I read letter published on March 10 from D. Phillip Miller complaining of our representatives (Jay Rodne, Chad Magendanz) actions to reverse initiative 594. I was compelled after reading this to offer opposing opinion supporting these brave legislators.

Initiative 594 with all of the “out of state” and billionaire backing redefined “transfer” although it was never explained to the “sheeple” in the continuous playing commercials prior to election. A transfer as defined in I-594 includes all forms of loans. If voters would have actually read the legislation to find this. Please verify for yourself as I-594 states, “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans…..”.

The writer complained of a hypothetical situation that was difficult to believe so I offer the following that may be more understandable.

I have a friend at work who has two adolescent sons who desire to learn of guns and shooting. Prior to the passing of I-594, I always enjoyed teaching safety and helping “newbies” with their first experience at the shooting range. I have done this hundreds of times over the years. I bring out a couple of firearms and we all review safety and enjoy target shooting. It’s pretty much impossible to do this without something now legally defined as a loan.

If I were to share my firearms with another person (non family) to take a shot or two, in the post I-594 world, I am committing a felony. Laws that over reach without true intent of strict enforcement place an undue burden on honest citizens.

Mr. Miller’s letter implies that these laws will stop the likes of a felon who was not to have weapons and yet killed his family, neighbor and himself. I view this as the “hypothetical situation” that doesn’t make sense.

I thank and fully support Mr. Rodne and Mr. Magendanze to reverse the ridiculous burden of I-594 on honest gun owners.

Joseph O’Dell

Ravensdale