Editor,

We are fast approaching another election cycle, and I fear that many voters are misinformed regarding two critically important initiatives.

Initiatives 591 and 594 each deal with firearm laws in our fine state, but they come from distinctly different poles.

I-591 is a common-sense initiative that basically keeps the state’s firearms laws in line with the federal requirements. This makes perfect sense, is a complement to the Second Amendment of the United States and Washington state constitutions, and is as it should be.

I-594, however, is a very convoluted legislation proposal that should be declined. On the surface, proponents of I-594 make it sound as if it involves only background checks to obtain firearms. To the untrained public, that may make sense.

But the untrained public doesn’t realize that a federal system of background checks is already required and in use. In fact, the volume of background checks is used as a measuring stick to estimate the number of gun sales in the country.

This initiative also removes the capability of a person to take a friend or relative to a range to learn or practice firearm usage. The initiative would require a firearm transfer form simply to hand your firearm to another person. If passed, you can say goodbye to any firearm training, whether it be a father with his daughter or an organized class for women or youth.

These individuals would not even be allowed to handle a firearm other than a personal one in the classroom, let alone on the range.

But wait, this initiative goes even further. It opens the door to registry of all firearms, which has led to large scale confiscation in the past.

Am I saying the sky is falling? Look no further than Great Britain, Australia or even as close as Chicago to see exactly what I am referring to. Their crime rates have escalated primarily due to an unarmed citizenry.

The thugs didn’t turn in their firearms. Hmmmm.

There are scare tactics from the proponents citing back-alley gun sales out of the trunks of cars. This legislation will not stop those sales, folks, when they involve criminals intent on brandishing a firearm. The initiative would only affect the already law–abiding citizens, making it more difficult for them to obtain a firearm for recreation, collecting or personal defense, then use that firearm in any of those capacities.

One last thing. The initial backers of I-594 are from out of state. By their own admittance, they are using Washington as a test bed. They have already failed to a large extent in a couple of other states.

Let’s not be their lab rats on this matter.

So the educated approach would be to vote yes on I-591 and no on I-594. But don’t take my word for it. Do some research of your own. I think you will be shocked by what you uncover.

Gary Raster

Oak Harbor