I-1639 should have opt out clause

 

February 21, 2019



To The Eagle:

It is too bad the folks that drafted proposition 1639 did not include some form of “Opt Out” clause for those who live in rural areas and from time to time have immediate need for defense of family members or livestock from predators, both two and four-legged.

A while ago my ex-wife saw a coyote in the yard trying to catch her pet chickens. Fortunately for all involved I heard the ruckus and ran around the house to see what was going on. There was my wife, who did not like having guns in the house, hanging out the window screaming at Mr. Coyote and throwing a box of Kleenex at it. Mr. Coyote was ignoring her completely in spite of the verbal abuse he was suffering, tissue boxes and the waste basket which had also been launched. Fortunately for all the players in the game I hauled out my side arm, for which I am licensed to carry, and fired a round and ran off Mr. Coyote thereby saving the pet chickens from eminent demise - a horrible death. I mean they were about to be eaten alive!


Ah, but no worries for all those who would be up in arms over my actions. You see, I know it is the coyote’s nature to kill for food and since we had so thoughtlessly invaded its turf - hunting grounds, I only fired a shot into the ground to scare it off.

But what about when a predator is trying to kill the animals you raise to make a living or feed your own family? Or worse yet what if your wife and or family are home alone and a two-legged predator breaks into your home with “bad intent.” Do you calmly tell said predator, “Take a time out” while I find the keys and unlock the gun safe and then go in the garage and unlock the cabinet where the ammo is so I can fire a shot to scare you off? Not!

Or perhaps worse yet, what if Mr. Bear pulls a B & E (break and enter) and breaks into your house looking for something to eat. What do you do? Offer it a child or a pet and hope that will be enough for it to eat so it will not attack you?

The point is there are real times in life where the ability to immediately defend self, family or livestock are real and urgent. Should a person be denied the right granted by the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment, to do so?

1639 says yes. I say no!

Note Well: I have personally observed or been involved in all of the above so don’t try to tell me it never or can’t happen!

Ben Elkinton

Cathlamet

 

Reader Comments
(0)

 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2019