Opponents of Initiative 594, which passed with 59 percent approval and expanded background checks for firearms in Washington, have filed suit in district court in Tacoma seeking a permanent injunction against part of the initiative.
The suit, the Associated Press reports, states that the law, in regard to transfers of firearms is “so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand its scope, which renders it subject to arbitrary enforcement.”
That’s odd. We don’t claim to possess anything above ordinary intelligence, yet we had no trouble in understanding the initiative or its intent.
The initiative, which went into effect in early December, makes a number of exceptions to the rule that background checks be performed before transfers, in addition to sales. As we’ve stated previously such checks are not required for transfers that involve gifts to immediate family members, which includes nieces, nephews and first cousins; antique firearms made before 1898; temporary transfers between spouses or necessary to prevent death or bodily harm; temporary transfers at shooting ranges, competitions or hunting safety courses; to a licensed gunsmith for service or repair; or among law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity.
Those exceptions apparently aren’t exhaustive enough for the law’s opponents, which include the Second Amendment Foundation and its founder Alan Gottlieb. In looking for examples of the law’s “unconstitutionality,” the lawsuit can find no exemption for a gun given to a FedEx carrier for shipping or a non-married couple who live together. We have yet to hear of any arrests or citations of FedEx employees or co-habitating partners.
Nor does the law include an exception for political protests, yet about 1,000 gun owners during a demonstration against the law at the state Capitol grounds in mid-December we’re able to pass their rifles and handguns between one another without incident or arrest and in full view of State Patrol troopers.
Gottlieb told the AP that the suit was filed now to allow the Legislature an opportunity to change the law’s language to “take out the problems,” but we are unconvinced that enough exceptions could be adopted that would satisfy its opponents. If there is specific language that Gottlieb and others want to suggest to the Legislature, they should take that route rather than filing a lawsuit.
The lack of a long and silly list of exceptions to the transfer rule does not make the law unconstitutional. Our justice system allows law enforcement and prosecutors a measure of discretion. It’s why you don’t get a ticket for doing 63 mph in a 60-mph zone. It’s why prosecutors review police reports before filing charges. And it’s why no one was arrested at the Olympia demonstration, and it’s why FedEx drivers can relax knowing they risk no arrest.
What the lawsuit actually seeks, in effect, is to hamstring the rule on transfers and create loopholes that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the law in keeping firearms out of the hands of felons and others who are prohibited from having them.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
