Initiative 1639

Initiative Measure No 1639 concerns firearms.

This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions.

Should the measure be enacted into law?
Yes
No

The League of Women Voters (bless them) has done a great job of summarizing the issues. Check their review here: https://lwvwa.org/ballot-measures

They tried valiantly to maintain a neutral stance, but that is really hard when the “no” side comes up with the inane arguments they do. For starters, we’re dealing only with assault rifles. I, for one, believe that assault rifles, if they are to exist at all, belong strictly in the military, in spite of Dave Hayes’ quip at the candidates’ night that “one man’s assault rifle is another’s hunting rifle.” If we can’t ban these weapons outright, then the least we can do is impose some pretty obvious and basic measures. It turns out that the limitations being proposed already exist for hand guns. Who knew that assault rifles were less regulated than pistols? The “no” people claim that a background check is an imposition on their 2nd  amendment rights. They claim that even if we limit the legitimate market there will still be a black market. They don’t seem to understand that the black market is illegal. That’s why its called the black market. They object to the 21year minimum age to own one of these weapons with the argument that young people are able to enlist in the military at age 18 and they’ll use such weapons there. What seems to be lost on these people is the fact that the military is highly regimented, and while young soldiers are indeed taught to use these weapons, they are also taught the rules and responsibilities around that use, and they don’t get to take them into town on leave. I’m just waiting for the gun lovers to claim they have a 2nd amendment right to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher, and a Scud missile, and . . .

The part about "criminalize non-compliant storage upon unauthorized use" translates as: if you leave it lying around, rather than storing it under lock and key, and someone does something bad (like killing the neighbors) with it, then you will be held criminally liable for making the weapon easy to get at. 


https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article218426785.html
Prospective owners would have to prove that they have completed a firearm safety training program in the last 5 years.
Existing rules that dealers must wait to deliver pistols to buyers with outstanding arrest warrants would be expanded to include semiautomatic rifles. One wonders just why people with outstanding arrest warrants are able to buy any kind of gun.

I think it is telling that the conditions being imposed already exist for hand guns. One has to wonder why a permit and training are required for a pistol but not for an AR 15.

Following the money:

Pro 1639:
Safe Schools, Safe Communities        $4,662,378.02
Major donors include:
    Paul Allen
    Nick Hanauer
    Steve Ballmer
    Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund
    Alliance for Gun Responsibility Foundation
    FUSE Voters
    Nancy Nordhoff
    Washington State Association for Justice

Anti 1639:
Save Our Security, No on 1639        $51,613.28
Shall Not Be Infringed            $29,801.61
Stop 1639, Shall Not Be Infringed        $31,075.96
Washingtonians & NRA for Freedom    $455,780.83

I happen to hate guns and the harm they do to innocent and unsuspecting citizens just trying to live their lives.

I will be voting an enthusiastic YES.