Washington Passing your civilian owned firearm back and forth with LEO, post I-594

[CarlMc]

I don't know if I read this right, or maybe am reading too much into it, but I know that LEO's can transfer firearms without a background check in the course of their official work among themselves, but how does a civilian pass one to an LEO for whatever reason, then GET IT BACK without the transfer process specified in I-594?

Read More

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Can't happen, must be between agency and employee.

Section does not apply to:
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official

 

[CarlMc]

So, according to the current wording, I can legally deny an LEO's request, legal or not, with the statement that doing so would entail me committing a felony?

 

[The Heretic]

Maybe

 

[Scott F]

You can be forced to hand it over or rather allow the officer to take your firearm while he is on duty but I believe if he tries to give it back, as in a traffic stop of such, you should refuse or you will be guilty of a crime.

 

[aflineman]

You can be forced to hand it over or rather allow the officer to take your firearm while he is on duty but I believe if he tries to give it back, as in a traffic stop of such, you should refuse or you will be guilty of a crime.

That might get interesting. I am an Oregon resident. Transfer would need to be done by an Oregon FFL (if it was a handgun). Who would pay for the transfer?

 

[Scott F]

If you were an Oregon resident with a Washing CCP and a WA officer remover your handgun during a stop you would have to go to Oregon FFL to do a background check and of course you would get the privilege of paying all the fees. I am not at all sure how the Washington officer would even begin to get your handgun from the point of the stop to a Oregon FFL but there probably be several transfers involved if you ever got it back.

Some interesting speculations come to mind considering all this. Would the loss of your legally owned handgun be an unlawful confiscation because of the lack of ability to return it to you? Could you sue the police department? Will officers decline to remove firearms for potential threatening indentions because of this law and thus put themselves in serious danger? Will law abiding legal firearm owners just loose their firearms with no hope of recovering them?

 

[Scott F]

I don't know if I read this right, or maybe am reading too much into it, but I know that LEO's can transfer firearms without a background check in the course of their official work among themselves, but how does a civilian pass one to an LEO for whatever reason, then GET IT BACK without the transfer process specified in I-594?

I brought this up earlier. Now I am a retired machinist and truck driver and NOT an attorney so take my views for what they are worth.

If an on duty officer stops you and sees you have a loaded handgun on the seat beside you, a legal carry with a WA CCP and decides for safety reasons to take it from you for the duration of the stop he is protected from the law as an on duty LEO. However you allowing him to take it sounds to me like you just broke the law by allowing the transfer. Then if he tries to give it back and you do not refuse to take possession that becomes a second offense and you are now guilty of a felony.

I would love to see how this works out but an not real excited about the idea of telling the officer he would be causing me to break the law bu removing my firearm now would I like to tell him that under fear of being forced into a felonious act I will not take the firearm back.

I am in Oregon now for an extender stay but will be going back home for Thanksgiving. I have concealed carry permits, resident for WA and Nonresident for OR and as always I will be carrying. I am a law abiding kind of guy and seldom get stopped but if I do get stopped after Dec 4th the officer would hear my concerns about any transfers. I can buy another RIA 1911, I cannot deal with a felony arrest.

 

[RVTECH]

I wonder if the law was written with issues such as this being considered as a diabolical plan to inadvertantly GET people into trouble or if it was simply overlooked - and now being questioned by us, the gun owners, who stand to lose the most given the potential ramifications of the law.

 

[CarlMc]

How would we go about getting an official answer to this question? The AG is quite busy dealing with a million other similar questions, but it still needs to be asked. I don't relish the thought of being the test case.

 

[Scott F]

I wonder if the law was written with issues such as this being considered as a diabolical plan to inadvertantly GET people into trouble or if it was simply overlooked - and now being questioned by us, the gun owners, who stand to lose the most given the potential ramifications of the law.

It is pretty to see conspiracies everywhere you look but I am guessing it was just a law written by feel good folks who have no clue what goes on in the real world.

 

[RVTECH]

feel good folks who have no clue what goes on in the real world.

Or don't care.

 

[Scott F]

How would we go about getting an official answer to this question? The AG is quite busy dealing with a million other similar questions, but it still needs to be asked. I don't relish the thought of being the test case.

We will just have to wait and see. I am not sure this will ever become law. It has so many problems and it is getting picked apart by legal minds. The State Police aren't real happy about it and I am guessing behind the curtains they are doing all they can to get it to go away.

I think it would be kind of funny if all that was left at the end is gun show vender's would be required to do background checks before selling a firearm. Since they already do it wouldn't change our lives much and it would just have been a huge waste of a bunch of big shot liberals money.

Whatever happens I think it best if we stand our ground while we wait and see how the state interprets it.

 

[Scott F]

Or don't care.

It is the "We are going to save the world" crowd who are clueless about what the world is all about that are behind the writing of this law. A smart writer who actually knew about firearms and their everyday uses would have come up withing something that would stand.

Liberals with a feel good mentality have no concept of reality.

 

[Scott F]

The miserable voter turnout is what angers me. We would not even had this discussion if so many did not bother to mark their ballots.

 

[Gunguy45]

The miserable voter turnout is what angers me. We would not even had this discussion if so many did not bother to mark their ballots.

It's an off-year election which ALWAYS has low turnout except when there's some driving issue. 1994 and 2010 were exceptions, not the rule. Seriously, people just don't give a rip about guns for the most part and wish we AND the gun control people would all just shut up.

 

[RVTECH]

I was trying to 'educate' myself a little about 594 and what is really taking place and stumbled on this article. I find it hard to believe some of the statistics, especially those about how it
'won an impressive number of conservative voters.'
<broken link removed>

 

[Scott F]

Makes me ill.
My wife and I are staying long term in Oregon taking care of her dad. We drove 470 miles round trip to make damned sure our votes were delivered not trusting the mail.

 

[Gunguy45]

I was trying to 'educate' myself a little about 594 and what is really taking place and stumbled on this article. I find it hard to believe some of the statistics, especially those about how it
'won an impressive number of conservative voters.'
<broken link removed>

The initiative passed because voters had no idea what they were voting for. Background checks for sales of guns is a fairly popular idea, even among a lot of gun owners. That's all this was sold to be.

I really think Alan Gottleib was right when he said there was no way we are going to stop some form of mandated background checks on private sales. I think it was 2012 when he made the statement.

I'm not happy about that and I don't expect he is either. But I think it's the reality. And frankly, if that's all 594 was, I wouldn't be terribly upset, though I certainly would have opposed it.

I think a lot of us could live with some form of mandated BG checks on sales. It's the transfer language and the expanded waiting period and the removal of exemptions for CPL holders that really makes me howl.

 

[erudne]

I 594 is written just as ObamaCare was; intentionally vague and misleading so that, in a year or two, after the media has conveniently forgotten to cover the public's outrage, Judges can pass rulings that favor confiscation/fines and imprisonment