The part about confiscation is pretty clear. But what about the other part that limits background checks.

Dan and I pushed WAGR for clarification on the weakening of background checks, and this is their response. Is this true? When I read 591, it sounds more along the lines of background check or not. Not what entails a background check.

'We are happy to clear this up. We were curious about 591's impact on the existing background check system in Washington. So, we asked some legal experts. Here is what they had to say: "Initiative 591 would prohibit the State from enforcing any additional background checks beyond the NICS check. Specifically, the proposed initiative would repeal existing Washington law that requires a licensed firearm dealer selling a pistol to check with the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides to determine whether the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under state law." ' - Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility - FB

This is what I wrote in response to their comment;

And then silence...

There's a backlog of facts and logic, they're just starting to think about processing Newton's Law of Motion.

240 grains of justice!

Oops

It seems to me like I591 is completely unnecessary, and in fact could make things worse.

Why not just put all effort into making sure people vote NO on I594? What will I591 actually do if both bills are passed, for example?

I find it very hard to trust anything SAF and Alan Gottlieb gets behind, after they threw their weight behind the Manchin-Toomey bill earlier this year. SAF seems to smell more and more like some sort of astroturf operation as time goes on.

One, it is suppose to protect against confiscation without due process. Post hurricane Katrina is a good example of when this would be important. Also, people are pushing for domestic abuse legislation that could forgo due process.

Two, we don't want to give up our state rights to the federal government, but whatever the feds put into action will roll down to the states anyway. I was informed that 591 would do away with the local law enforcement background check, but it is now redundant. Washington is pushing all the info used for the local check to NICS. This could potentially save manpower and money to eliminate the local check.

I misread. I thought this was about 594.

591 would remove the pistol background check as Dan stated. WAGR wants to keep that and expand upon it with 594 in order to create de facto registration.

I was not aware that 591 would eliminate the pistol check/registry/wait period. That's good.

I still am extremely suspicious of SAF. Don't mind me.

As I recall, it may reduce or eliminate the mandatory 5-day wait on pistols purchased without a CPL as well. Which is also a good thing. Anyone sure of that?

Shoudn't... That's a federal requirement placed upon FFL's as a term of doing business.

You can walk out the door with a pistol without a CPL in Oregon....the wait period is a state thing.

240 grains of justice!

I stand corrected, it is a state thing! The federal 5-day wait was removed in 1998 when NICS went computerized.

UBCs on a state level are less likely to be effective than a federal consistent UBC process for private sales. So I actually do like 591 in that respect.

True that but knowing our State they'll just waste the manpower and money in a different area of government. Won't result in any true change to the taxpayers. The State will just reassign the employees tasked with the "2nd check" and spend any money saved from the rest of the process to hire even more unneeded employees.