594 doesn't apply to loaners

[U201491]

WOW.....................
What nullification refers to in all of this is JUST SAY NO and Nullify the Anti Constitution law by refusing to obey it. The people still have that power and the gov can't do a damned thing unless they want to go to war against the citizenry...it has NOT ONE IOTA OF REF TO NULLIFICATION by JURY .............................

In this case the massive number of citizens become the "JURY" and Judged the LAW.

OK easy one here (no brainer). Go up and look at the shirt the guy has on. It cannot get much simpler than that.

Another ref... Bundy Ranch they judged the Law.........
When government oversteps its bounds that is how the people can handle the problem.

The next step is not as pleasant of a way to stop a corrupt overbearing government or one that gets bought off by moneybag Communists/Marxists and "leftist liberals".

.

 

[Tawnos]

No. That is NOT a good flow chart. It might as well be a joke. For instance, where in the bill does it say ANYTHING about someone simply knowing where your firearms are or having access to them (hint: it doesn't). That thing needs to come offline.

I put that flowchart together, based on my best understand of the law and the words used within it, plus established case law. Here's how the knowledge and access constitutes a transfer under I-594.

The general definition of "transfer" doesn't matter here, as a definition is given in the statute. The state supreme court has stated "As a general rule, where a term is not defined in the statute, the term must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning unless a contrary intent appears. "

In I-594, a definition was provided for "transfer", but even if it weren't, "When a term has a well-accepted, ordinary meaning, a regular dictionary may be consulted to ascertain the term's definition."

The regular, ordinary dictionary states that a "transfer" is "1) to convey or remove from one place, person, etc., to another. 2) to cause to pass from one person to another, as thought, qualities, or power; transmit. 3) Law. to make over the possession or control of." All three of these definitions involve a change in possession as being a transfer. So even if the definition from the statute were thrown out, keep in mind that the standard, dictionary definition involves a change in possession.

Next, look at the definition provided in the initiative: " '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." Okay, so what does "intended delivery" mean? Let's start with delivery. "The term 'delivery' is defined as '[t]he formal act of transferring something . . . ; the giving or yielding possession or control of something to another.'" And in another case: "we think there can be no delivery unless there is a change of possession of an article from one person to another."

As you can see, a change in possession constitutes delivery. How do you possess something? An obvious one that doesn't need all the case citations is just holding it. But there's another type,
constructive possession: "
"the instruction correctly defined constructive possession as a person having dominion and control over the property alleged to be possessed." So a change in constructive possession would constitute delivery. You can see the effect that knowledge has in the following case, substituting "guns" in bold for "marijuana" in strikethrough:

"The record sustains the verdict. The jury was entitled to find, first, that the house was Weiss' residence. There was testimony that Weiss had been staying at the house for about a month, and that Weiss said he and Nason were sharing responsibility for the renting of the house, and that Weiss took it upon himself to invite others, including Marvin Davis, to sleep overnight at the house. Moreover, when the officers entered on the morning of March 10, Nason told Officer Pless that Weiss was in "his" bedroom. Nason further testified that Weiss had brought the large white iron bed in the bedroom from Quincy, his "home." Nason also testified that Weiss customarily slept in the iron bed. These facts indicate not only that Weiss was residing in the house but also that he was exercising dominion and control over it. It does not matter under the facts of this case that his dominion and control was not exclusive. The jury could reasonably infer that Weiss knew about the marijuana guns found on the premises because Nason testified that Weiss had smoked marijuana left guns at the house and that Weiss had known, on previous occasions, about the presence of marijuana guns in the house.
[2] We are satisfied that these facts, taken together, are sufficient to justify the jury's finding that Weiss had dominion and control over the premises and knowledge of the presence of marijuana guns there amounting to constructive possession of the marijuana guns seized by the searching officers. This court will not disturb a verdict based upon substantial evidence."

Given that delivery is a change in possession, and such possession may be constructive rather than physical, we have only the word "intended" as it applies to "intended delivery" to deal with. Since I've already written a ton, I'll just use the simple dictionary definition of "intended", as no other definition is provide. In the dictionary, we see that it means "expected to be such in the future" or "planned or meant".

Using the above, "intended delivery" can be shown that you "planned or meant to yield dominion and control" of a firearm. If someone knows where your firearms are and has access to them, you know that fact, and you leave that place while the other person is there (yielding dominion and control of it), you have delivered the firearms and intended to do so. That's an obvious violation of Section 3 of the law, and thus a gross misdemeanor for the first conviction, a felony for every one thereafter under Section 9. Further, because the person now exercising dominion and control, aka the transferee, of the firearms did not comply with Sec 3(3)(c) by completing a background check prior to the transfer, they too have violated Section 3.

The initiative is written that terribly, whether intentionally or not. Based on the construction of the statute as a whole, I lean towards "intentionally".

 

[Scarint]

Well this does change things.

Now I hate I594 even more. Think you could put citations for this in the original flowchart?

This was the only thing I had an issue with; my feeling was that if people saw that, they would (unintentionally) assume what I (intentionally) implied: misinformation and misunderstanding to attempt to sway opinion.

I will refer to this post in other places I have mentioned your flowchart negatively (you have sufficiently proved me wrong, and for that I thank you!). This changes LOTS of things, and now I quite like your flowchart!

 

[Tawnos]

Well this does change things.

Now I hate I594 even more. Think you could put citations for this in the original flowchart?

This was the only thing I had an issue with; my feeling was that if people saw that, they would (unintentionally) assume what I (intentionally) implied: misinformation and misunderstanding to attempt to sway opinion.

I will refer to this post in other places I have mentioned your flowchart negatively (you have sufficiently proved me wrong, and for that I thank you!). This changes LOTS of things, and now I quite like your flowchart!

Glad you like it, now . Putting it together and doing the research to make sure it was as accurate as I could reasonably be took quite some time. Obviously, without an actual court ruling, much of it could be changed. A common example of a sticking point for people is the range provision. I put the second decision box related to the firearm always being kept at the range because of other case law (I'll dig it up where I discussed it with someone else, if you care, enough legal citations already >.<). Short version is that it uses different wording than other temporary transfer exceptions, and ignoring that different wording would render the distinction meaningless when it may not have been intended, something the court strives not to do when reading a law.

As for putting that wall of text in the chart...I thought it was already busy enough with just citations of the initiative, but if you want to edit it in any way or share it out, I released it under CC0 1.0 - public license. The source file is here: http://tawnos.com/shared/Breaking_the_law_under_I-594.vsdx

 

[GunnyG]

Just an observation:

It was (or we allowed it) being framed as "This doesn't violate the 2nd! There's just no right to sell without verifying the background of the buyer!"

Not enough voices were heard countering this with how this is really does impair a right, when a 18-20 year old citizen cannot get the pistol he's already allowed by state law, because a FFL will still not be allowed to sell a handgun to anyone under 21.

It is an impairment of a constitutional right, when a Chief O' Toole can legally and arbitrarily sit on anyone's application to purchase or transfer a handgun for 10 and up to 60 days, until she is compelled to do anything with it.

I'm sure that we will find even more ways that rights are going to be/being impaired by I-594.

What can we do now? Document it, share it, make your legislators aware of it, make them justify their allowing any further impairment, or hopefully watch them take it for restorative action.

BTW, it is a shame that we lost this, as only less than a third (1,171,879 counted as of 11/10/14 at 6:02 PM) of WA's registered voters voted "yes".

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/vrdb/vrdbfaq.aspx"As of October 31, 2014, Washington has 3,923,401 active registered voters..."

 

[Dave Workman]

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

Don't try to be clever about this, because you're just liable to laugh yourself into a criminal prosecution.

 

[GunnyG]

Don't try to be clever about this, because you're just liable to laugh yourself into a criminal prosecution.

I'm sure that is exactly what WAGR/Dan Satterberg/Sandy Brown/Bloomberg & his minions, et al want:

Felons can't own guns.

 

[308]

In the beginning there had to be (1) person who came up with the idea of 594. Then, with some convincing a few more jumped in and helped move the process along. It might be interesting to know who that first person was...for those who keep records.

 

[Redcap]

Felons can't own guns.

Kinda like how shootings never happen in "gun-free zones", right?

 

[TastyWheat87]

Felons can't own guns.

Kinda like how shootings never happen in "gun-free zones", right?

Don't forget, it's illegal to murder people, too.

 

[TastyWheat87]

Here is my flow chart depicting a post-I-594 world. (No graphics because I'm lazy.)

Idiots that didn't vote don't know it exists ----> Violate the law by [Insert one of many harmless, victimless, formerly law-abiding scenarios here.]

Everyone else says bubblegum I-594 ----> Violates the law by [Insert one of many harmless, victimless, formerly law-abiding scenarios here.]

Either scenario results in jails running out of cells, cots, and food, while thieves, drug dealers, rapists, murderers and generally crappy people roam free. -----> Eventual repeal of I-594 since it caused crime to increase (rapists, murderers, thieves, etc doing their deeds, but would also have to factor in "firearm criminals who violated I-594")

OR

People wake the bubblegum up, and see that this is not able to be complied with for a long list of reasons and is an utter waste of resources ----> Let I-594 die quietly while the antis scream they want a refund.


What do you think?

 

[GunnyG]

Don't forget, it's illegal to murder people, too.

There also aren't any illegal drugs being bought or sold, and everyone in KingCo waits and goes coldturkey when the state licensed MJ store is out of produce.

 

[TastyWheat87]

There also aren't any illegal drugs being bought or sold, and everyone in KingCo waits and goes coldturkey when the state licensed MJ store is out of produce.

Oh, and mankind never killed each other until the firearm was invented. Rocks, sticks, swords, spears, clubs, knives, arrows, fists, feet, heads, and just about anything else you can imagine never harmed a soul in history. Those damn guns started all the crazy.

 

[Scarint]

I got a phone call last night from Sen. Mike Hewitt's (Dist 16) office.

They are in communication with Brian Judy with the NRA about how to fight this. The lady I was talking to didn't think anything can be done by them until the first of the year (new session), but there is a caucus on Nov 19,20,21 where they will be meeting to discuss issues that will need to be addressed.

This is going to be a hard fight, but he's on our side.

 

[BoatRanch]

As I read through it a third time, it is un-enforceable, for at least a number of years.

 

[Tawnos]

I got a phone call last night from Sen. Mike Hewitt's (Dist 16) office.

They are in communication with Brian Judy with the NRA about how to fight this. The lady I was talking to didn't think anything can be done by them until the first of the year (new session), but there is a caucus on Nov 19,20,21 where they will be meeting to discuss issues that will need to be addressed.

This is going to be a hard fight, but he's on our side.

Prior to that, I wonder if the SAF will start a lawsuit based on a number of raised issues (single item rule, all items reflected in ballot title, chilling effects on the right to keep and bear arms), seeking to get an injunction until the case is decided.

 

[Martini_Up]

Don't try to be clever about this, because you're just liable to laugh yourself into a criminal prosecution.

baa, baa.

never stand up for anything as you may end up in court.

 

[Tawnos]

baa, baa.

never stand up for anything as you may end up in court.

I don't think he was saying "don't stand up for anything"; just be prepared for the possible consequences. If you are prosecuted and not a good case to challenge the law, you may not get strong support from advocacy groups like the SAF or NRA or GOA or CCRKBA. The impact bad case law may have on the larger efforts can be substantial, as well.

 

[Dave Workman]

baa, baa.

never stand up for anything as you may end up in court.

No. YOU may end up in court.
We're not in the habit of playing games with stuff like this. We're rather serious and deliberative, and we take our time and don't get silly.

This is how we've forced the City of Chicago to strike its handgun ban, and the Illinois legislature to adopt a concealed carry statute, and forced sheriffs in California to start issuing CCW permits, and beat the City of Seattle on its gun ban in parks facilities, and stopping New Orleans from conficating guns after Katrina, and so forth.

So don't flip me any cr@p about not standing up for anything. There's a vast difference between standing up for something and winning, and throwing one's self in front of a legal bus just to feel like you're a hero

 

[Martini_Up]

No. YOU may end up in court.
We're not in the habit of playing games with stuff like this. We're rather serious and deliberative, and we take our time and don't get silly.
..
So don't flip me any cr@p about not standing up for anything. There's a vast difference between standing up for something and winning, and throwing one's self in front of a legal bus just to feel like you're a hero

I understand your reluctance to take any chances in life and to only go forward deliberately with step-by-step calculation. However, I don't think this is the only way.

There is a movement now to NOT COMPLY with the i594 (see http://www.northwestfirearms.com/th...-the-state’s-new-background-check-law.183407/ ) and I'm sure you think it's 'silly' and those folks are trying to be 'clever'.

I, however, do not.

Nor do I believe all the supporters rushing down to the Bundy's ranch were trying to be silly and clever.

Perhaps if more people stood up for what's right, in the face of uncertainty without 'serious and deliberative' time taking, those infringements on the 2nd amendment which occurred in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1991, etc.... would be gone. Frankly (and obviously), "taking your time not being silly" doesn't always work.

We can just agree to disagree but I don't think you are in a position of authority to give advice on how someone should stand up for themselves and what they believe is right.

And to brashly TELL someone, "Don't try to be clever about this, because you're just liable to laugh yourself into a criminal prosecution." comes across as thuggish and authoritative.