Need 13 Reasons why I594 needs to be repealed? Just chose any from the list below
Courtesy of Larry Vander Griend
594 HAS CREATED MASS CONFUSION AND DIFFICULTY FOR GUN OWNERS. I-594 has now created confusion and apprehension among law-abiding gun and business owners. I-594
is so badly written, the Attorney General and DOL have been unwilling
or unable to provide guidance on this sweeping law to gun shops, FFL
dealers, and private citizens. Repeated requests for guidance have been turned back with advice to “see your own lawyer”. Security
companies are now placed in irresolvable conflict between the laws they
formerly operated under and the new requirements of 594. Deploying military members are deprived of a legal way to place their personally-owned firearms in safe hands when deploying. Is
this what a law is supposed to do, burden law-abiding citizens and
place their reputation and livelihood at risk by unintentional
violation?
594 WILL BRING AN AVALANCHE OF LAWSUITS, COSTING THE STATE MONEY. Its supporters repeatedly claimed I-594 was only about background checks. But
I-594’s vague, broadly-reaching transfer provisions have the potential
to make criminals out of unsuspecting citizens. This is a violation of
the 4th amendment prohibition against laws designed to entrap innocent
citizens by vague interpretation and arbitrary enforcement. Because of this violation of our basic civil rights, the first of many lawsuits challenging I-594 has now been filed. In each suit, the state will be forced to defend I-594 at great expense in a time when budgets are already tight.
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS HAVE ANY APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON GUN CRIME. In 2009 there were 71,010 initial denials by the NICS background check system out of 14,033,824 background checks. 66,329 of those denials were reversed after further review, a “false positive” rate of roughly 94.2%. The remaining 4,681 were referred to BATF field offices for further investigation. These
incredibly low investigation numbers found that even the second review
still didn’t mean the government hadn’t made a mistake on the remaining
cases. In some cases it investigated, for example, the BATF discovered
that a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged but had not
been.
Ultimately, of the remaining 4,154 cases referred to the BATF, only 140 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns were referred to prosecutors. Of those 140 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring charges only 77 times!
Which brings us to our next point…
CRIMINALS DO NOT SUBMIT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS. Only law-abiding citizens comply, thus nullifying I-594’s intended effect. The evidence overwhelmingly shows criminals obtain guns by theft or straw purchases or the black market.
Ultimately, of the remaining 4,154 cases referred to the BATF, only 140 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns were referred to prosecutors. Of those 140 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring charges only 77 times!
Which brings us to our next point…
CRIMINALS DO NOT SUBMIT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS. Only law-abiding citizens comply, thus nullifying I-594’s intended effect. The evidence overwhelmingly shows criminals obtain guns by theft or straw purchases or the black market.
LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT I-594. The very officers I-594 claimed to be protecting endorsed and supported I-591 instead. The
Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs and the Washington State Law
Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association refused to support I-594. The
more than 7,500 police and sheriffs who opposed I-594 know that
criminals will still acquire firearms where they always have: the black
market, straw purchasers, theft, and gangs and drug dealers. Since 594 passed, numerous sheriffs have publicly announced they have no ability to, or intention of, enforcing it.
I-594 NEEDLESSLY DUPLICATES BACKGROUND CHECKS ALREADY PERFORMED ON NEARLY 500,000 OUT OF 2,300,000 WASHINGTON GUN OWNERS. All CPL holders, security guards, and private detectives have already undergone background checks to obtain their licenses. What is gained by duplicating these checks over and over, at great expense, on a huge segment of Washington gun owners who have already paid for and passed them?
In addition, I-594 now obligates private gun purchasers to pay use tax. I-594 imposes unreasonable additional expense on law-abiding gun owners who are only exercising their second amendment rights, a particular burden on lower-income citizens.
Making gun ownership prohibitively expensive is a favorite tactic of gun control advocates.
I-594 NEEDLESSLY DUPLICATES BACKGROUND CHECKS ALREADY PERFORMED ON NEARLY 500,000 OUT OF 2,300,000 WASHINGTON GUN OWNERS. All CPL holders, security guards, and private detectives have already undergone background checks to obtain their licenses. What is gained by duplicating these checks over and over, at great expense, on a huge segment of Washington gun owners who have already paid for and passed them?
In addition, I-594 now obligates private gun purchasers to pay use tax. I-594 imposes unreasonable additional expense on law-abiding gun owners who are only exercising their second amendment rights, a particular burden on lower-income citizens.
Making gun ownership prohibitively expensive is a favorite tactic of gun control advocates.
ACLU’s AGAINST I-594 AS IT UNNECESSARILY BURDENS EVERYDAY WASHINGTONIANS AND RAISES PRIVACY CONCERNS. The
ACLU’s Chris Calabrese says that if a “transfer” of guns is defined too
broadly, people with good intentions could unwittingly become
criminals. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a
lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of
the criminal law. … They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t
think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined
as making a transfer.”
If the point of I-594 is truly background checks, why are page after page of transfer prohibitions necessary? If a law is well-written, even a layman can study it and determine its clear meaning. But reading I-594 leaves you with more questions than answers. Why? If I-594 were only about change of ownership, it would simply say, “All gun sales are to be subject to a background check of the buyer”. But I-594 also regulates dozens of other activities that clearly aren't changes of ownership, labeling all of them 'transfers'.
There can be only one explanation. Clearly, I-594 is meant to 'fix guns in place', make gun ownership prohibitively difficult, and make universal registration more effective. Ask your representative if they are comfortable with a law that makes formerly legal and innocent activities by law-abiding citizens illegal.
If the point of I-594 is truly background checks, why are page after page of transfer prohibitions necessary? If a law is well-written, even a layman can study it and determine its clear meaning. But reading I-594 leaves you with more questions than answers. Why? If I-594 were only about change of ownership, it would simply say, “All gun sales are to be subject to a background check of the buyer”. But I-594 also regulates dozens of other activities that clearly aren't changes of ownership, labeling all of them 'transfers'.
There can be only one explanation. Clearly, I-594 is meant to 'fix guns in place', make gun ownership prohibitively difficult, and make universal registration more effective. Ask your representative if they are comfortable with a law that makes formerly legal and innocent activities by law-abiding citizens illegal.
The
American Civil Liberties Union has also raised concerns about both
records and background checks. “You just worry that you’re going to see
searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not
intended when the information was collected,” Says Chris Calabrese, an
ACLU privacy lobbyist.
I-594 MASKS A FAR MORE SINISTER AGENDA. Ask your representative if they are in favor of universal registration. Point out that I-594 requires more than background checks. It also requires the same documentation formerly only required for in-store handgun sales only, to now be submitted for ALL gun sales. Point out that while the Federal gov’t is forbidden by law from establishing a national registration system, Washington State is already on its way.
Michael Bloomberg himself, not to mention virtually all gun control advocates, are on record that universal registration is their ultimate goal because it leads to the ability to ban and confiscate entire classes of guns. Ask your representatives if they are aware of the lessons of history, which tell us that in EVERY example of gun registration, confiscation has inevitably followed. Already today, Connecticut and New York are actively attempting to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens.
The proponents of I-594 claimed all they wanted was “common-sense” universal background checks, yet their initiative inexplicably limited many gun transfers to shooting ranges. On the very night I-594 passed, during the jubilant celebration party thrown by the I-594 supporters, they vowed to “build on their success” with a broad range of new legislation. They’ve since announced they will attempt to heavily regulate shooting ranges for “health and safety issues”. Many ranges would be forced to close, thus eliminating the very facilities regulated by I-594! The evidence is clear. I-594 is, and was always intended to be, part of an orchestrated plan for gun control.
I-594 CHILLS THE ABILITY OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO ENGAGE IN TIME-HONORED TRADITIONS. Ask your legislators why law-abiding gun owners, who are responsible citizens and hunters following in America’s oldest traditions, must be greatly inconvenienced and menaced with prosecution by a law whose point is supposed to be stopping criminals.
I-594 EXPONENTIALLY RAISES THE BURDEN ON AN ALREADY OVERWHELMED DOL. The Department of Licensing’s firearms program is already backlogged more than a year, currently entering Sept. 2013 pistol transfer applications. There is not enough staff or funding for this program to keep up with even the existing pre-594 workload. In 2013, the Firearms Program received more than 190,000 transfer applications. At the end of 2014, the backlog was more than 180,000 transfers. I-594 will massively increase the number of transfer applications to be processed while providing no funding to do so. I-594 is an unfunded mandate.
I-594 MASKS A FAR MORE SINISTER AGENDA. Ask your representative if they are in favor of universal registration. Point out that I-594 requires more than background checks. It also requires the same documentation formerly only required for in-store handgun sales only, to now be submitted for ALL gun sales. Point out that while the Federal gov’t is forbidden by law from establishing a national registration system, Washington State is already on its way.
Michael Bloomberg himself, not to mention virtually all gun control advocates, are on record that universal registration is their ultimate goal because it leads to the ability to ban and confiscate entire classes of guns. Ask your representatives if they are aware of the lessons of history, which tell us that in EVERY example of gun registration, confiscation has inevitably followed. Already today, Connecticut and New York are actively attempting to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens.
The proponents of I-594 claimed all they wanted was “common-sense” universal background checks, yet their initiative inexplicably limited many gun transfers to shooting ranges. On the very night I-594 passed, during the jubilant celebration party thrown by the I-594 supporters, they vowed to “build on their success” with a broad range of new legislation. They’ve since announced they will attempt to heavily regulate shooting ranges for “health and safety issues”. Many ranges would be forced to close, thus eliminating the very facilities regulated by I-594! The evidence is clear. I-594 is, and was always intended to be, part of an orchestrated plan for gun control.
I-594 CHILLS THE ABILITY OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO ENGAGE IN TIME-HONORED TRADITIONS. Ask your legislators why law-abiding gun owners, who are responsible citizens and hunters following in America’s oldest traditions, must be greatly inconvenienced and menaced with prosecution by a law whose point is supposed to be stopping criminals.
I-594 EXPONENTIALLY RAISES THE BURDEN ON AN ALREADY OVERWHELMED DOL. The Department of Licensing’s firearms program is already backlogged more than a year, currently entering Sept. 2013 pistol transfer applications. There is not enough staff or funding for this program to keep up with even the existing pre-594 workload. In 2013, the Firearms Program received more than 190,000 transfer applications. At the end of 2014, the backlog was more than 180,000 transfers. I-594 will massively increase the number of transfer applications to be processed while providing no funding to do so. I-594 is an unfunded mandate.
NOT ONE OF THE MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS LIKE SANDY HOOK WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY BACKGROUND CHECKS. Yet
these tragedies are routinely exploited by gun control advocates when
making their case for background checks, as they were by the I-594
campaign.
I-594 WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. Ask your legislators if they are comfortable with an initiative that was undeniably passed only because of the moneyed influence of a handful of billionaires and millionaires, using statistics they refused to substantiate in an unprecedented statewide saturation advertising campaign. Ask them if this nation’s founders would have intended or agreed with the “buying” an election simply by pouring in an unprecedented amount of cash. Ask them if I-594 was not a subversion of our election system. Ask them if such sweeping changes should be decided by 59 percent of the 30 percent of the electorate who turned out in an off-year election; or in other words less than 18 percent of the registered electorate.
I-594 IS A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM. According to the Washington State Dept. of Health, in 2013 Washingtonians were six times as likely to die from the flu or pneumonia as from gun violence. At just 1.7 per 100,000 citizens, gun-related violence was near the very bottom of the lowest causes of death in the state. Liver disease claimed more than seven times as many of us, and diabetes over twelve times as many, as violent gun incidents combined. In fact we were nearly four times as likely to die in a car accident as from violence involving a gun. Yet no one advocates banning cars. No group has formed demanding mandatory flu shots. And no billionaires have poured millions into an election campaign outlawing alcohol and other substances damaging to our livers.
I-594 WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. Ask your legislators if they are comfortable with an initiative that was undeniably passed only because of the moneyed influence of a handful of billionaires and millionaires, using statistics they refused to substantiate in an unprecedented statewide saturation advertising campaign. Ask them if this nation’s founders would have intended or agreed with the “buying” an election simply by pouring in an unprecedented amount of cash. Ask them if I-594 was not a subversion of our election system. Ask them if such sweeping changes should be decided by 59 percent of the 30 percent of the electorate who turned out in an off-year election; or in other words less than 18 percent of the registered electorate.
I-594 IS A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM. According to the Washington State Dept. of Health, in 2013 Washingtonians were six times as likely to die from the flu or pneumonia as from gun violence. At just 1.7 per 100,000 citizens, gun-related violence was near the very bottom of the lowest causes of death in the state. Liver disease claimed more than seven times as many of us, and diabetes over twelve times as many, as violent gun incidents combined. In fact we were nearly four times as likely to die in a car accident as from violence involving a gun. Yet no one advocates banning cars. No group has formed demanding mandatory flu shots. And no billionaires have poured millions into an election campaign outlawing alcohol and other substances damaging to our livers.
THANK YOU
No comments:
Post a Comment