After reading the letter to the editor Oct. 18 about I-1639, I need to clarify some of the erroneous and factually inaccurate statements contained therein.
RCW 9.41.090 does not require a concealed carry permit to purchase a pistol.
Presenting one to a dealer during purchase is one of three ways to comply with the background checks required for a firearms purchase.
Requiring one to purchase a firearm will not add a level of safety.
I, like many gun owners, do not object to firearms training, however the requirement of I-1639 — training repeated every 5 years — is redundant, expensive and will accomplish nothing toward public safety.
Rather then putting the onus where it should be, on the perpetrator, criminalizing of the storage requirements puts a legal gun owner in a position to be charged with a class C felony.
I-1639 mandates a 10-day waiting period for an “assault weapon” even after the background checks are complete, which, again, will do nothing at all to enhance public safety.
I-1639 would designate semi-automatic shotguns, rim-fire and hunting rifles, which have been on the market for years and never used in a mass shooting, as assault weapons.
The intent of I-1639 is admirable, but needs to be rewritten and refined.
It will do little or nothing to stop what it is touted to stop.
Read the text of I-1639 for the truth before you vote.
Dennis McBride,
Sequim