Another reason to vote "no" on I-594: their mailers are false.

First of all, they're targeting women because they believe them to be stupid.

There was a piece in our PO box yesterday that described a horrific situation"

"In 2012 my mother was shot by her husband, a man we knew was violent.  Just a year earlier he was arrested for strangling her."

That, of course, does not mean he was convicted of it... and with words having meaning and all, don't you think they would have used the word "convicted" if he had been?

It doesn't say, of course, how or under what circumstances the shooter gain control over the weapon in question.

It doesn't say if he bought the gun, borrowed the gun, stole the gun, built it from spare parts or even come close to mentioning if this gun grabbing initiative would have made any difference whatsoever in this outcome.

It doesn't say that if this initiative passed, he wouldn't have used a knife, or run this poor woman over with a truck or been completely unable to find a way to harm her.  It doesn't say, but certainly infers, that the woman in question was killed.

Instead, it shows a blond and ascribes a quote the campaign made up for her and infers that this initiative would have made a huge difference in that outcome.

They just don't happen to say how or why.

This shooting, in fact, is blamed on a "gun show loop hole," when it doesn't even mention that this guy bought the gun in question FROM a gun show or that he didn't undergo a federally mandated background check.

It doesn't say he was a convicted felon.

It doesn't say how passage of this idiocy would have made any difference whatsoever, or how it would have stopped this tragedy.

Then it falsely claims that:

 "Initiative 594 gives us the chance to help protect women like my mom by closing the background check loophole."

Of course, it doesn't mention HOW that would happen. Had this been in force in Connecticut, for example, it would have made no difference whatsoever in the Sandy Hook shootings.

In the end, this is a gun-grabbing attempt designed to punish the law-abiding as a result of the law-breaking.  For example:

Widows and heirs beware: If your spouse died and you found a couple of handguns in your husband’s sock drawer 61 days after death, then you’d be an accidental felon.

I-594 only allows you 60 days to register those guns; after that, they’d become contraband. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and intent to commit a crime is not an element written into 594. Why write a law that makes inheritance of grandpa’s old guns a crime?

The father who loans a hunting rifle to an adult son during hunting season would commit a misdemeanor (upon the first violation).  When the rifle is returned, both father and son would be two-time offenders, and thus felons under I-594.

Women are targeted by several provisions. Instructors could no longer provide loaner firearms during introductory women’s self-defense classes. And if your sister were being stalked and in fear of her life, and you loaned her a firearm, you would both be criminals. I-594 has an exception to “prevent imminent death,” but the legal definition of imminent means “about to happen.”

It will increase the number of criminals because the passage of this stupidity guarantees that I will become a criminal, since I have zero intention of following the idiotic elements of the law they propose.

This is, in fact, another example of where millionaires are buying an outcome... and our local leftists remain silent about both the fact that the leftists financing this are spending millions, and that the vast majority of those leftists come equipped with very much armed security.

They want their people to have guns... they just don't want us to have guns.

Billionaire former New York Mayor Micheal Bloomberg has donated a paltry $1.979 million to this effort... like he's going to live here?  Like he doesn't have heavily armed security?

Bill Gates has donated a million.  Like he doesn't have heavily armed security?

Nick Hanauer dumped a million into this idiocy:  Like he doesn't have heavily armed security?

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer drops a cool million on it... Like he doesn't have heavily armed security?

Paul Allen, owner of the Seahawks and the Blazers... dropped a cool half-million into this insidious effort... And HE doesn't have heavily armed security?

Do not be fooled.  I'm all about laws that make a positive difference and increase accountability on those who would ignore our requirements when it comes to firearms as they sit.  But claims that "40,000 people have been stopped from purchasing firearms because of background checks" without also mentioning that precisely NONE of those who failed a background check have been prosecuted for the attempt as provided by law go to the heart of the matter:

Before they punish those of us who possess firearms for protection, perhaps they should more fully enforce/prosecute  those who break the firearms laws we already have. Until they do...

Don't be fooled.  Vote NO on I-594.  It fixes nothing, changes nothing and criminalizes things you simply wouldn't believe.