Editor,

There have been several letters regarding Initiative 594 already published, but none addressed my principal concerns.

Before I begin, let me say that I am a retired deputy sheriff with more than 30 years of service in Los Angeles County, Calif. I was a working street cop, manager and executive. Based on my experience, I believe Initiative 594 to be “bad law.”

Here’s why:

First, it targets the wrong people. It places arbitrary, costly and difficult requirements on honest, average citizens who are law abiding. Rest assured, if the initiative passes, they will be the only persons that will obey it.

Second, the criminal element in society, who by their records cannot pass a background check, will not obey it. They obtain firearms either through theft or purchase on the street from someone who has stolen the weapon. They buy from fellow criminals whom they know and trust. That won’t change.

Third, I-594 is essentially unenforceable. It will not stop the sale or transfer of firearms between friends or relatives, nor are such people likely to engage a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer to conduct the transaction. Such sales and trades now occur in the participants’ homes or similar places without witnesses. Such transactions are historically not reported, and it is quite unlikely that they will be if I-594 becomes law.

Why? Because the transaction is unwitnessed and untraceable.  What it will do is make such persons subject to prosecution if the transaction is somehow discovered.

Fourth, the universal background check requirement that I-594 is based on will consume a greatly increased amount of law enforcement man hours.

That means initially diverting people from their primary functions in order to answer phones and conduct background checks and create and maintain the resultant database.

In the long run, it will require hiring lots more people for the purpose, which will create another bureaucracy and raise your taxes. Oh yes, I-594 makes no provision for funding this requirement.

In short, I-594 creates a bureaucracy, burdens the public unnecessarily, will criminalize some folks unknowingly, will raise taxes and will not take firearms away from criminals. That’s my experience speaking, and I’m not alone. Both the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor Association and the Washington State Council of Police and Sheriff’s are on record as opposing I-594.

I urge you to vote “No” on I-594.

Harry S. Hansen

Coupeville