Washington State 2018 Initiative 1639: Gearing Up for Unnecessarily Stringent Gun Laws

'Tis the season for ballot initiatives. During even-numbered years in the United States, there are a slew of state- and local-level ballots during Election Day. I have had fun in the past writing on such ballots, whether it was about a carbon tax, a constitutional right to hunt and fish, genetically modified food (GMO) labels, or porn industry regulations. I hope this is not the only ballot-related blog entry I write this year, but I at the very least, I am writing this one on Washington Initiative 1639. You can read the initiative for yourself (see here), but essentially, it is making multiple changes to gun ownership and purchase requirements for semi-automatic rifles. Proponents view the Initiative as common-sense gun reform, whereas opponents see it as criminalizing self-defense.

First, some context. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Washington has the 40th highest gun mortality rate in the country. This is not only below the United States' firearm death rate, but it is lower when considering homicides and suicides not committed with firearms (i.e., intentional death rate). In 2017, there was only one homicide [out of 228] that were committed with a rifle in Washington (FBI). All of this is to say that Washington already has a relatively low firearm death rate. So much for an epidemic! One could argue that "one firearm death is one too many," but at the same time, we need to be more realistic in terms of preventing as many deaths as humanly possible. We also have to keep in mind potential costs. That being said, let's dive into the Initiative itself.

• Definition of semi-automatic. According to Section 16 of the Initiative, a semi-automatic is defined as "any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." We're not talking about fully automatic military-grade weapons. This definition includes hunting guns, target shooting rifles, and competitive shooting rifles. The definition is worded in such a way to attach stigma on commonly owned rifles for civilian use. The proponents point out that semi-automatics used in shootings kill more people. What they fail to mention is that according to the FBI, most homicides are committed with handguns, not semiautomatic rifles. 
• Raising age to purchase semi-automatic rifle. Under the Initiative, the age to purchase a semi-automatic will be raised from 18 to 21. Let's forget that 18 is the age we choose to allow humans to be developed enough to vote, serve in the military, get married, sign a contract, and purchase a home. If you're worried about younger adults not having the prefrontal cortex development (§1), then why not ban it for those who are younger than 25? Under this logic, we could ban semi-automatic rifle ownership for all males since men are disproportionately more likely to commit a firearm homicide than a female. 
• Ten-day waiting period. The bill includes a ten-day waiting period for the purchase of semi-automatic rifles (§4). The purpose of this waiting period is supposed to "keep these weapons out of dangerous hands." This logic has a couple of flaws. One, as already mentioned, most homicides are committed with handguns. The second is due to the effectiveness of waiting periods. I analyzed waiting periods back in 2016. What I found is that waiting periods have a positive impact on suicide rates, whereas they do not have an impact on homicide rates. Even if the waiting period were created with the intent of bringing down firearm suicides, ten days is excessive.  
• Secure Gun Storage and Self-Defense. Section 5 of the Initiative has gun storage provisions that are so inhibitive that they would de facto render them useless. If a gun is used in a self-defense scenario, it could come with a punishment as severe as a Class C felony (§5b). Defensive gun usage (DGU) is not so uncommon. Depending on which source you believe, there are anywhere from 100,000 to 2.5 million instances of DGU annually. 
• Eroding health care privacy. If an individual has a firearm under this Initiative, the government has the authority to access health records since a firearms purchase would be construed as a waiver of confidentiality (§7). 
• Gun safety training course. This is a provision (§3b) of the Initiative I actually approve of. Driving a car requires driver's ed or some equivalent knowledge. There should be training for something as potentially deadly as a firearm. Being a responsible firearm owner should entail training, especially since only 61 percent of firearm owners have received firearm training. On the other hand, the Initiative does not specify a minimum number of hours or qualifications of the trainer.
• Gun registry and potential confiscation. The Initiative allows for an Orwellian registry for the firearms (§14). What is even more worrisome is that there is an annual verification process to make sure the individual is still eligible to own a firearm. If deemed ineligible, firearms can be confiscated (§15b). 

Just because I think there could be a more comprehensive background check or that a gun safety training course are good ideas does not mean I like Initiative 1639. The Initiative cannot be voted on piece by piece. It is "either or," and I have to say that on the whole, it is a lousy bill that will, by U.S. standards, impose unprecedented regulation. Given the pervasiveness of the provisions involved, the Initiative would de facto treat gun owners like criminal suspects. It diminishes privacy greatly. It infringes so terribly that the the U.S. Supreme Court would very well overturn this Initiative because it treads on the Second Amendment that badly. I hope this doesn't pass, but given that the Initiative is polling at 59 percent, I'm not going to bite the bullet by holding my breath.