Secretary of State Kim Wyman,

I was reading the Voter's Pamphlet and noticed what I believe is misleading information.  In the section on Initiative 594, page 21, there is a paragraph with statements that are potentially biased in favor of passage of the initiative.  The second paragraph states;

"Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check.  These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition or for performances.  A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check.  Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check."

The words "temporary transfers for use at a shooting range" are misleading.  I-594 says the transfer at a shooting range is only exempt if the firearm is stored at the range at all times.  This seems to be aimed at ranges which provide guns (rentals) to paying customers.  It does not exempt two friends who bring their guns to a shooting range and allow their use by each other as this would be a temporary transfer requiring a background check.  While children are specifically exempt for training purposes, adults are not exempt unless the gun is kept at the shooting range at all times.  I'm not aware of any shooting ranges open to the public which allow the public to store their firearms on range property.

The sentence "Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check." is misleading.  I-594 states that the hunting exception only applies "while hunting".  Hunting is defined as stalking/killing game animals, not preparing to hunt.  I-594 appears to prohibit a temporary transfer for hunting at any time other than while inside a game management unit unless a background check is obtained.  If I were to borrow a rifle from a friend the day prior to the hunt I would need to obtain a background check.

There is plenty of room in the I-594 section for the addition of several words to make that paragraph much less biased.  

Yours is the only name I can see in the Voter's Pamphlet.  I understand that you are not responsible for the content of the pamphlet, but I was hoping you can tell me the name and contact information of the persons who are.  Thank you.

Respectfully,

Randy Bragge
Belfair, WA
(360) 440-5889

Quoted:
My voters' pamphlet came in the mail today.

What a bunch of crap on the writing. The against section was put together pretty poorly too. Looks like the pro 594 hit a home run on the pamphlets...

Quoted:


my voter pamphlet doesnt have any of the initiatives in it.

Quoted:
I got a reply.  The SoS office says the AG's office puts together the Voter's Pamphlet.  I wrote to the AG's office on their consumer report webpage.  I don't think that the AG is going to read my letter, but his office has been responsive in the past even if it was to say no.

Randy

Randall,

Thank you for your email to the Attorney General's Office.  We appreciate your comments and I will pass them on to the attorney in our office who drafted the explanatory statement for I-594. After the deadline for appealing to a court to adjust an explanatory statement (which has long since passed) we do not engage in discussions about what effect an initiative may or may not have.

Becca Glasgow
Deputy Solicitor General
Washington Attorney General's Office