Two competing measures on the Washington state ballot this fall ask voters to take a stance on expanded background checks for gun sales. One is seeking universal checks for all sales and transfers, including private transactions. The other would prevent any such expansion... What happens if both pass on Nov. 4 is anyone's guess, though the Washington secretary of state's office has said that either the Legislature or the courts would have to sort it out.Well, the Legislature could sort it out by passing a new law that superseded both measures. How would a court sort it out, though? It's a logical contradiction, passed by majorities of voters in the same way at the same time via the same method. The stronger majority wins? Both laws are null and void?
A & ~A: It's the Law
News from the Pacific Northwest:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Inititive 594 (the "background check") is essentially a registration scheme designed to find all those firearms that have been sold or handed down through families, and criminalize gun owners.
ANY loan or gift counts as a transfer, no matter how fleeting, and would have to go through a dealer and a fee- both ways, if it is a loan.
First offense a misdemeanor,a year in jail, second offense a "serious" felony,same class as rape.. arson, assault, etc sentences to run consecutively. All for a victimless paper work violation.
Examples- you are on a hunting trip, your buddies gun breaks so you lend him your spare-criminal.
Your daughter is away at grad school and you store her gun in your safe-criminal.
Your friend is scared of an intruder some night so you loan her a gun-criminal
You go target shooting at the local sandpit with a friend and try her .22- criminal-
You inherit your husbands guns- better run them all through a dealer in 60 days or less or you are a criminal- and remember on all these it is a per gun offense.
Two million dollars of this offense on liberty came from just four individuals.
How would a court sort it out, though?
Based upon previous court rulings, I'd hazard a guess. The judge's political preference would become law, the other would be thrown out.
In a republican democracy, like ours used to be, the courts cannot--the conflict is purely political, not legal.
Absent that, Mike is right.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment