Who is Shea protecting?

Why is Rep. Matt Shea more interested in protecting the gun rights of felons, drug addicts, domestic abusers and the mentally ill than in protecting the safety of the majority of his constituents, Washington’s law-abiding citizens?

Although the smoke screen of a mythical “attack on the Second Amendment” is used to justify opposing Initiative 594, an examination of the facts makes it clear that this is not a Second Amendment issue.

For all of us law-abiding citizens not suffering from mental illness, this initiative does not impact on our ability to purchase a gun. The benefit to overturning I-594 goes to felons, drug addicts, domestic abusers and the mentally ill who wish to purchase firearms. Period.

Do we really want to jump on this particular bandwagon to ensure that the above-mentioned can easily obtain firearms? I believe that certain actions, such as committing a felony, result in the abdication of some of our rights. Is it more important to protect the “rights” of those whose own choices and actions have limited their rights, or to protect the safety and security of the majority of our citizens?

Karen Parks

Greenacres