594 doesn't apply to loaners

[scott_see]

This section does not apply to (a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

As I read (ii), it's okay for me to loan a friend a gun. Assuming he's not prohibited from possessing it. Right?

Edited to fix appearance issue - @Joe Link

Read More

 

[scott_see]

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

Ha! ( ii ). Turned into an emoticon.

 

[usagi]

This section does not apply toa) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred ifi) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

As I read (ii), it's okay for me to loan a friend a gun. Assuming he's not prohibited from possessing it. Right?

wrong. (ii) is part of section c), which only applies to temporary transfer of possession for self defense against imminent death or great bodily harm.

 

[bnsaibum]

usagi nailed it. In addition, pay attention to the words "imminent" and "immediate" in Sec. 3(4)(c). They have legal meaning.

If you want to loan (temporary transfer) a firearm to a friend, assuming you or your friend is not a prohibited person; you would have to be participating in "lawful organized competition" or "while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance" ("organized group" likely has legal meaning) (Sec. 3(4)(f)(iii)); your friend would have to be a minor and you an adult who would directly supervise for the purposes of education, sport or hunting (Sec. 3(4)(f)(iv)); while hunting with the condition that your friend only possesses the firearm in a place legal to hunt, quite possibly meaning that your friend could not cross a road (Sec. 3(4)(f)(v)). This also means your friend could not pick up your firearm from your house to take hunting unless you had rural property and could hunt from your door step. Otherwise you will have to accompany your friend to the place where the hunting will take place.

It may be possible to loan your friend a firearm to use if you are both at "an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located" and "the firearm is kept at all times" at the range (Sec. 3(4)(f)(ii)), but my reading of this means that the gun must stay at the range "at all times".

More to the point; I-594 DOES apply to loaners outside of very narrow time/place/circumstance exemptions.

 

[usagi]

the lawful organized competition exemption should be usable for people loaning firarms on public or private land. just keep a scorecard.

 

[Stomper]

Folks, take a deep breath and just continue to quietly live your lives responsibly (as I assume most of you already do) until this thing reaches critical mass and gets corrected.

It's not like there's a collaborator/cop behind every bush waiting to jump on you for palming a buddies new firearm.

Stay alert, stay free!

 

[Koda]

Im curious how 594 affects non residents? and interactions with non residents....

E.g.: an Oregonian travels to Wa to go target shooting with a Wa. resident friend in the woods? At a Wa. established gun club/range? Im assuming the out of state resident is subject to the law and therefore cannot borrow or try out or even handle friends firearm.

or: A Wa. resident travels to Oregon to target shoot with his Oregon friend in Oregon, and wants to try out Oregon persons firearm? Im assuming this is legal.

or: a Wa. resident travels to Oregon to borrow a gun and brings it back to Wa. to temporarily use? Flipside is an Ore. resident goes to Wa. to let a Wa. residient friend try out his gun? Im assuming both illegal.

or: Oregon resident who has a Wa. CHL travels to Wa. on a family trip. While visiting for the weekend everyone decides to go somewhere that is illegal to possess guns such as a bar. How does the Oregon person with the gun temporarily leave the gun in a safe location without implication?

 

[bnsaibum]

Folks, take a deep breath and just continue to quietly live your lives responsibly (as I assume most of you already do) until this thing reaches critical mass and gets corrected.

It's not like there's a collaborator/cop behind every bush waiting to jump on you for palming a buddies new firearm.

Stay alert, stay free!

Quit being the voice of reason!!! We're working ourselves into a tizzy here.

the lawful organized competition exemption should be usable for people loaning firarms on public or private land. just keep a scorecard.

While Stomper has some sage advice and yours is pretty much in line with it, I'm thinking that the letter of the law rather points to something formal. Some sort of organization with rules, by-laws or the like. I daresay that the spirit of the law would agree considering who wrote it.

 

[CarlMc]

Now if I took my son and his wife to the range, or actually at any other location, including our home, I couldn't give a firearm directly to my daughter in law, but if I gave it to my son to give to his wife, then all is legal. Horse*** law.

 

[notazombie]

Does it apply to loners?

 

[erudne]

Folks, take a deep breath and just continue to quietly live your lives responsibly (as I assume most of you already do) until this thing reaches critical mass and gets corrected.

It's not like there's a collaborator/cop behind every bush waiting to jump on you for palming a buddies new firearm.

Stay alert, stay free!

Considering the publication of gun owner's names and addresses by Liberal Press, the robberies that followed, the deaths by SWATing , the general unhinged and aggressive tactics by the anti-gun haters, the thousands of petty criminals and drug addicts who at the drop of a hat would concoct a story to sell out anyone, at any time to stay out of prison... You'll have to forgive me if I take your advise under advisement

 

[scott_see]

I hate to say, but you're right.

 

[Scarint]

Im curious how 594 affects non residents? and interactions with non residents....

E.g.: an Oregonian travels to Wa to go target shooting with a Wa. resident friend in the woods? At a Wa. established gun club/range? Im assuming the out of state resident is subject to the law and therefore cannot borrow or try out or even handle friends firearm.

or: A Wa. resident travels to Oregon to target shoot with his Oregon friend in Oregon, and wants to try out Oregon persons firearm? Im assuming this is legal.

or: a Wa. resident travels to Oregon to borrow a gun and brings it back to Wa. to temporarily use? Flipside is an Ore. resident goes to Wa. to let a Wa. residient friend try out his gun? Im assuming both illegal.

or: Oregon resident who has a Wa. CHL travels to Wa. on a family trip. While visiting for the weekend everyone decides to go somewhere that is illegal to possess guns such as a bar. How does the Oregon person with the gun temporarily leave the gun in a safe location without implication?

Assumption on the first question is correct; ALL transfers/sales in the state (with the very limited exceptions). This does include out-of-state residents and is even specified in the bill.

Assumption on the second question is correct; Washington law cannot extend past Washington borders (that requires Congress).

The third question, first point seems to be a gray area/loophole; the transfer did not occur in Washington, but sales of handguns across state borders are not allowed by federal law...if it's a long gun everything should be OK; even a handgun, provided it wasn't "sold" could "legally" be allowed (I'm not exceptionally familiar with this aspect of the federal firearms laws). The second point is similar to the second question, and would be illegal.

For the 4th question, there should be issue leaving the gun in a secure location (locked car, some one else's house, etc.). So long as it isn't handed to someone else, all is fine.

All questions answered in Sec. 3(1) (edited for brevity and clarity):
"All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller...is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."

 

[bolus]

I figured it out guys and the answer is easy. If everyone has a gun, then no one needs to loan one out.

 

[U201491]

The law over all is still tyranny and should be treated as such. There is no good part of any anti gun law or any law that inhibits ownership of firearms to any good American. To create burdens to that ownership is against the 2nd Amendment. Pure and Simple.
The false concept that it will keep even one firearm out of a felons hands is as deep of a pile as it can possibly get and only a step to confiscation and must be opposed in every way possible and the entire law NULLIFIED
by all of you.

 

[bnsaibum]

Now if I took my son and his wife to the range, or actually at any other location, including our home, I couldn't give a firearm directly to my daughter in law, but if I gave it to my son to give to his wife, then all is legal. Horse*** law.

If it you were at an established and authorized range there may be no problem temporary transferring to anyone not prohibited, but that actually depends on the meaning of "the firearm is kept at all times". At any other location it is a no go to temporarily transfer a firearm even to your son without a background check unless it is while hunting, for an organized competition or performance, so your son can thwart an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, or if it is for sporting/educational/hunting purposes and your son is a minor.

You could give a firearm to your son as a bona fide gift anywhere, but giving him one so that he could give it to his wife would not be a bona fide gift to your son.

It is a horse**** law!

 

[Koda]

The third question, first point seems to be a gray area/loophole; the transfer did not occur in Washington, but sales of handguns across state borders are not allowed by federal law...if it's a long gun everything should be OK; even a handgun, provided it wasn't "sold" could "legally" be allowed (I'm not exceptionally familiar with this aspect of the federal firearms laws).

What, this means we found a 'loophole' in a law passed to closed a 'loophole'...? OMG.

seriously though is it illegal to borrow a handgun from another state? Since the transfer happened outside of Washington then as long as the person in possession of the borrowed handgun didn't allow any further transfers within Wa. then all should be good.


Here is a good flowchart about how the law affects everyone within Wa. wither or not they own guns. (oh the irony, I would love to see someone who voted for this get nailed...)

(This flow chart is not a joke) click here for full size:
https://i.imgur.com/QLMj1Em.png

 

[Doc In UPlace]

How, I'm wondering, is anybody going to be able to tell the difference between a piece purchased FTF last month for cash, and a piece purchased next summer for cash?

Point being, how do we prove they were purchased pre-594? Do we get in a time machine and ask for a receipt?

 

[Koda]

How, I'm wondering, is anybody going to be able to tell the difference between a piece purchased FTF last month for cash, and a piece purchased next summer for cash?

Point being, how do we prove they were purchased pre-594? Do we get in a time machine and ask for a receipt?

My guess is I think this could only be proved if the FTF buyer used the gun in a crime and they traced the gun back to you and it turns out the buyer had a record prior to whenever you claim the sale took place..

 

[bnsaibum]

My guess is I think this could only be proved if the FTF buyer used the gun in a crime and they traced the gun back to you and it turns out the buyer had a record prior to whenever you claim the sale took place..

Still wouldn't prove anything other than the buyer lied about being prohibited in the FTF, didn't know he was prohibited, or the seller knew and didn't care. All 3 still do not prove pre or post 594 change of ownership of a firearm that is currently privately owned.

There are 4 ways to prove an "illegal" sale or change of ownership post 594.

• 3rd party witness to the transaction or has verifiable proof that transaction took place informs LE
• LE witnesses transaction
  
• either party to the transaction self incriminates
  
• any firearm sold or transferred through a dealer after 594 takes effect is subsequently transferred without a background check to another who is not an exempted family member of the person who engaged in the original post 594 dealer/transferee transaction.