591/594 Townhall

[timac]

Make it if you can.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Mr. Ben]

Note: No weapons will be allowed on the premises. Metal detectors will be in place.

Seems biased already.

 

[Ranb]

I can't make it, or else I would be there to ask a few questions. I'm in MN for that meeting. Can someone please ask these questions for me?

I-594 would define a transfer as "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."

Some temporary transfers are exempt, but adult friends letting each other use their firearms at a rifle range for informal target shooting are not exempt unless one of them is a licensed dealer or a background check is obtained.

Question #1. Why does I-594 make shooting a friend's gun a gross misdemeanor; 2nd time a felony?

Question #2. Why are unlicensed buyers expected to be vetted each time they buy a gun, but licensed dealers are only vetted every year during license renewal? Why no exception for CPL holders? RCW 9.41.110(5)a

Question #3. Why is there no cap on the fee allowed for the background check?

Question #4. If the state is going to require that their residents obtain a background check from a dealer licensed by the state, then why is the state not requiring that the dealers do so for a reasonable fee? The dealer is under no obligation to facilitate the transfer.

Thanks.

Randy Bragge
[email protected]
(360)440-5889

 

[Ranb]

Here is a synopsis of I-594 and how it affects WA law if it passes. Please let me know if I made any mistakes. It is a good idea to print out the entire text of I-594 and read Sections 3 and 4 especially.

Section 1. Why the law should be changed; background checks required for all transfers with some exceptions.

Section 2. Defines "gun" as a firearm, defines sale, licensed dealer, unlicensed person and transfer. A transfer would be defined as "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."

Section 3. RCW 9.41 is amended to require background checks for any gun sale/transfer between unlicensed persons. The gun is brought to the dealer so that the buyer can fill out the forms normally required for a sale from the dealer's inventory. If the buyer passes NICS, the transfer can take place, if not, then the transfer doesn't take place. Dealer may charge a fee for the background check. No tax is collected by the dealer. The dealer is not required to perform the background check on demand of the buyer.

Section 3 does not apply to;

1) Bona fide gifts between family members such as spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles.

2) Antique firearms.

3) Temporary transfers to prevent imminent harm as long as the person is not prohibited by federal law.

4) Police and military on duty.

5) Transfer to and from a licensed gunsmith for repairs.

6) A temporary transfer is allowed;

a. Between spouses and domestic partners.
b. At established shooting ranges if the gun is kept at the range at all times.
c. At a competition or performance.
d. To a child for hunting, sporting or educational purposes.
e. While hunting.
f. Persons who inherit in accordance with state law.

Section 4. RCW 9.41 is amended to require that gun dealers do not transfer a gun to a person until the NICS is satisfactory or 10 to 60 (no WA ID) days have elapsed.

Section 5. Requires a dealer to comply with the requirements of section 4.

Section 6. Requires that any gun sale taking place in WA are subject to the required background checks.

Section 7. Non-residents are subject to the background checks when buying a gun in WA.

Section 8. The Department of Licensing may adopt rules to enforce this law.

Section 9. Violation of Section 3 is a gross misdemeanor, a 2nd offense is a class C felony. It is an affirmative defense that the transfer was an exception listed in sections 3 or 4.

Section 10. The tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 does not apply.

Section 11. Taxes not collected for a private sale.

Section 12. If any section of this act is determined to be invalid, the rest shall remain valid.

The parts bold /underlined are the ones I've yet to get an explanation from the WAGR for.

Randy

 

[decklin]

Here is a synopsis of I-594 and how it affects WA law if it passes. Please let me know if I made any mistakes. It is a good idea to print out the entire text of I-594 and read Sections 3 and 4 especially.


The parts bold /underlined are the ones I've yet to get an explanation from the WAGR for.

Randy

One question I have is what is a temporary transfer? If I loan my best friend a rifle to go hunting is there paperwork and background checks involved or not?
I can't seem to find the answer to that. How do people think that I594 is a good thing?
The language is ambiguous and misleading.

 

[mancat]

The interpretation is that you basically have to BE HUNTING to give him your firearm. You cannot give it to him several days or weeks in advance of season. You both need to be out there in the woods with your hunting gear.

Of course this is not defined in 594, it simply states there is an exemption "while hunting". Well, what is that? Law has to be precise, doesn't it?

There is an active discussion going on about this over on WAguns forum, and even the resitdent forum 594 supporter can't explain it.

Terrible law.

 

[Ranb]

Over the last several months I've had an on and off dialog going with the WAGR. While I would like to be able to obtain a background check on a buyer of the (infrequent) guns I sell, I don't like I-594 at all.

I've been writing to the WAGR to get clarification on various sections of I-594. I got an e-mail today; they claim that a temporary transfer would not apply to a couple of friends shooting each others guns at a range where they're not kept at all times. The WAGR referred to some FBI clarification of the word "transfer".

I spent an hour trying to find any meaning for the word transfer other than the one in 26 USC 5485. The definition in the US Code is nearly the same as the one in I-594. Nothing on the internet about an FBI clarification of transfer as far as I can tell.

So right now I'm not buying their claim about their definition of the word transfer.

Randy

 

[Dave Workman]

Seems biased already.

KOMO to host 'Town Hall,' activists announce pro-rights rally

KOMO will host a "Town Hall" discussion this Friday evening on the dueling initiatives, and early this morning, activists announced on the Open Carry Washington forum that they're planning a "No on I-594" rally in downtown Seattle on Oct. 18.

<broken link removed>


RANDY: If the I-594 crowd can't explain "transfer," they're being disingenuous at best. Their own measure defines "transfer" on Page 6.

Proof positive that they don't even know what their own initiative says. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."

 

[Ranb]

One question I have is what is a temporary transfer?

Page 6 of I-594 defines a transfer as;

"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.

I would assume that a temporary transfer is something less than permanent. WAGR is not offering up any clues to what they think it means.

If I loan my best friend a rifle to go hunting is there paperwork and background checks involved or not?

I guess it depends upon when it is loaned. I'd say if it was loaned a week prior to the hunt you're on thin ice. My guess is that they will leave it up to the courts to decide; in other words, wait for some poor schmuck to get arrested with his friend's rifle and see if the jury buys his " I borrowed it for hunting" defense.

Randy

 

[Dave Workman]

The whole thing was written to disqualify as many people as possible from owing firearms by getting convictions, and to lay the groundwork for licensing and registration.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

...and then confiscation, if possible. Just ask New York whether it's possible.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

If I loan my best friend a rifle to go hunting is there paperwork and background checks involved or not?

The bill reads, "This section does not apply to...The temporary transfer of a firearm...
while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law." That's how it will be read by a court, with the intervening stuff stripped away.

The key is "the temporary transfer of a firearm while hunting." It does not read, "for the purpose of hunting." It only applies to a transfer that takes place while hunting. So all of the transfer stuff would apply to a loan to a friend for hunting if you aren't there hunting with him.

 

[Old Wanderer]

So if I have my 12 year old grandson with me to shoot a 22. It is illegal....as at that age he has NO legal right to posses a firearm. (I was given my 1st gun at 12, a single shot 20ga). But we could open up a bunch of different catalogs, and just order a rifle or shotgun the same a a pair of Levi's, send a check, and it ended up on your front door.

Who is going to enforce these laws.....

In 10 or 20 years if it ever gets to the Supreme Court it will be fascinating how far they can stretch " the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon!

 

[Bazooka Joe]

So if I have my 12 year old grandson with me to shoot a 22. It is illegal....as at that age he has NO legal right to posses a firearm. (I was given my 1st gun at 12, a single shot 20ga).

Well, there's a separate exemption section for kids under 18: "This section does not apply to...The temporary transfer of a firearm...to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms."

The caveat there is just the "direct supervision and control" which is being taken as meaning that if you're going hunting, they can never be out of your sight/immediate control area. But you should be good teaching him to shoot.

 

[RW-Ore]

I-594 it has been said that it is just a "step". What it the next step , when will it end . If this step don't work and the next step don't cut it when will it end.

 

[Dave Workman]

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

Hi Dave, Just wanted to give you an update on the Friday night Town Hall situation. Due to the high interest on this topic and limited seating - we will not be offering the public "first come, first serve" seating for this event. I know previous promotions said that. Now, those who want to be in the live audience can reserve a seat by sending an email with their contact info to [email protected]. Could you please pass along that message to your audience.

Thanks, Kelly Just - KOMO TV

 

[Caveman Jim]

Got to keep those 591 supporters out of the lime light!!!! SOB's!!!!!

 

[timac]

Fire mission [email protected]

 

[Brutus57]

So if I have my 12 year old grandson with me to shoot a 22. It is illegal....as at that age he has NO legal right to posses a firearm. (I was given my 1st gun at 12, a single shot 20ga). But we could open up a bunch of different catalogs, and just order a rifle or shotgun the same a a pair of Levi's, send a check, and it ended up on your front door.

Who is going to enforce these laws.....

In 10 or 20 years if it ever gets to the Supreme Court it will be fascinating how far they can stretch " the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon!

I was given a bolt action .22 when I turned 10 years old. I had already been taught to shoot responsibly and had gone through the Hunter's Safety Course.

We all know they won't stop until ownership is illegal.

Brutus Out

 

[Dave Workman]

'Dueling initiatives' battle in Washington all about money, messaging

Increasing national attention is being focused on the "dueling initiatives" battle in Washington State and it is all about money and messaging as today's Washington Post carries a report that suggests the grassroots gun rights effort is waiting for the National Rifle Association to fully engage.


<broken link removed>


http://wagunrights.org
Give early and often