports 594 (the article calls him "Rep. Liias" but he is actually a Senator now - way to strive for accuracy, Everett Herald...)

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20141012/NEWS01/141019705

Relevant quote:

Rep. Marko Liias, D-Everett, who has campaigned for I-594, said there is a "bright line" as to when the law would apply.

No check is required if two people go hunting and one hands a gun to the other to use, he said for example. If a person wants to loan a gun to a relative or friend so they can go off hunting for the weekend or target shooting for the day, the two would need to go to a licensed dealer beforehand and complete a background check, Liias said.

The purpose is to ensure the person borrowing the weapon wouldn't be barred from having it because of a domestic violence protective order or serious mental illness, he said.

"When you give it to somebody and they drive off, we want to make sure that person doesn't have one of these problems that could flag them for being a public safety risk," Liias said.​

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I keep hearing that the sales tax does not apply but that a use tax would. I didnt see anything in I-594 about a use tax. Does anyone have any information on how the use tax applies? Just trying to be well informed here.

Washington has use tax on all private transactions. Technically you are supposed to track them all and then each year pay the taxes on those transactions. Where we currently see this applied is when we buy a used car from someone. I don't know the details personally but there has already been one case where sales tax was exempted from something and the state determined that use taxes still apply. With I-594 it puts in place a paper trail by which it can be exercised. At least this is how I understand it after discussing it with some of the folks at SAF.

 

[bnsaibum]

Washington has use tax on all private transactions. Technically you are supposed to track them all and then each year pay the taxes on those transactions. Where we currently see this applied is when we buy a used car from someone. I don't know the details personally but there has already been one case where sales tax was exempted from something and the state determined that use taxes still apply. With I-594 it puts in place a paper trail by which it can be exercised. At least this is how I understand it after discussing it with some of the folks at SAF.

I don't know the particulars of WA law, but Sec. 11 (9) seem to deal with it and would exempt the 'dealer' from collecting the tax;

Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section, any licensed dealer facilitating a firearm sale or transfer between two unlicensed persons by conducting background checks under chapter 9.41 RCW is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by this chapter.

Does that mean the private person is responsible to pay it? Probably and as you have so rightly pointed out there would be a paper trail to make felons out of tax "cheats" were this travesty of an initiative to pass.

WA USE TAX RCW 82.12

 

[GunnyG]

Can you prove the state of WA got tax paid on that firearm?

Refer to <broken link removed>

Introduction

Washington residents sometimes purchase firearms from out-of-state dealers. Because of state and federal laws, many firearms acquired from an out-of-state source by a Washington resident must be sent from the out-of state transferor to a federally licensed gun dealer located in Washington State.

Once the Washington gun dealer has conducted the required background checks, the dealer will deliver the firearm to the Washington buyer.

The following provides instructions for the taxability of such transfers.

Is the purchase of a firearm subject to sales tax?

For an interstate transfer of firearms, the Washington gun dealer is required to collect use tax from the Washington buyer at the time the firearm is delivered to the buyer. Use tax is collected on the total purchase price, including freight/delivery and insurance charges.

If the purchase price is not evident, it is up to the gun dealer to determine the taxable amount by either requiring the purchaser to show the purchase price or by obtaining the selling price from the out of state seller. If for whatever reason, the Washington dealer is still unable to obtain the original purchase price, RCW 82.12.010 provides that the
current fair market value of the firearm shall be used. Current fair market values may be determined by the insured value, a recent appraisal, or a reliable resource, such as a respected publisher of gun values. (Values are subject to audit verification).

What if the firearm is a gift or the customer already owns it?

A firearm obtained by gift is subject to use tax unless it can be demonstrated that the prior owner paid retail sales or use tax. (RCW 82.12.010). The Washington dealer may use the current fair market value as the taxable amount to calculate the use tax.

In cases where the firearm owner can provide proof of retail sales or use tax paid to Washington, the Washington dealer is not required to collect use tax. The Washington dealer must retain proof of tax paid.

In cases where the firearm owner can provide proof of retail sales or use tax paid to other states, the firearm owner is eligible for a credit against the use tax for the amount of sales or use tax paid to the other state. RCW 82.12.035.

Transfers of Firearms Between States

Generally, the Washington gun dealer charges the Washington resident a fee for processing paperwork related to the transfer of the weapon from out of state into Washington. Neither retail sales nor use tax apply on any fees charged by the Washington gun dealer for processing the required state and federal paperwork.


Is the transfer fee subject to sales tax?

The gun dealer is not required to collect retail sales tax on the service charge for processing the required federal and state forms and contacting the national Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) when the charge is stated separately from the selling price of the firearm and freight and/or delivery charges, insurance, etc.

How are these transactions reported on the gun dealer's excise tax form?

The gross selling price of the firearm is reported under the use tax lines of the tax return.

The separately stated service charge for processing the required federal and state forms and contacting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is reported under the service and other activities B&O tax classification. Retail sales tax does not apply on this charge.

Applicable law RCW 82.12.040(1) states: Every person who maintains in this state a place of business or a stock of goods, or engages in business activities within this state, shall obtain from the department a certificate of registration, and shall, at the time of making sales of tangible personal property, extended warranties, or sales of any service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2)(a) or (3)(a), or making transfers of either possession or title, or both, of tangible personal property for use in this state, collect from the purchaser or transferees the tax imposed under this chapter. The tax to be collected under this section shall be in an amount equal to the purchase price multiplied by the rate in effect for the retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.020. (Emphasis added).

Visit our website at dor.wa.gov, send an email to [email protected], or call the Telephone Information Center at 1-800-647-7706.

Even if we owned it, we've been paying Use Tax on our out-of-state transfers since 2011, when we had to send them through FFLs, and I don't see how they wouldn't apply that same standard to our FFL transfers run in-state.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Yes, we know these taxes are already being charged for out of state transfers. Many think the tax is a sales tax when it is actually a use tax. I-594 simply extends this to in state transfers as well.

 

[donaldc]

So, in case we needed another example of how poorly written this law is:

To encourage compliance with background check requirements, the sales tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 would not apply to the sale or transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the unlicensed persons have complied with all background check requirements

I honestly believe someone wrote this saying "oh we better exempt them from the sales tax on transfers or they will throw a bubblegum fit big enough that it might not pass" but they didn't understand the sales tax doesn't apply to private transfers - the use tax does. It is really mind boggling.

 

[Kable]

So I had a shirt made that referenced the 4,500+ law enforcement officers opposition to 594 and I'm trying trying to get a rear window decal made (although sign shops aren't getting back to me). Before I do I want to make sure that number is accurate. I just realized on the Yes on 591 signs it says it's supported by over 7,500+ law enforcement officers and I've seen a few no on 594 signs with that as well. So which is it? 4,500 or 7,500?

I'm thinking of getting the decal to say something like

"Background checks aren't bad but I594 goes too far
7,500+ Law Enforcement Officers OPPOSE I594"

Or the 4,500 figure, whichever is accurate.

If the decal is too expensive I will just buy the window marker stuff and try and make it look as un-redneck as possible. Maybe get stencils and then do it on the inside so it doesn't wash off when it rains (Yes I know I'll have to write it backwards so it looks right from the outside)

 

[balaperdida]

Here is an observation on I594 that I would like the Forum to pick apart:

A parent allows a child under age 18 to use a long gun owned by the parent.

Because this is not a "gift", the transaction must go through a FFL.

The FFL sees that the recipient is a minor, and refuses to deliver the gun to the child, citing Federal law which prohibits the action.

I594 (probably intentionally) prohibits minors from any contact with firearms which results in a firearms-ignorant future public.

 

[GunnyG]

Here is an observation on I594 that I would like the Forum to pick apart:

A parent allows a child under age 18 to use a long gun owned by the parent.

Because this is not a "gift", the transaction must go through a FFL.

The FFL sees that the recipient is a minor, and refuses to deliver the gun to the child, citing Federal law which prohibits the action.

I594 (probably intentionally) prohibits minors from any contact with firearms which results in a firearms-ignorant future public.

That was exempted from the requirement for a background check on pg 9 of http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf
"... (4) This section does not apply to: ...

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm... (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; ..."

Now, try that with your 19 year old kid who is there too, and you've both committed a felony.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Not exactly exempted. Under I-594 he is now forced to be under direct adult supervision. It does effectively prevent any handgun transfers for anyone 18 to 21 though unless they are bona fide gifts from family members.

 

[ConcealedCarrie]

If you can get out to Monroe tomorrow, the NRA table is passing out materials that you can use to leave on doorsteps/place on doorknobs in your neighborhoods. Yes On 591 signs available at the show, but no No On 594 signs were left.

I am seeing some of them around here; Democrat district, more signs for our side than theirs, but I'm seriously bracing myself for this Frankenstein to pass.

Still going to fight though, with everything I've got. This is some scary ish.

 

[Kable]

If you can get out to Monroe tomorrow, the NRA table is passing out materials that you can use to leave on doorsteps/place on doorknobs in your neighborhoods. Yes On 591 signs available at the show, but no No On 594 signs were left.

I am seeing some of them around here; Democrat district, more signs for our side than theirs, but I'm seriously bracing myself for this Frankenstein to pass.

Still going to fight though, with everything I've got. This is some scary ish.

I was starting to believe we would prevail but yesterday's coverage of our rally was a set back in my opinion. They focused on the guy in camo with the AR, advertised it as only applying to sales, and gave the idiot proponent more air time than anyone interviewed on our side and I'm sure someone interviewed had to have raised concerns about transfers and the registry but they didn't air any of that just that our side thinks it's an infringement. There were signs and my shirt that mentioned the law enforcement opposition but none were shown in any coverage. Since most people probably have their ballot I'm hoping those on the fence didn't see that coverage and think the opposition to 594 was just a bunch of crazy gun nuts and marked their ballot in favor of it