Four states were voting for more than just the presidency yesterday. Voters in California, Maine, Nevada and Washington also decided on gun control measures from banning large-capacity magazines to requiring background checks on ammunition.
Here are the results of the four gun control ballot initiatives:
Voters were presented with Proposition 63, proposed and championed by California lieutenant governor Gavin Newson; an initiative calling for background checks on ammunition and magazine purchases. Those selling ammunition would also need to apply for a license to do so. In other words, ammunition and magazine sales would operate the same as gun sales. The proposition would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines (magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds).
Not a shocker here: California voted in favor of the measure, becoming the first state to have such a law. The proposition won by about 67 percent to 33 percent.
“We know today that the place where criminals are getting guns, the black market, they aren’t subjecting themselves to background checks,” said Ryan Hamilton, spokesman for the National Rifle Association-backed opposition. “It doesn’t target criminal behavior, it targets law-abiding behavior.”
“It was a repudiation of the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby. They lost badly,” Newsom said in an interview. “It’s a very important initiative because I think it’s the beginning of a national debate on relinquishment (by felons) and ammunition background checks that will I think will have a very significant impact on reducing gun violence in this country.”
I wonder how he feels about Clinton’s loss after vowing to take on the “gun lobby”? Anyway, moving on…
“Question 3” asked voters to decide if background checks should be required for private sales—sales between parties who are not licensed dealers. If neither the seller nor the buyer is a licensed dealer, then they must go to a licensed dealer who would then run a background check before the sale is made. Because the measure also references “transfers,” background checks would be required when loaning guns, as well. Exceptions would include emergency self-defense, temporary transfers while hunting or sports shooting and transfers between family members.
Voters Send Gun Control Out in a Pine Box: After a very close race, it was finally declared that voters have said “No” to Question 3 with 52 percent opposing the measure beating out the 48 percent in favor of.
Nevada’s “Question 1” sought to mandate that all gun purchases would require the buyer to pass a background check from a licensed dealer. Exemptions would include transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting or sports shooting.
The ayes have it: Voters who answered “Yes” won by only about 10,000 votes, splitting the votes almost 50 percent to 50 percent.
“Initiative 1491” proposed the creation of “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO) which would allow family and household members or law enforcement to go to a judge and seek an ERPO if they feel someone is at a high risk of harming themselves or others. The order, if issued, would prevent citizens from “temporarily” purchasing a gun. However, the order can be renewed and or extended. The initiative also defines “family” and “household members” vaguely, allowing roommates from up to a year prior to seek an ERPO. (see crazy ex-girl/boyfriend)
Essentially, a person’s gun rights would disappear merely on the say-so of someone else.
An Evergreen infringement: The voters were overwhelmingly in favor of this gross restriction on Washingtonians’ Second Amendment rights, with 71 percent of votes in favor the gun control initiative.