SEATTLE - A new poll shows strong support among Washington voters for a ballot initiative that would require background checks on all firearm sales in the state.
The Elway Poll found that 70 percent of people were inclined to vote for Initiative 594. The same poll showed that 46 percent of people were inclined to vote for a competing measure, Initiative 591, which would prevent Washington state from adopting background-check laws stricter than the national standard.
Thirty-two percent of respondents said they were inclined to vote for both initiatives in November.
Morons.
I don’t understand your problem. People who vote for both are saying that they want background checks, but they don’t want the background check requirements to be stricter than the national average. That seems like a reasonable position to me.
THe first one is stricter than national requirements. It’s a universal background check. Federal law does not require universal background checks. If the second initiative passes, the first one is void, even if the first one gets more votes.
:dubious: How does *that *work? I thought if 2 (or more) contradictory initiatives were passed on the same ballot whichever had the higher yes vote prevailed.
I’m wondering about the language of these initiatives. Sometimes people know what side they’re on but are confused about which way they’re voting.
Something like: This initiative would prohibit the abolition of any amendment which would ban the overturning of any law establishing a restriction on gun control which is less than the national standard. Yes or no?
I’d need to diagram that sentence carefully to be sure, but since there are seven (an odd number) of negatives surrounding the key word gun, I’ll guess it’s anti-gun.
I’d guess most voters have trouble even with two negatives.
So, Washington State also has an initiative process that’s made worse than useless by cynical manipulation from moneyed interests? Huh. I thought that was just a California thing.
That’s how we got liquor privatization, with an initiative largely written (and underwritten) by Costco.
At first the Usual Suspects flocked to it, drawn by visions of more widely available — and cheaper — booze (with the added bonus that it would throw a bunch of useless gummint employees out of work). After it passed, they found that not only was it written to favor large outlets such as you-know-who over mom&pop stores, but also that the specified taxes and fees made liquor more expensive in many cases. All of which was obvious to anyone who actually read the thing. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth (not to mention railing against the state government that hadn’t wanted it in the first place) ensued.
So this is the new, angrier adaher we’re seeing, full of righteous bile and cranking out Pit threads for the petite outrage of the day? Not getting enough satisfaction from your election thread prognostications?
Again, it’s the Legislature that’s useless … if they’d do their job and not make the People rise up and get initiatives on the ballot, then we won’t have as many screw-ball laws.
We all know moneyed interests have no sway over the State Legislators.
Back on topic (and apologies for the digression): despite adaher’s indignation, I’m seriously considering voting for both. For one thing, I think injecting a bit of chaos into the system from time to time is not a bad idea; for another, I consider the whole controversy moot. If 594 passes, the NRA will be all over it like white on rice, and it will be declared unconstitutional before it has a chance to take effect. Their lawyers are very good at that kind of thing.
Huh?? “Strictness” is a measure of the requirements to meet each individual background check, orthogonal to the question of whether or not a check is to be performed in any given case.
You might argue that this isn’t the intent of the latter, but as a legitimate interpretation that preserves a meaningful application to both (if both are adopted), it’s what would result from a court challenge asserting incompatibility.
But isn’t even a pro forma background check, by definition more strict than “no background check at all?”
Or is that sophistry on the level of calling-your-recipe-“no-sugar-added”-as-long-as-the-sugar-is-the-first-thing-in-the-bowl-so-it’s-everything-else-that’s-added?
Pennsylvania is worse. Wine & spirits are sold in state-run stores; beer sales are privatized, but even more bizarrely regulated. For example supermarkets can now get permission to sell beer, but are legally required to allow consumption on site. Also you can’t buy more than 2 six packs at a time, unless you walk outside & then back in again.
I’m usually good at legalese, but I still don’t understand what you quoted.
I’m usually good at legalese, but I still don’t understand what you quoted.