Brickbat: Ancient History

|

Black Country Museums/Flickr

The kindness of a pawn shop owner will keep Washington's Lynden Pioneer Museum from having to remove all firearms from a World War II exhibit and return them to the owners to comply with a new state law. Initiative 594, which voters passed earlier this month, requires background checks on all firearms transfers except between family members. There is no exception in the law for loans to museums. The museum had planned to return the firearms to owners before the law takes effect Dec. 4. But the owner of Pistol Annie's Jewelry and Pawn offered to do the background check on the museum director and when the firearms are returned do the checks on the owners. 

NEXT: Thomas Jefferson on seeking God's favor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. From the comments:

    The problems created by I-594 go far beyond museums, sometimes with much more dire negative consequences. We are an unmarried couple who lives together and jointly own all of our property. Now if we ever dare to shoot or carry the same gun, it is a felony.

    This past summer we had another situation. In a late night discussion with a friend and neighbor told us about a recent, serious death threat he had received related to his position. We loaned him a handgun for a few weeks until he could afford his own. Under the new law, we would have had to wait until the following day, paid for a transfer, waited for the mandatory waiting period, and only then would he have been able to possess our gun. The whole process would then be repeated for him to return it. Of course, those two transfer fees also would have cut into his ability to afford his own gun, not to mention that he would have continued to be unprotected during the initial waiting period.

    This is what passes for “commonsense” regulation.

    1. ‘Common sense’ means ‘do as we say’ in progspeak.

  2. when law are not based on actual harm this is what you get.Do you need a back ground check for a banana also?

      1. Spiders would make it a assault banana.I’m sure those are illegal

        1. But it has a tax stamp! It got it when it was imported.

        2. So the spider is cosmetic then.

  3. Commonsense regulation would require the details of background checks of all legislators to be public record.

  4. Leilafair . you think Allen `s comment is astonishing, on friday I bought a gorgeous Aston Martin DB5 when I got my cheque for $8527 this past month and just over ten grand this past-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and practically straight away began to earn at least $72, per hour .
    Published here ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com ??????????

  5. The definition of loophole, when it comes to lawmakers, always seems to mean “doesn’t fuck over enough people”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.