I was reading I-1639 looking for something else and found the following:
(vi) If purchasing a semiautomatic assault rifle, a statement by the applicant under penalty of perjury that the applicant has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years, as required by subsection (2) of this section.
(b) The application shall contain ((a)) two warnings substantially stated as follows:
(i) CAUTION: Although state and local laws do not differ, federal law and state law on the possession of firearms differ. If you are prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, you may be prosecuted in federal court. State permission to purchase a firearm is not a defense to a federal prosecution; and (ii)
CAUTION: The presence of a firearm in the home has been associated with an increased risk of death to self and others, including an increased risk of suicide, death during domestic violence incidents, and unintentional deaths to children and others.
Notice they say “association”, not causation. This is a carefully constructed deception. The association is because people in high risk environments frequently purchase firearms to lower their risk from violent predators. And, of course, the inclusion of “others” was to pad their numbers. “Others” include those violent predators.
And, still, the ownership of a firearm does lower their risk even if the risk is still higher than if they were to lower their risk in other ways such as hiring 24×7 armed guards and/or getting a safer job such as the mayor of New York city instead of doing pizza delivery late at night in the bad part of town. The writers certainly knew that and deliberately used the deceptive language to cause a chilling effect on the exercise of a specific enumerated right. This is unconstitutional.
And I just “love” this section:
The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:
(a) For failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful;
(b) For preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm;
(c) For issuing a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person ineligible for such a license;
(d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person eligible for such a license;
(e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license or alien firearm license;
(f) For errors in preparing or transmitting information as part of determining a person’s eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or eligibility for a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license;
(g) For issuing a dealer’s license to a person ineligible for such a license; or
(h) For failing to issue a dealer’s license to a person eligible for such a license.
Private citizens can be charged with a felony for having their firearms stolen and used in a crime but government officials are immune from liability if they allow a sale to a violent felon to go through or “in good faith” prevent a legitimate sale.
So, all some anti-gun or racist governmental entity has to do is claim they were acting in good faith when they prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to disfavored group, individual, or even everyone. It does provide for a writ of mandamus with the awarding of attorneys fees if the person denied their rights wins. In addition to the time delayed being a denial of rights for an extended period of time expect people of color and the poor to be the hardest hit.
I also found a loophole for certain issues which I will share, and exploit, privately with people I know and trust well.
I think I-1639 is a common sense gun safety measure that will keep everyone safe as the transition from Washington into California nears completion.
I live in California, and my thoughts on this matter hearken back to what my mother used to say about “If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?”
So you’re saying you live in Seattle?
The immunity bit is 18 USC 922 inspired.
Pingback: Vote No on #I1639 | The View From North Central Idaho