Posted on 11/03/2014 9:13:59 PM PST by WhiskeyX
Author’s note: This is the first of a series of posts covering the two Washington State gun initiatives to be decided by voters this fall. Here I consider I-591, the “Protect Our Gun Rights Act”. Future posts will address I-594, an opposing bill to I-591.
On November 4th, Washington will be the only state in the country to address gun issues at the ballot box. The first of which, Initiative 591, is a simple, one page bill that in two operative sections places restrictions on state agencies pertaining to due process and potential background checks on the recipient of a firearm:
Section 1: It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.
Section 2: It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightargument.com ...
I will vote no on both.
Voted No I-594!!!
A number of conservatives I know voted early or were about to vote Yes on I591 and No on I594. They were very surprised to hear any conservative would want to vote no on 591. When they finally realized what a Yes vote on 591 would do to help the Federal Government institute more restrictive background checks with an automatic approval from Washington State voters, you could see just how much they disliked being deceived on the I591 vote.
Please stop spreading stupid misinformation.
The national standard clause of the initiative is there simply to ensure that the initiative does not violate federal law should the initiative pass. Current federal laws still apply in regards to background checks, and always will. Such wording merely ensures that lawful gun sales can continue in the state of Washington, as we are all required right now by federal law to conduct background checks under some circumstances.
If Congress manages to pass legislation requiring additional background checks, then they don’t need to consult the voters in our state to do so.
Initiative 591 would simply prevent the state of Washington from adopting harsher background checks than what is required by federal law.
Either you’re a halfwit, or you’re intentionally spreading misinformation in order to torpedo gun rights.
“...help the Federal Government institute more restrictive background checks...”
Stop lying. Please. 591 would do no such thing, and no person with two-braincells to rub together could think otherwise.
“I will vote no on both.”
Please stop a moment and think.
Initiative 591 protects gun rights, period. It would prevent the state from adopting harsher background checks, period.
There is nothing in the initiative that makes it easier to impose federal gun control on this state or its residents. If Congress manages to pass further gun control, it will affect you whether 591 passes or not, so it’s downright stupid to use that as an excuse to vote no on 591.
There is nothing in the initiative that would prevent Washington voters from approving an initiative in the future that utterly violates federal law, like opening up gun-law free gun stores to complement our marijuana stores.
The national standard clause simply ensures that the initiative does not violate federal law regarding background checks.
Anyone arguing that this is a loophole, or a backdoor, is either a gun-grabber in disguise or someone so amazingly stupid that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
I voted No on both.
Your personal insults notwithstanding, your comments are obviously without merit.
There are numerous examples of state nullification of Federal laws, despite the judicial doctrine of the supremacy of Federal laws in other instances. Approval of I591 automatically removes the potential obstacle of Washington State voters and/or legislature approving legislative measures to nullify a future Federal background check law they deemed to be contrary to the protections of the Second Amendment. In other words, firearm owners and purchasers would have to repeal 591 in addition to passing a state law nullifying an unacceptable Federal law for background checks. So, I591 represents an attempt to gradually erode away the checks and balances between state and Federal governments without drawing attention to how it is doing so.
Gungrabbers make this a win win situation for their efforts if they can get 594 or 591 passed in this election. Remove the inappropriate terms from I591, then you would have a measure which means what it should mean in support of the 2nd Amendment.
What a way to win converts to his POV, eh?
“Approval of I591 automatically removes the potential obstacle of Washington State voters and/or legislature approving legislative measures to nullify a future Federal background check law...”
It does no such thing. How could it? Absolutely nothing in the wording says anything about forcing the state to follow new federal laws, the wording simply states that it’s unlawful for the state to adopt background checks unless required to by federal law.
Nothing in the initiative would force our congressmen or senators to vote in favor of national background checks. Nothing in the initiative would prevent a voter initiative that sought to invalidate federal law.
You’re making crap up. 591 protects gun rights, period. It doesn’t make it easier to pass federal gun control, period. Nothing in 591 prevents voters from trying a marijuana gambit around federal gun laws.
Stop lying!
Yeah, sounds like a classy Progressive-Liberal-exDemocrat talking, doesn’t it?
“the wording simply states that it’s unlawful for the state to adopt background checks unless required to by federal law.”
If you didn’t want the state law enforcement agencies to adopt background checks, then why do you specifically authorize them to do so on behalf of the Federal Government? There is already a centuries old traditional means for doing so with the Federal Government conducting background investigations as needed through the U.S. Marshall and/or the County Sheriff. using existing means permits a State and its citizens to exercise the power to nullify unconstitutional Federal laws, as part of the Constitutional separation of powers.
“Halfwit...two-brain cells...amazingly stupid “
Because anyone who could believe the crazy crap WhiskeyX is spouting is precisely that.
Do you understand what state-level preemption is? In regards to gun laws?
Under our system you are subject to the laws of your local government, your state government, and the federal government. The laws of your municipality or county do not supersede and invalidate the laws of your state, or the federal government. Likewise, the laws of your state to not supersede and invalidate the laws of the federal government.
However, your state, or your local government, can adopt laws harsher than those of the next highest level of government; and this is dangerous to liberty. The result of that is things like New York’s Sullivan Act, D.C.’s various gun bans, and the like.
Gun rights advocates for decades have been pushing for preemption laws that prevent your local or state governments from adopting gun laws harsher than federal law.
State level preemption prevents, for example, Seattle from not recognizing your concealed carry permit, or from banning gun ownership within city limits.
Initiative 591 is simply another type of preemption. It doesn’t make it easier to adopt harsher federal laws, that’s absurd. It simply makes it impossible for lower levels of government to one-up the gun grabbers in Congress.
Having state-level preemption does not mean that you can’t roll back your local, state, or even federal gun laws. Passing a law telling the state that they can’t pass harsher gun laws than those imposed by the federal government doesn’t magically grant the federal government MORE authority to pass harsh gun laws.
Don’t listen to the gun-grabbers that want you to vote no on 591. Exercise SOME basic civic understanding and SOME rational thought.
“Nothing in the initiative would prevent a voter initiative that sought to invalidate federal law.”
Nothing I wrote said I591 would “prevent a voter initiative....” What I did say is that I591 would need to be repealed to withdraw its permission for the State of Washington to conduct background checks for the Federal Government, and thereby make one more serious impediment to getting such legislation passed in the Washington State legislature in addition to a nullification of the Federal law infringing upon the Second Amendment.
Whenever you hear the words “common sense” being used to describe any legislation, you know it is bad.
“If you didn’t want the state law enforcement agencies to adopt background checks, then why do you specifically authorize them to do so on behalf of the Federal Government?”
Please stop lying.
Nothing in 591 prevents the state, or voters, from choosing to violate federal laws. The wording simply ensures that initiative 591 doesn’t do so, as you are still required by federal law to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a licensed dealer (or presenting your concealed carry permit as proof of having completed a background check).
Nothing in 591 prevents voters from pulling a marijuana-gambit on gun rights, like we did with our state level marijuana stores.
Nothing in 591 forces our congressmen or senators to support federal gun control, or harsher background checks.
The wording of the law simply ensures that voters, by voting yes on 591, are merely voting to keep the state from adopting harsher background checks.
Arguing against 591 because it doesn’t go so far as to violate federal law, like our marijuana sales, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
591 protects gun rights, period.
“...I591 would need to be repealed to withdraw its permission for the State of Washington to conduct background checks for the Federal Government...”
WRONG! Stop lying!
The initiative would stop the state from conducting background checks, unless required by federal law. That doesn’t say that the state MUST follow federal law, that’s absurd, the law says that the state can’t conduct background checks... unless required.
“Prevent unless required to” DOES NOT MEAN “you are required to”. Prevent is the operative clause, the state is prevented from adopting a background check system harsher than federal law.
Those are very different things. So stop lying.
Most everyone I know voted for it. And I have no doubt some judge will throw it out if if passes.
“Most everyone I know voted for it. And I have no doubt some judge will throw it out if if passes.”
Everyone I know voted for it as well, though a few were initially confused by the people urging a no vote; once they actually read the law though they all saw through the shoddy reasoning of the no-crowd.
Sadly I think you’re right about the activist judge bit. You never know though, sometimes gun rights stick with other rational conservative issues don’t. Hell, judges have started forcing states to issue concealed carry permits, so there’s some glimmer of hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.