No On WA I-594

Would you vote for a law that would make criminals of half your neighbors? Initiative 594 would do exactly that.

In their zeal to impose “universal background checks,” the creators of I-594 have written a law that would require nearly all “transfers” of firearms to be conducted at the premises of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer.

I-594 defines transfers as a change of possession, no matter how temporary, including gifts and loans. There are exceptions for family gifts, organized competitions and youth activities, but they are so narrow that most recreational, non-sale transfers would be crimes.

The father who loans a hunting rifle to an adult son during hunting season would commit a misdemeanor (upon the first violation). When the rifle is returned, both father and son would be two-time offenders, and thus felons under I-594.

Shooting buddies who met on public land or their own property to target practice with shared firearms would violate I-594. Routine gun repairs would also be criminalized. The initiative would effectively forbid you from dropping your firearm off with a gunsmith friend unless he had a federal license. Most gunsmiths in this state, often the most skilled, lack federal licenses.

Women are targeted by several provisions. Instructors could no longer provide loaner firearms during introductory women’s self-defense classes. And if your sister were being stalked and in fear of her life, and you loaned her a firearm, you would both be criminals. I-594 has an exception to “prevent imminent death,” but the legal definition of imminent means “about to happen.”

Widows and heirs beware: If your spouse died and you found a couple of handguns in your husband’s sock drawer 61 days after death, then you’d be an accidental felon.

Read the rest of the article:

Eric Holder’s Definition Of Failure

“And the thought that we could not translate that horror into reasonable — I mean, really reasonable gun safety measures that were supported by the vast majority of the American people is for me something that I take personally as a failure,” he said, The Hill reported. “And something that I think we as a society should take as a failure — a glaring failure that I hope will ultimately be rectified.”
Eric Holder, US Attorney General
October 21, 2014
Lamenting that gun control legislation was not passed after the Sandy Hook massacre.

Read the rest of the article:

Pennsylvania Could Give The NRA The Right To Sue Cities

Cities in Pennsylvania may have to think carefully before passing ordinances relating to guns and gun control in future years: Doing so could land them in legal trouble with the National Rifle Association.

The Pennsylvania state House last week passed a measure that would give anyone who may legally own a firearm, or a membership organization like the NRA, the legal standing to sue any municipality that enacts gun laws that are more stringent than the state’s.

The measure could make enhanced gun laws a financial risk for the cities themselves: It could require cities on the losing end of lawsuits to pay the legal bills of the plaintiff.

Read the rest of the article:

CA Gov Jerry Brown Signs AB1014

California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.

The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Relatives of the victims and other supporters of the bill said the parents of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger were thwarted in their attempts to seek help for their troubled son before the rampage.

Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.

“If both of these laws had been in place on May 23, things could have been very different,” Rodger’s father, Peter Rodger, said in a statement Tuesday night. “California, today, is a safer state because of this legislation. Let’s hope other states follow.”

Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a judge’s order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a danger.

The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it to family members.

Read the rest of the article:

Pratt, Advocates For Gun Rights Blast Obama’S New Racial Reporting On Gun Forms

When the Obama administration inserted race and ethnicity inquiries into its federal form for gun purchases, industry leaders said the move lacks reason and may lead to racial profiling.

“Last time I checked your race is not part of your criminal background,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

“Nobody can figure out why officials want this information because it clearly does not provide anything more about a person’s criminal background, than with a person’s criminal background-check.” In fact, criminal background checks and instant checks are useless tools for fighting crime, he said. “Out of 11 million background checks that were done over the last year of record, 14 resulted in convictions.”

This is a huge waste of money, he said. “And they are just going to waste even more by asking completely irrelevant questions.”

GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their Second Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms. Pratt said with little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in April 2012 amended its Form 4473 to require gun buyers to distinguish ethnic and race relations.

Buyers must identify themselves as either Hispanic, Latino or not, and the buyer must indicate race, as follows: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white. The 2012 modification was the only change to Form 4473, said Anthony Melé, founder and president of Ami Global Security, a defense trade and manufacturer exporter of firearms.

“The category item number is 10 and the question is broken-down by ethnicity and race in parts 10a and 10b.” Federal law only requires a background check not a gun owner race-count, he said. The new requirement is not or should not be an indication of a criminal record, he said. “I do not see where one’s identity becomes clearer or one’s choice would preclude them from owning a firearm.”

The New York gun dealer said the subcategory is lacking in foresight. For example, choosing between Hispanic and Latino does not make sense, said Melé. “The two options, to me, mean the same thing.” In addition, he said more statistical data is not going to prevent a single crime.

Read the rest of the article: