Gun editorial refreshing

I made no secret of my opposition to Initiative 594. Thus, it felt refreshing to see an editorial (Dec. 7) that somewhat agrees. I don’t argue with the intent; no one wants criminals to have guns. But good intentions re: Prohibition, don’t always make good law.

As a police officer for 12 years, I know it will be difficult to enforce. My concern is the wording, or lack of. After 17 mind-numbing pages of definitions, the key, section 2, paragraph 25, transfers, is vague. A transfer does not require monetary exchange or have a time limit. Thus, despite what anyone says, the rifle exchange demonstration in Olympia is illegal.

For now, nothing will be done, but who knows. Think government won’t use vagueness to act? How about the Patriot Act and what the National Security Administration is doing? And politicians in this state, like Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, have shown they don’t mind trampling one amendment to suppress another.

Even Shawn Vestal agrees on that. What new laws are they proposing?

It’s good to know a New York billionaire is taking care of us; we can soon reach the violence levels of New York City or Washington, D.C. Feel safer already.

Steven Stuart

Spokane