— from Steve Henigson —
Recent TV ads promoting I-594 tell us that it will close a “loophole” which lets felons and other violent persons acquire guns at will, without going through any kind of background check or other control. In one example, the Gunbroker.com website appears as a background graphic, while the speaker tells us that you can buy a gun by just going online, going to a gun show, or by meeting someone in a parking lot somewhere. Is this true?
If you believe that it is, I strongly suggest that you try it. You will be in for a surprise. There are several gun-sales websites, including Gunbroker.com, and to buy a gun through any of them, delivery must be made through a licensed gun dealer, and only after you have passed the legally-required background check. You will find that the same method applies at gun shows, where the promoter provides the background-check service for the unlicensed participants at the show. As for buying a gun from some stranger in a parking lot, you need to know that law-abiding gun owners don’t behave like that. They will deliver only to someone known personally, or otherwise through a licensed dealer, because they are responsible and obey the law.
But, yes, you really could buy a gun from a stranger in a parking lot, without being bothered by the legal niceties. People who buy and sell guns this way are called “criminals.” A criminal, by definition, is someone who does not obey the law.
So let’s put all of this together. Passing I-594 will not prevent felons, the mentally ill, and the violent from acquiring guns, because these people do not obey the law. So what good will I-594 do?
Did you know, by the way, that the three most recent gun massacres, in Colorado, Connecticut, and California, would not have been stopped by a law like I-594? The Colorado and California killers passed their background checks, in the latter case due to the inattentiveness of the local police, and bought their guns quite legally. The Connecticut killer stole the guns he used.
What, then, will I-594 do? It will burden and complicate the lives of law-abiding gun owners, but it will have absolutely no effect upon criminals or gun-crime. Under I-594, if my law-abiding friend wishes to borrow my shotgun temporarily, we will have to formally transfer it through a licensed dealer, which includes a 10-day waiting period; and then, when he gives it back to me, we will have to go through the same process again. How, exactly, will that stop crime?
Now, somebody might say, “I don’t like guns, or the people who own them. So why should I care if their lives are burdened or complicated.” But someone who voted to pass I-594 for that reason would be a bigot, right? And nobody wants to be a bigot.
Please vote “No” on I-594.
“Passing I-594 will not prevent felons, the mentally ill, and the violent from acquiring guns, because these people do not obey the law. So what good will I-594 do?”
Quite a twist of logic you have there Steve! Crap– why have any laws for that matter since criminals don’t care what the law says– “What good do it do”!!
What I-594 does do is to provide law abiding citizen’s with more prosecutorial might on their side. One idea behind a law like this as has already been mentioned is to provide a big red stop sign for law abiding citizens to see, telling them not to go beyond this point. But, this law also tells the criminal, or would be criminal that WE are aware of your activity, your illegal straw purchases, etc., and with this new law we have specific new prosecutorial powers designed to crack down on you, if you engage in these activities. I-594 is a worthwhile Law, and will have NO negative effect upon the Law abiding citizens of our state, so why NOT be for passing it? Who on the right side of the law will be harmed by I-594??
Isn’t that the point though, passing “Feel Good” laws which don’t accomplish anything, leads to a disrespect for all laws,good and bad
“Isn’t that the point though, passing “Feel Good” laws which don’t accomplish anything, leads to a disrespect for all laws,good and bad”
Exactly! 594 will not prevent criminals or mentally ill persons from obtaining a firearm but it will require legal, responsible gun owners to navigate through a tangle of new regulations, wait periods and additional fees that will do nothing to stop the crimes that 594 is supposed to be about.
Passing laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop crime is bad legislation. I encourage everyone to actually read 594, and then vote no.
Ineffectual, burdensome for legal gun owners, and an expensive, complex administrative nightmare. Both our current sheriff and the candidate opposing him acknowledged last night at the candidate forum that the proposal is unnecessary ( existing laws are sufficient), and ineffectual–it will stop no injury from illegal gun transfers. I personally was shocked by the exceptions–you can’t lend your rifle to a friend for target practice without two trips to the mainland for both parties, plus a fee for the gun dealer officiating over the loan? Yet, if I had one, I could pass a handgun on to a spouse, partner, grandparent, grandchild, or first cousins, all exempt from the process. Don’t know about you, but some of my cousins deserve a background check.
Countries that have unarmed police: Great Britain, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland. These are the world’s most civilized counties. I used to have a gun. A pellet gun. When I was a kid. But when I became an adult, I put aside childish things. It’s time for this country to grow up, too!
Those countries with unarmed police, and stiff laws prohibiting or severely limiting gun ownership, are experiencing ever-increasing levels of criminal violence. There is even an increasing level of gun violence in Britain and Australia.
Laws, and their penalties, only affect the criminal after the fact and then only if the malefactor is caught.
Laws and penalties do not prevent crime, because criminals, by definition, pay no attention to them.
Why, then, is it so very important to restrict the behavior of the only people who pay attention to the law: The normal, law-abiding citizen?
He (or she) already commits no crime.
So then, please tell me: How, exactly, will I-594 affect or reduce crime, including gun violence?
(Nobody seems to be able to cogently answer this question.)