594 Washington law question

[American123]

I have a friend who has a question about 594 for my fellow Washington residents.

My friend is pretty knowledgeable about gun laws in Washington and references the RCW's to see what the law is with regularity to ensure he knows them up down and sideways, however my friend still has a question.

You see: the law says that all transfers must be done through an ffl unless hey are gifts or loans to family members (those specified by the law)

However, Washington has no storage law or requirement of how or where to store firearms a person owns.

So for example, my friend has a girlfriend and he spends a ton of time at her place, it appears he could store a firearm at her place and still be in accordance with the law, he isn't transferring her the firearm, he isn't giving her the firearms, he is simply storing it there because he is there very frequently and it is a convenient place to store it.

As long as she doesn't take possession of the firearm a transfer violating 594 never takes place.

That's what my friend thinks anyway,

What's the input from you guys?
( If you haven't read the RCW you might want to do that before commenting nonsense )

Read More

 

[cigars]

Depends on the prosecuting DA I would suppose. That always goes well.

 

[Lilhigbee]

( If you haven't read the RCW you might want to do that before commenting nonsense )

Obviously you're new here. Failing to educate ourselves and commenting nonsense are our stocks-in-trade.
I'm not a lawyer and haven't studied the nuances of 594, but I would guess that technically when your friend leaves her apartment she is, by default, "in possession."

 

[American123]

Obviously you're new here. Failing to educate ourselves and commenting nonsense are our stocks-in-trade.
I'm not a lawyer and haven't studied the nuances of 594, but I would guess that technically when your friend leaves her apartment she is, by default, "in possession."

That is an interesting thought process. Consider this:

If my friend parks his car in her garage does she "possess" his car?

Or is his car simply sitting in her garage? Clearly she doesn't own the car, and if he parked his car in her garage and walked to the store, obviously she wouldn't lawfully own his car just because he parked it in her garage even if he did leave not in his car.

The location of his car doesn't dictate who owns it. Therefore, with that process in mind, if my friend leaves his gun at her apartment, that doesn't make her the de facto owner, she never had it transferred to her through an FFL which would be required by law if it was being transferred to her, but it isn't being transferred to her, it is still his, he is simply storing his gun at her place.

Thoughts?

 

[American123]

Depends on the prosecuting DA I would suppose. That always goes well.

Yes, clearly my friend is trying to understand this law to he most fine detail that is possible.

 

[No_Regerts]

Here is a scenario I find myself in quite often. I have a warrant for the arrest of a known felon. I get tips or whatever saying dude is at an address. I set up on the house and dude shows up and lets himself into the house. Wait to see if he comes back out to make an arrest outside, he doesn't. We get the go ahead to go in the house after him.

Say we take dude down in the living room. Over in the corner is a rifle of some kind. Dude swears it belongs to his roommate. Dude gets charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.

Same scenario, but gun is locked in a safe and I have no proof he knows the combination. Furthermore, the safe is anchored to the floor. No charges.

 

[No_Regerts]

That is an interesting thought process. Consider this:

If my friend parks his car in her garage does she "possess" his car?

Or is his car simply sitting in her garage? Clearly she doesn't own the car, and if he parked his car in her garage and walked to the store, obviously she wouldn't lawfully own his car just because he parked it in her garage even if he did leave not in his car.

The location of his car doesn't dictate who owns it. Therefore, with that process in mind, if my friend leaves his gun at her apartment, that doesn't make her the de facto owner, she never had it transferred to her through an FFL which would be required by law if it was being transferred to her, but it isn't being transferred to her, it is still his, he is simply storing his gun at her place.

Thoughts?

If he leaves the keys where she can get them, she has constructive possession of the vehicle.

 

[L84Cabo]

Possession: The state of having, owning or controlling something.

I'm not sure I would want to bet the odds that the DA will see it your friend's way. PERHAPS if the firearm is stored at the GF's house in a safe that she does NOT have the combination to, your friend may be right. But anything short of that and I think there's a really good chance that they would see the firearm as being in her control. And as a side note, I don't think anyone is going to believe that she has a safe in her house that she does not have the combination to.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I think you are missing the difference between possession and ownership.
Also, a vehicle will have a title that will show ownership, whereas a gun will not.
I am not familiar with the term "constructive possession", but I can infer it's meaning from @No_Regerts post.

 

[Alexx1401]

That is an interesting thought process. Consider this:

If my friend parks his car in her garage does she "possess" his car?

Or is his car simply sitting in her garage? Clearly she doesn't own the car, and if he parked his car in her garage and walked to the store, obviously she wouldn't lawfully own his car just because he parked it in her garage even if he did leave not in his car.

The location of his car doesn't dictate who owns it. Therefore, with that process in mind, if my friend leaves his gun at her apartment, that doesn't make her the de facto owner, she never had it transferred to her through an FFL which would be required by law if it was being transferred to her, but it isn't being transferred to her, it is still his, he is simply storing his gun at her place.

Thoughts?

If said friend can own a gun it should be no problem. As in how the hell would they ever know. Now if she is not allowed to have a gun then is caught with it they will in all likelihood prosecute her. If he stays there enough to have things like clothing there he could consider it a residence. As in I have seen this where one who pays rent tries to toss someone who stays there. Police show up and say the other person has things there so can stay. So if the gun gets stolen he would have to report it and say it was his of course. I can't see how this is going to be a problem. Unless she decides they get in a fight and she refused to let him have it back, or tried to sell it or such.

All this comes down to the old this is a piss poor place to seek legal advice. Get on the wrong side of the law no judge will care what anyone here told you. So take any advice with salt.

 

[No_Regerts]

I think you are missing the difference between possession and ownership.
Also, a vehicle will have a title that will show ownership, whereas a gun will not.
I am not familiar with the term "constructive possession", but I can infer it's meaning from @No_Regerts post.

Constructive possession is where a person may not own something but the situation allows them to be in "possession" or take "possession". It doesn't even have to be physical possession. A good example would be if I had your credit card number but you had the card itself. I could still order pizza on your card and if I did, I would be in "possession" of the card.

The most common situation where constructive possession is used is unlawful possession of drugs and firearms cases. I always tell felons that being in a vehicle with a gun is bad juju unless the gun is on someone else's person. If felon is unwittingly sitting in the passenger seat and a gun is found in the glove box, its bad news.

In the OPs scenario, you'd never convince a judge that some chick let someone bolt a safe into her place without her having any access. 594 places the burden on the seller/transferer so he would be on the hook.

 

[American123]

I think you are missing the difference between possession and ownership.
Also, a vehicle will have a title that will show ownership, whereas a gun will not.
I am not familiar with the term "constructive possession", but I can infer it's meaning from @No_Regerts post.

Possibly, however, a gun is registered to a person via a 4473, which shows who owns the gun.

 

[American123]

Constructive possession is where a person may not own something but the situation allows them to be in "possession" or take "possession". It doesn't even have to be physical possession. A good example would be if I had your credit card number but you had the card itself. I could still order pizza on your card and if I did, I would be in "possession" of the card.

The most common situation where constructive possession is used is unlawful possession of drugs and firearms cases. I always tell felons that being in a vehicle with a gun is bad juju unless the gun is on someone else's person. If felon is unwittingly sitting in the passenger seat and a gun is found in the glove box, its bad news.

In the OPs scenario, you'd never convince a judge that some chick let someone bolt a safe into her place without her having any access. 594 places the burden on the seller/transferer so he would be on the hook.

Thanks for the input

 

[The Heretic]

I'm not a lawyer and haven't studied the nuances of 594, but I would guess that technically when your friend leaves her apartment she is, by default, "in possession."

I agree. If she can go grab the gun wherever it is 'stored' then she is in possession of it.

If it was in a safe or otherwise locked, then it can be argued that she could not take possession of it because she did not have access to it, even if it is in her house.

Depending on the GF, I would not worry about it too much. OTOH, relationships have a way of going bad, in which case the GF could make all kinds of grief for the BF - so I would just not leave it there.

 

[rdb241]

First off.....I want everybody reading this thread to know that I call BS on the "friend". The OP is asking this question for personal reason's. Although the OP does have a point with the comparison to parking a car in his girl friends garage. I do know from years ago at Albany R & P club. That if you own a class III firearm and you loan it to somebody at the range. You, by law, have to stand right there with the person so the owner does not loose direct control. But that does not apply here. It might have something to do with his legal place of residence. Where does his mail go? I really do not think that there is any language in I-594 about no sale possession...................

 

[Lilhigbee]

Possibly, however, a gun is registered to a person via a 4473, which shows who owns the gun.

Not any firearm transferred privately before the 594 BS. It would show the last person to purchase it from an FFL, but the chain of custody from there would be blank.

 

[Stomper]

I agree. If she can go grab the gun wherever it is 'stored' then she is in possession of it.

If it was in a safe or otherwise locked, then it can be argued that she could not take possession of it because she did not have access to it, even if it is in her house.

Depending on the GF, I would not worry about it too much. OTOH, relationships have a way of going bad, in which case the GF could make all kinds of grief for the BF - so I would just not leave it there.

Here's another spin, girlfriend has keys to dude's place and can access his guns there. This could be warped into "constructive possession" with some decent "spin-doctoring".... where does the insanity end?

 

[jbett98]

What if both parties had bought the firearm together before the new law went into effect.
Each paid 50% of the purchase price from a private party.

 

[rdb241]

Here's another spin, girlfriend has keys to dude's place and can access his guns there. This could be warped into "constructive possession" with some decent "spin-doctoring".... where does the insanity end?

What was in your corn flakes this morning?

 

[etrain16]

As I understand it, I-594, just as with SB941 in Oregon, governs the sale or "transfer" of firearms - with or without money being involved. Here is the opening paragraph of I-594:



That makes me curious about the I-594 definition of "transfer", since a sale clearly isn't involved in the OP's situation. The I-594 definition of transfer is:



I would think the question the DA would have to answer is whether leaving the gun at the apartment was in fact, a transfer, per the definition. And that would probably come down to a question of intent. So long as the GF isn't a felon, I think it would be a waste of time for them to go after this as this would be, in my humble opinion, a gray area at best.

I-594 isn't about possession, but transfer - at least from what I read.