Today I would like to present some information on Initiative 594, (I-594) and the Second Amendment since they are important topics that affect all owners of firearms in The United States of America. It is a little bit long so feel free to skip to the end (the part on I-594) if you are in a hurry, but I hope you will be able to read all of the information I have found.
In preparation for this blog entry, I have been reading some very interesting information on the Cornell University Law School website and some other resources which I will share as I bring up points borrowed from each.
When someone says “Second Amendment Rights”, the first thing that comes to mind is the struggle over decisions that concern gun control, and the spotlight that has seemingly made a major and confusing debate of the right for citizens to bear arms in our country.
The 2nd Amendment, ratified on December 17, 1791 reads:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Let me begin by sharing my own personal stance on the matter – It is my belief that American citizens have the right to protect their homes, property, selves, and families by using guns or any other tool that is effective against a hostile party. It is also my belief that guns in the wrong hands can create devastating circumstances that should never be allowed to come to pass.
This being said – are there guns in my home – yes. Are they there to protect our home, property, and family members exclusively – yes. I don’t see any reason for discussion or debate on the matter myself; however this fact is forever under dispute and scrutiny.
Cornell University Law School Quote: “A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
View 1 of The Collective Rights Theory – “…some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.”
View 2 of The Collective Rights Theory – “some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense.”
The above points borrowed and quoted (recognized by the use of italics) from Cornell University Law School Resource.
Hummmm, so was it designed to be a personal right, or a right to be executed when there is a threat at a higher level that requires militia action? There is a lot of room for interpretation there in both directions.
So let’s fast forward to last week 9/17/14 – and gain some insight from Alan M. Gottlieb – Chairman of CCRKBA (Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) on the 2014 Congressional Elections.
“The 2014 Congressional elections are going to play a major role in the fate of our Second Amendment rights. If the House and Senate hold a democratic majority after the elections we could see a flood of federal anti-gun laws like never before and it would be nearly impossible to stop.
If republicans win the majority in both the House and Senate, the constant threat of additional federal gun control will come to a crawl. These are vital midterm elections that we need to prepare for in order to stop the anti-gunners.”
Now personally I think these statements may be a tad presumptuous and premature, but they might also hold a very real threat to the future of the Second Amendment. It’s hard to say… one would hope that congress could be trusted to do what is right for the American public – but this is historically not always the case, so to quote the Boy Scouts of America – “Be Prepared” – might not be a bad route to take with this one.
And finally, I would like to share some information I discovered on I-594 which is on the WA State ballot for November.
Here’s the ‘nutshell version’ from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
Initiative 594: “Universal Handgun Registration”
- Under I-594, every time a handgun is transferred, the person receiving the handgun will have their name added to the government database being maintained by the state Department of Licensing.
- Virtually every firearm transfer – with very few and limited exceptions – would be required to go through a licensed firearms dealer under the provisions of I-594.
- I-594 will specifically regulate transfers, not sales. Under the language of I-594, in virtually all cases, a person merely handing his or her firearm to a family member or a friend cannot do so without brokering the transfer through a gun dealer with the accompanying fees, paperwork, taxes and, in the case of handguns, state registration.
- I-594 also doubles the state waiting period on handgun sales from five to ten days and extends it to every private transfer of a handgun!
- The only thing that I-594 would accomplish is the creation of a government record of all lawfully transferred handguns in Washington, which would facilitate their future confiscation.
My apologies for being so long-winded… and for the extensive use of quotes today – but I really could not have said it any better than the resources I have provided.
Smittys Rancho will be adding the gun vote logo seen at the top of the page to all of our posts until the election in support of freedom to bear arms because it is an important right – one that should not taken for granted.
Thanks for bearing with me and I hope you have found some or all of the information presented interesting and informative.
Next time we’ll talk about something a lot more fun… like Fall Activities!
See you then.