Initiative 594 has four fundamental flaws:
1. It does not stop firearms from getting into the hands of criminals by theft, unauthorized use and stupidity.
2. It does stop a legally authorized firearm owner from committing a criminal act.
3. It creates a new criminal activity from a previously legal activity. The owner and buyer in any firearms transaction are now subject to a criminal code that will likely, make both parties ineligible to even own firearms if state laws are not followed.
4. It is de facto gun registration. Not only do you have to get permission to own a firearm, you must also have permission to sell your personnel property and the only way to enforce this action is for the state to keep a record of who owns firearms, and who wants to buy them.
Universally, driving an automobile has the most extensive state controlled training, licensing, registration and insurance requirement of any common public activity. In addition the purchase of alcoholic beverages is restricted by age and controlled by picture identification (typically a driver’s license, which is weird). And yet people still drive drunk/impaired!
I don’t see I-594 as a solution to a problem anymore than having a driver’s license solves drunk driving.
The aim of gun control organizations is to eliminate the private ownership of firearms, and it does not matter if a law is effective or not effective it is held up as an example that more gun control is needed.
Mike Meisner
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
