I-594 is vague

After reading Shawn Vestal, I usually smile, shake my head at his progressive viewpoints, and move on. But I must respond to his Nov. 19 column and his take on Initiative 594.

He makes strong statements about how handing someone a gun isn’t a transfer because a Washington State Patrol spokesman says so. I have read every word of I-594, and it isn’t as clear as Vestal would have us believe.

One example: Section 3: (4) (f) (iv) says in part, that a temporary transfer to a person under 18 years of age for educational purposes is an exemption to the law.

Yet, anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 1972 must take a hunter education class in order to buy a Washington hunting license. I’m a certified instructor. Under 18 is very specific. Does that mean I can’t allow students over 17 to practice safe gun handling without a background check?

I-594 is not simply a background check requirement for gun shows and online sales that the big money proponents made nearly 60 percent of voters believe. If that were the intent, it could have been stated within one or two pages.

Courts have overturned laws as “unconstitutionally vague.” We’ll see.

Jim Parman

Newman Lake