I’m writing in reference to an Associated Press story “Police killings cited in support of I-594,” published in The Columbian on Sept. 13. This story has inaccurate and misleading information. Whether a licensed gun dealer is in his own shop or at a gun show, he must conduct a background check for every firearm sale. The statistics they used in the report don’t even cite whether or not firearms used in a majority of the killings were possessed illegally. They don’t know for sure but they are assuming that they were. An assumption of this kind calls into question the validity of the entire report.
They say that Initiative 594 won’t be used in a way that is detrimental to legal firearm owners, but there’s no way they can guarantee that. If there’s a way that it can be used that way it will. How are they going to enforce this initiative without knowing what firearms are owned by who? How are they going to enforce it unless they have an audit process to guarantee that transfers are being done within the law?
I-594 is a poorly written bill that is unneeded and will put unnecessary strain on a system that is already clogged.
Jeff Egan
Woodland