For those of you in Oregon, this is of special importance for you.
Anti-gun extremists brag about how many people are denied gun purchases under the current system but never talk about how many of those people are denied with no justification because of an inept bureaucracy. The State Police’s own figures show that almost all “denials” are unjustified.
Forcing me to run a background check on a friend or loved one before I give them a firearm will do nothing to prevent felons from obtaining weapons. It is clear that the entire purpose of this kind of bill is to harass the law abiding. The Governor has now ordered that Oregon State Troopers leave patrol to “investigate” every “denial” even when there is no known cause for a person being denied his rights. To expand this outrageous misuse of scarce police resources to a firearm I am lending to a friend or giving to a family member makes no sense.
When felons are denied firearms they are NOT held accountable, so nothing in this kind of legislation has any impact on them at all.
Why should I have to run a background check on a friend I have known for 25 years? Why can’t I lend a gun to a single woman who is being stalked or threatened? Why can’t I safeguard a firearm for a neighbor who is going out of town?
You are well aware that in other places these kinds of laws have led to confiscation. In New York, their gun registration lists are being used by police to harass the family of gun owners who have died. I will not let that happen in Oregon.
Fill out the petition: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/no-expanded-background-checks
For those encountering resizing issues with the image, view the full size image here.
If 591 fails we are in big trouble. Of course there are statements that 594stateSAF will take 594 to court. They have a very successful track record of overturning laws in many states. But Bloomberg’s Wa Alliance For Gun Responsibility has bottomless funding and is already anticipating a fight. I am more concerned about how many gun owners voted for 594. Did we not just see that the horrible tragedy in Marysville would not have been prevented even with this law? Gabby Gifford’s attacker bought his gun legally. The Sandy Hook guns were stolen. Almost every single one of the “mass shootings” suspects bought guns passing background checks or stole the guns. This law would not have prevented any single one of those. Now for those of us law abiding gun owners in Washington it is we that are screwed here. There are so many “unintended consequences” in this bill it makes the Health Care bill seem manageable. It is so narrow that LE and Military are barley exempt. It is so narrow that even in the gun store the employee can’t hand me a gun to look at. Forget about my livelihood and my hobbies.
The rifles the we as coaches loan out to the new junior shooters and new competitors will have to be returned. We will have to shut down the program. No more coaching. The parents and their kids who wanted to get involved in a shooting sport and can’t afford the gear yet are hosed. Sorry to all of my friends that wanted me to teach them safe gun handling and go recreational shooting. We will be criminals now. Sorry to any over 18 year old family member or friend that wants to go hunting with me and needs to borrow a gun. We will be criminals now. Sorry family members that I was planning on giving you a gift for self-defense or sport. We will be criminals now. Welcome to registration of your firearms. How else will they keep track of this stuff. Did you know that BC spent over $2 billion dollars over several years to implement this exact same law and they finally stopped it because it did not work and cost too much? It will not work! How many ways can I say that this is the most stupid and damaging and unenforceable law in the history of gun laws. There is a reason they are calling this the strictest gun law in the country. Because of the 18 pages of BS that only hurt citizens and not help with safety.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.30calgal.com/washington-state-now-has-strictest-gun-laws-in-the-country/
How can a state that just three years ago (WA HB 1016) legalized suppressor ownership, and just seven months ago (WA SB 5956) legalized SBR (short barreled rifle) ownership, pass such a travesty of a bill as WA-I594?
Caleb displays a county-by county graph:
Find out more about WA-I594 here:
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: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/10/19/3919041_no-on-i-594-dont-turn-neighbors.html?rh=1