No on I-594 and yes on I-591

Voting is an obligation and responsibility all U.S. citizens should take seriously. I usually shy away from political issues, but when the issues hit me where it hurts, I'm ready to battle.

The focus this year is I-591 and I-594. Simply put, vote no on I-594 and yes on I-591. Remember the statement by a senator about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obama Care, indicating the bill must be passed? The wording of the statement was similar to this, "We must pass the bill to find out what is in the bill."

Initiative 594

The wording in I-594 takes 18 pages to attempt to explain the initiative. Basically, voters will need to pass the initiative to find out what is in the initiative.

Some of the initiative language should scare the pants off you. Here is an example: "Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended."

Does this mean the department of licensing can interpret or make up the rules as they go along? Of course it does.

Another example of interesting initiative wording: "(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until: (a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license..."

Does this mean a citizen of Washington State cannot purchase a pistol unless they have a concealed weapons permit? Of course it does. While it may be advantageous for everyone who owns a pistol to have a CWP, it should be up to the individual to decide.

Plus what happens after the first permit expires and the owner doesn't renew it? Will they come and put you in jail? Oh, I get it, the department of licensing will make up a rule concerning this aspect of I-594 later.

Here is another part of I-594 which is comical in nature: "(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm (is permissible) 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."

Scenario: I'm on the ground with a broken leg and there is a grizzly bear charging down the hill toward me. I hand my rifle to my unarmed hunting buddy and say, "Kill the bear."

In this case the transfer would not be legal. Why? My hunting buddy would not be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. After all, he would only need to run 100 yards away and the bear would stop and maul me, not him.

The wording of this initiative is downright crazy.

Another scenario: I hand a second pistol I'm carrying to a friend as two bad guys are charging us firing their own handguns. This part of the transfer would be allowed, because my friend is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

We drop the two bad guys and the danger is over. A sheriff's deputy arrives 10 minutes later, as my friend and I are still shaking and recovering from the experience.

We are both arrested. Why? Because the initiative reads: "The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm."

Again, the wording of this initiative is downright crazy.

The initiative indicates a background check is not needed for the transfer of a firearm, "while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm..."

Sounds fair, but read it again. Scenario: Joe loans Jim a .30-06 to hunt deer during the late hunt near the town of Hunters. The transfer takes place at Joe's house in Moses Lake and is illegal as soon as the firearm is passed to Jim.

Hunting is not allowed in Moses Lake or most, if not all, of the towns and cities between Moses Lake and Hunters.

Again, the wording of this initiative is downright crazy.

I-594 will not, again, will not stop bad guys from attaining firearms.

Initiative I-591

The wording of I-591 takes half a page to explain the initiative. I-591 contains 198 words, including the word "end."

The first section includes this wording: "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."

Those who disagree with this wording should contact me for consultation.

The main thrust of this initiative is to strive for a uniform national standard for background checks. Yes, we should have a national debate about the background checks, so no bad guys get through the cracks.

Also we need to make sure existing gun control laws are vigorously enforced.

Beware of the Voter's Pamphlet

The Voter's Pamphlet is misleading in many instances. For example: The argument for I-594 indicates loans for self-defense and hunting are exempt, but as indicated above, these exemptions are meaningless as written. The details will be left to the department of licensing to decide.

Vote no on I-594 yes on I-591.