The Washington state Legislature is in the process of getting a bill on assault weapons to the governor for signature. Those wise legislators who voted for the ban are to be commended. The bill is not perfect but at least the Legislature is doing something (“Senate OKs assault weapons ban, longer wait on gun sales,” The Herald, April 9).
As summarized in the Sunday Herald, the bill has a lot of provisions. Some are good, some are questionable, some are mere politics, some are common sense ones, and some are outright questionable.
One of the questionable provisions is summarized as: “Another exempts active duty military officers and military retirees moving into Washington from limits on traveling into the state with a banned weapon.”
Allowing active duty military officers (why not enlisted?) and retirees (officer only?) to have assault weapons is puzzling. Anyone in the active military who needs a weapon any time is provided one, officer or enlisted. Why are military retirees exempted from the ban? Once persons leaves or retire from the military (thanks for your service) they are no different than than other citizen. They have no official need for a weapon. Persons who leave the military are not a part of any law enforcement organization.
The exemption for military personnel in the proposed bill is neither necessary nor warranted. The Legislature may not have given this exemption as much thought as it should have. It is simple. Military personnel may have a need for weapons when on active duty but that need is relinquished when a person leaves the military; officer, enlisted, retiree or not.
Ignacio Castro Jr.
Edmonds
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
