I’ll be voting Yes on I-594. Background checks for gun ownership should be a no- brainer by now.

I will be voting “YES” on Initiative 594 November 4, and I hope you will join me.

yes594It is patently obvious that we should require background checks before a citizen is allowed to purchase a firearm. I am a gun owner and a lover of the outdoors myself, and I have personally donated to support the initiative. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (@Yeson594), a coalition of concerned citizens and organizations working together to stand up for common-sense solutions, has sponsored I-594.

This isn’t about the right to bear arms. It is a small but important step toward reducing gun violence by requiring background checks on people who buy guns, regardless of where they buy them. The vast majority of Washingtonians agree that background checks should include all firearm sales. Currently, this is not the case. Why our legislature has not yet passed legislation to reflect the will of the people is curious, and incredibly disappointing.

Zillow had a much-loved software engineer named Justin Ferrari get caught in a crossfire at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cherry Avenue two years ago. He was driving his mini-van. His kids, who he’d just picked up from the community center pool, were in the car. So were his mom and dad. He died in his father’s lap. Gun violence is an epidemic, and I support making our citizenry safe in their own neighborhoods.

Thanks in large part to the honorable civic activism of Nick Hanauer (who has been instrumental in rallying people to support this initiative with votes and contributions), I-594 actually stands a chance of passing. But only if everyone else who supports responsible gun ownership gets out their vote.

I-594 is democracy at its best. It reflects the will of the people, makes common sense, and can save lives.

I hope my fellow citizens will join me in voting yes on I-594. Join the movement at http://wagunresponsibility.org/

YouTube Preview Image
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • ml_Oath

    I’ll be cancelling your vote, but in the end you will still be able to keep your ignorance.

  • “The shooting suspect, only described as a black male in his 20’s, was engaged in a verbal fight with someone on the street at the time. The suspect began firing a gun just as Ferrari unknowingly drove past.”

    Oh yeah – if only we had I594 – Not one thing would have been different. The guy that did the shooting would have been denied a gun? No one that makes the kind of money you and Nick have made is that stupid.
    1) if he is under 21 he broke one law
    2) if he was firing a firearm in the city limits he was breaking another law
    3) if he stole the gun he broke another law
    4) if he left the scene of a crime he broke another law
    5) if he killed someone he broke another law
    6) etc
    So you are saying that if I594 passes it wouldn’t have happened??
    This is about you and Nick feeling good. Not about gun safety.
    The “suspect” more than likely stole the gun. I 594 will only punish law abiding citizens in a trap set for them by I594. Surely if the laws that exist were enforced this guy would have been chillin in the big house not driving the streets of Seattle gaten’ out his lowrider.
    Nick -give the next $1,500,000 to children’s hospital or give more to the opera.

    • Tim

      The guy who sold him the gun probably didn’t break the law. 594 makes that illegal. That sounds like a good idea to me.

  • StopInfringingMyRights

    You should be required to pass a background check before you’re allowed to vote. Or maybe in your case an reading comprehension test. You’re so far off based on this issue it’s not even funny.

    • Tim

      Are you not familiar with the history of literacy tests in America? How about the term “poll tax.” In case you were unaware, those techniques have been used successfully to allow a minority to control the majority in the US. Autocracy is not an American ideal. You worry about the 2nd, at the expense of the 1st, 14th, and 24th? Background checks, not really something I, as a gun owner, object to.

  • Elioron

    If it were just about backgrounds checks that would be one thing, but this is worded to CREATE more felons than to stop them.

    Under I-594 it would be illegal to do the following harmless activities that good, peaceful people do all the time in Washington:

    – Shoot your friends’ guns on public land (also called recreational shooting).
    – Shoot your friends’ guns on private land (again, recreational shooting).
    – Shoot your friends’ guns at any range that exists in reality.
    – Shoot guns belonging to family members unless your life is in danger (and only until the danger is stopped).
    – Shooting someone else’s gun when another person’s life is in danger.
    – A Firearms instructor using an adult student’s weapon to demonstrate techniques.
    – An adult student using a firearms instructor’s weapon to learn.
    – Holding a firearm for someone who is suicidal.
    – handing a firearm to another person while subduing a criminal.
    – Trying someone’s gun to find one you can use comfortably and safely.

    It would make the following ridiculously complicated and, often, extremely expensive (sometimes more expensive than the value of the firearm) by subjecting them to a 30-day waiting period (because dealers have to take it into their inventory and state law mandates they hold it for 30-days), use tax, and fees expected to be $50:

    – Storing a friend’s weapon in your gun safe.
    – Letting friends or family borrow a weapon to go hunting.
    – Loaning a family member a weapon for protection due to threats of violence.
    – Giving back a weapon that was loaned.

    Police Officers are NOT EXEMPT from any of these unless acting officially as part of their duties.

    No, I-594 is about criminalizing gun users

  • Laurak

    Thanks for this timely and important article and support for this common-sense measure. Claiming that I594 “creates felons” is flat out wrong and fear-mongering. Lending a gun to a friend or family member is not a “sale” or even a “transfer” as the FBI defines it, and is allowed under I594.The sole focus of I594 is to keep felons and the mentally ill from legally buying firearms, and in the 16 states today where expanded background checks exist, there is significantly reduced crime.