Lewis County voters signaled a resounding no on the controversial Initiative 1639, a measure that would bring sweeping gun control to Washington, with unofficial results showing a tick over 70 percent of Lewis County voters opposed the measure. A second count on Wednesday showed those numbers remaining consistent.
The measure took a lead with voters statewide, sitting at 60.8 percent of voters casting a ballot in the affirmative. That climbed slightly to 60.39 percent Wednesday.
On Wednesday, 9,198 voters were in favor of the measure, while 21,542 were opposed.
Initiative 1639 would up the age restriction of owning a semi-automatic rifle to 21, require safe gun storage techniques, among other measures, and would, in some instances, deem the violation of certain passages a felony offense.
The measure asks for, beyond raising the required age of semiautomatic rifle owners and making safe gun storage mandatory, intensified background checks and waiting list periods for anyone interested in owning a gun.
In its opening paragraphs, there is a list of cities whose names have in past years become synonymous with mass shootings.
Proponents argue strict regulation would enhance security, with the language of the 30-page document drawing attention to the popularity assault weapons have among school shootings.
Opponents of the initiative have called I-1639 unconstitutional and unfairly broad in its definition of assault weapons, penned to include all semi-automatic rifles.
The initiative had an uphill battle to reach ballots when a Thurston County Judge ordered that I-1639 be struck from the ballot, after opposition argued petitions used to gather signatures violated state law, the Seattle Times reported. Absent from the petitions were exact passages of state law that would be altered. Additionally, the proposed measure, which was printed on the back of the petitions, was in a very small font.
“The court found that the text on the back of the petitions was not readable and did not strictly comply with the statutory and constitutional requirements identified by the plaintiffs,” reads a document from the Supreme Court of Washington, the same body that then reversed the Thurston Superior Court decision, placing the initiative back in voters’ hands.
