And so it begins. The aftermath of I-594

Bad law is bad law.  I wrote about this before the election.  For my pains I was told on some other discussion forums that I was chicken little (the sky is falling) and that it just wasn't that big a deal.  I was told that I was misrepresenting the law (in spite of the clear language of the proposed law itself).  Those of us suggesting that this initiative was far more problematic than the supporters were claiming were called fear mongers.

Well, here is the first of what I predict will be many news stories:

the Lynden Pioneer Museum has opted to pull eleven loaned WWII rifles currently on display and return these firearms to their collector owners before the “transfer” requirement in I-594 takes effect next month.  The reason?  The law contains no exemptions for firearms loaned for museum displays, or loaned for similar educational or cultural institution study or uses.  Once the law takes effect, the firearms could not be returned to their owners without the mandatory background checks and all the logistics and expenses that entails.

Bellingham Herald

I don't believe for a minute that any of the consequences that arise will be "unintended".  The backers of this initiative are not firearm enthusiasts who are interested in gun safety, they are against guns.  Period.  Each measure, each law, each initiative is designed to reduce the availability of guns to the general public, thus reducing the "gun culture" that they openly despise.  None of these measures affect criminals.  It is a demonstrable fact that criminals don't get their guns legally anyway.  Criminals steal guns, they buy stolen guns off the street, or they get their friends who aren't prohibited to buy guns for them.  Laws like this make it harder for the average person to own firearms or learn to shoot without doing anything about crime.  Now it might be harder for museums to show the role that firearms played in establishing and defending our country. 

My guess is that the gun ban crowd will issue public platitudes about how this wasn't the intended result (as they have already done) but in private they will be ecstatic that fewer people will see guns in a positive light and some, who might have decided to learn how to shoot and join the gun culture because of that exposure, won't.

Washington state Initiative 594

If you aren't from Washington you can probably ignore this.  Or you might think about the fact that this initiative language is probably coming to your state in the near future.  Michael Bloomberg donated a significant amount of money to the Yes campaign.

I-594 purports to close the background check "loophole".  It would mandate background checks for all firearm transfers in the state, with very limited exceptions.  The language is the problem, however.

First of all, "transfer" is defined VERY broadly.  Let me quote to you from the initiative text.

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.

 Italics mine.  Let me propose some scenarios.

I purchase a new firearm.  Some friends are over who I've known for years.  They express interest and I hand the new firearm to one of them.  Transfer.  We have each committed a crime.  If I hand it to a second person I am guilty of two violations and this becomes a felony.

I am at the gun range.  The lady next to me expresses an interest in a rifle I am shooting as she has been looking at similar rifles for herself.  I allow her to shoot a few rounds through it to see if she likes it.  Transfer.  We have each committed a crime.

A friend is a skilled gunsmith.  He does not have a Federal Firearms License as he does not sell guns for a living, only fix them up for people.  I drop off my hunting rifle to be tuned a bit.  He returns it to me after doing some minor upgrades.  Transfer.  We have each committed a crime.

An instructor at a gun range provides pistols to his students to shoot at the range after the safety class has been conducted.  Transfer.  The instructor has committed multiple crimes, one for each student.

And finally, I decide to go elk hunting.  I have never hunted elk so I hire a guide.  As we are walking through the woods we come across a tree across the trail.  I hand the guide my gun so that I can climb over the tree.  Transfer.  We have each committed a crime.

The second problem with this initiative concerns inheritance.  Let's say a friend of mine owns several firearms.  He has some hunting rifles, a handgun that he bought for protection, and a handgun that belonged to his father.  He passes away.  He wife, according to the plain language of the text, has sixty days to register those firearms in her name.  On the sixty first day she becomes a criminal.  She has just lost her husband, she is grieving, making funeral arrangements, wondering about her financial future, and may have no idea that the guns that have always been in that safe in her bedroom don't just automatically belong to her.  Ignorance of the law, however, is no excuse.  She is a criminal.

This initiative serves no purpose OTHER than to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms.  It will not affect criminals since most of their guns are not purchased legally.  It is designed for one thing only, to make more people criminals and ineligible to own a firearm.

Please vote NO on Initiative 594 if you live in this state.

Thanks.