Editorial: I-594 needs clarity before state creates more gun laws
Emboldened by electoral victory, the backers of Initiative 594 are urging the Washington Legislature to adopt a passel of new gun control measures. But first lawmakers should give a fair hearing to those concerned about the unforeseen consequences of the new law requiring background checks on private gun sales.
Some gun rights supporters plan to hold a rally Saturday to highlight possible problems with the definition of “transfer” in the new law. While we don’t envision law enforcement swooping in on folks handing guns to one another at the rally, or at a firing range or anywhere else, the language of the law is ambiguous on which transfers would require a background check.
And it’s not just fearmongers who think so.
For instance, the law carves out an exception for antique firearms, which means “a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.”
This exemption caused the Lynden Pioneer Museum, near the Canadian border, to remove World War II-era weapons from an exhibit before the law went into effect, because it didn’t want to pay for background checks before returning the weapons to their owners. The weapons were manufactured long after the 1898 cutoff date in the law.
Geoff Potter, a spokesman for the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which led the I-594 campaign, said such transfers were not the intent of the law, telling the Seattle Times, “You can’t craft every possibility into every law. We think they can go forward with the exhibit, and we hope they will.”
But other museum curators also expressed concern, including directors of the Washington State Historical Society and the Fort Walla Walla Museum. Can these museums loan post-1898 weapons to each other without paying for background checks? It’s doubtful that any law enforcement agency would crack down, but it takes just one instance to create a legal battle that could sap the budget of a small museum.
Supporters of I-594 also say they didn’t intend for background checks to be triggered by transfers of weapons at shooting ranges or during hunting trips. But the law doesn’t clearly state that.
We endorsed I-594, but lawmakers should give thoughtful consideration to the ambiguity and unintended effects of the newly passed background check law, before moving on to more gun control measures. Otherwise, they will stoke the fears that government intends to ride roughshod over gun ownership rights.