On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected by the American people as the next president of the United States. That same day, U.S. citizens in California, Maine, Nevada and Washington also voted on a number of other pressing issues, including whether to enact tougher firearms laws.
According to an article recently published by the Associated Press, the last time voters in Maine voted on gun rights, they passed a constitutional amendment that created a right to own firearms that “shall never be questioned.” That was nearly 30 years ago. Yesterday, the state that is deeply rooted in hunting traditions voted on whether to pass stricter laws on gun sales and transfers.
Unlike past elections, there were no statewide initiatives aimed at expanding gun rights anywhere in the U.S., according to Bearing Arms. Instead, residents in California, Maine, Nevada and Washington voted on whether to implement tighter gun control measures. Here are the results:
The Golden State is already known for having some of the nation’s toughest gun-related laws, and yesterday Californians voted on and passed Proposition 63, which calls for background checks when purchasing ammunition and magazines. According to an article published on Patch.com, “Yes” won by approximately 67 percent to 33 percent. Under this legislation, ammunition sellers must also register for a license to do just that — sell ammo. In other words, ammunition and magazine sales will operate just like gun sales. The proposition also bans large-capacity ammunition magazines, or magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. According to the Chicago Tribune, this measure also extends a program unique to California that grants authorities permission to seize firearms from owners who purchased guns legally, but are no longer allowed to own them.
Voters in the Evergreen State passed “Initiative 1491,” which creates extreme risk protection orders (ERPO). This measure won 71 percent to 29 percent, according to Patch. This allows family/household members and police officers to seek an ERPO from a judge if the believe you may harm yourself or others. This initiative prevents the person in question who is believed to be a threat from “temporarily” purchasing a gun. The order can be extended or renewed. This measure also vaguely defines family and household members and permits roommates from up to one year prior to seen an ERPO.
In other words, it’s their word against yours.
“Question 1” on Nevada’s ballot resembles “Question 3” on Maine’s in that anyone purchasing a firearm must pass a background check conducted by a licensed dealer. Patch reported that “Yes” won in a very tight race by approximately 10,000 votes, and the contest was almost split 50/50. Transfers between family members and temporary transfers while hunting or sports shooting are the exemptions to this measure.
In 1987, Maine voters passed a constitutional amendment establishing a right to bear arms that “shall never be questioned.” However, that right was questioned yon yesterday’s ballot. Referenced as “Questions 3,” voters were asked whether background checks should be required for private sales between parties who are not licensed dealers. According to Bearing Arms, if neither the buyer or the seller is a licensed dealer, then the parties must go to a licensed dealer to have a background check ran before the sale is made. The measure also references “transfers,” meaning that background checks would be required when loaning guns, too. Exceptions to this rule include emergency self-defense, temporary transfers while hunting or sports shooting, and transfers among family members.
“No” is up 52 percent to 48 percent accoring to Patch, with 90 percent of the vote counted. The contest, however, has not yet been called. Check back here on Grand View Outdoors for updates as we learn more.
How do you feel about these restrictive gun laws? Let us know in the comment section, or contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.