594 Washington law question

[Stomper]

What was in your corn flakes this morning?

Expanded consciousness. Plus, I know modus operandi of the mind of lawyers and politicians....


Why do you ask? It's not any more "out there" than any other postulation in this thread.

 

[rdb241]

you make my brain hurt...lol

 

[Stomper]

you make my brain hurt...lol

Then my work here is completed for the day.... not too bad, it's only 09:39am!

 

[EPS]

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 )

Here's a better idea if you're Friend carry's the gun with him and has a cwp then he should keep his gun with him if he wants his Girlfriend to have a gun at her home then she should go down and buy her own gun problem solved lol unless she can't have a gun mmmmmm

 

[rdb241]

Brilliant! Thank you for your intelligent insight!

 

[Stomper]

Brilliant! Thank you for your intelligent insight!

And without an iota of punctuation, at that!!

 

[slimmer13]

What if we stop all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing about some nonsense, grow a pair, act free and do wtf we want

 

[EPS]

And without an iota of punctuation, at that!!

Hey I don't use punctuation

 

[American123]

What if we stop all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing about some nonsense, grow a pair, act free and do wtf we want

I wholeheartedly agree, however violating 594 is a felony which means no guns, so although my friend likes to push the law to the limit, he also respects what a felony could mean if his girlfriend potentially used the firearm in self defense at her home and it later was determined that he was in violation of 594 because she possessed the firearm at that time.

 

[EPS]

I wholeheartedly agree, however violating 594 is a felony which means no guns, so although my friend likes to push the law to the limit, he also respects what a felony could mean if his girlfriend potentially used the firearm in self defense at her home and it later was determined that he was in violation of 594 because she possessed the firearm at that time.

Don't be silly she will still get charged for having a illegal gun and he will get charged too for giving it to her THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OR HER SAFETY THEY WOULD RATHER HER GET RAPED AND MURDERD THAN HAVE HER DEFEND HERSELF

 

[American123]

Here's a better idea if you're Friend carry's the gun with him and has a cwp then he should keep his gun with him if he wants his Girlfriend to have a gun at her home then she should go down and buy her own gun problem solved lol unless she can't have a gun mmmmmm

A fine recommendation, however the key point here is not whether his girlfriend can buy a gun, she has a CPL so it's a non issue that she can purchase one. The key point here is he definition of possess in the context of this law.

Because "possess" by the dictionary means - have as belonging to one; own.

So according to the definition of possess, if he leaves his gun at her apartment, not giving it to her, not transferring it to her, etc. although it may be in her apartment, it is still his possession and he still possesses it according to the definition. For example, I possess a car, my car is parked on the street, I possess my car even though I don't have it on my immediate person and the city doesn't possess my car just because it is parked on the street.

If you park your car in someone else's garage, you still possess the car regardless of who's garage it is in.

So if my friend left his firearm at his girlfriends, he goes to the store to get groceries, girlfriend stays at her place while he is gone, to argue that that is in fact a transfer and she now possesses the firearm would be an extreme stretch for any prosecution to make, basically what the prosecution would be arguing is that anytime you leave your property at another person's residence it now is their property. Obviously that is absurd.

 

[American123]

Don't be silly she will still get charged for having a illegal gun and he will get charged too for giving it to her THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OR HER SAFETY THEY WOULD RATHER HER GET RAPED AND MURDERD THAN HAVE HER DEFEND HERSELF

Unfortunately that seems to be the point we are at isn't it, prosecutors look to put victims in prison for defending themselves from criminals who started the whole thing.

I guess another alternative is my friend could marry his girlfriend and then 594 wouldn't apply.

 

[EPS]

Seriously man I'm kinda done with this because I built a AR FOR MY SISTER did you hear or read that my sister but I have to go and pay to have it transfer to MY SISTER THROUGH A FFL TO BE LEGAL do you really think I like having this in my safe taking up space lol

 

[American123]

Seriously man I'm kinda done with this because I built a AR FOR MY SISTER did you hear or read that my sister but I have to go and pay to have it transfer to MY SISTER THROUGH A FFL TO BE LEGAL do you really think I like having this in my safe taking up space lolView attachment 389505 View attachment 389506

Yes, however it is such total complete BS to have to as a law abiding citizen to have to ask permission to exercise rights. Criminals don't give jack bubblegum about the transfer law.

Anyway, I did more reading on the RCW, straight from the website it says

RCW 9.41.115
Penalties—Violations of RCW 9.41.113.
Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person knowingly violating RCW 9.41.113 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of RCW 9.41.113. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer satisfied one of the exceptions in RCW 9.41.113(4).

So if I am reading that correctly, it looks like strike 1 is a gross misdemeanor and strike 2 is a class C felony.

That's actually great news, because in theory the worst they could get you for is a gross misdermeanor the first time.

 

[American123]

Seriously man I'm kinda done with this because I built a AR FOR MY SISTER did you hear or read that my sister but I have to go and pay to have it transfer to MY SISTER THROUGH A FFL TO BE LEGAL do you really think I like having this in my safe taking up space lolView attachment 389505 View attachment 389506

Nice rifle!

i recently tried the primary arms 1-8 SFP with the ACSS illuminated reticle. I am in love with that scope. For only $389 I already like it far more than my trijicon accupoints in 3x9 or my leupold 3x9.

I conducted a test today and compared to the aimpoint pro from a low ready buzzer to shot on target was on average only 6/100 slower using the primary arms scope.

It is heavier though, the scope alone is 16 ounces compared to the aimpoint pro with mount at like 10.5 or something.

 

[EPS]

Yes, however it is such total complete BS to have to as a law abiding citizen to have to ask permission to exercise rights. Criminals don't give jack bubblegum about the transfer law.

Anyway, I did more reading on the RCW, straight from the website it says

RCW 9.41.115
Penalties—Violations of RCW 9.41.113.
Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person knowingly violating RCW 9.41.113 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of RCW 9.41.113. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer satisfied one of the exceptions in RCW 9.41.113(4).

So if I am reading that correctly, it looks like strike 1 is a gross misdemeanor and strike 2 is a class C felony.

That's actually great news, because in theory the worst they could get you for is a gross misdermeanor the first time.

Mmmmm great but a gross misdemeanor could cost me my job and cost my sister her job why take the chance it's 35 bucks this is how it is I know the punks thugs and gang banger 's don't follow the law that's the point we as law-abiding citizen 's do follow the law

 

[EPS]

If a guy breaks into your house with a gun and you hit him with LET'S SAY A FLOWER POT and then pick up his gun and shoot him when he attacks you guess what the liberal 's are going to say yep you guessed it WHY DID YOU PICK UP THE GUN DON'T YOU KNOW GUNS KILL PEOPLE lol go buy some insurance NRA has it and USCCA HAS IT buy what you can afford because god forbid if you ever have to defend yourself with a gun you will be bankrupt and put on trial and then sued for everything you own or will own in the future by the guy you shot or his family

 

[American123]

If a guy breaks into your house with a gun and you hit him with LET'S SAY A FLOWER POT and then pick up his gun and shoot him when he attacks you guess what the liberal 's are going to say yep you guessed it WHY DID YOU PICK UP THE GUN DON'T YOU KNOW GUNS KILL PEOPLE lol go buy some insurance NRA has it and USCCA HAS IT buy what you can afford because god forbid if you ever have to defend yourself with a gun you will be bankrupt and put on trial and then sued for everything you own or will own in the future by the guy you shot or his family

Good point - I've looked at ccw safe, I think I like their business model best from what I have read.

 

[nwwoodsman]

What if we stop all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing about some nonsense, grow a pair, act free and do wtf we want

What country do you live in? Sounds like some of that "land of the free" non sense

 

[Crohnos01]

Here's another angle for your friend to worry about.... Washington also passed 1491, which allows confiscation of firearms without due process if a family member, girlfriend, or ex-girlfriend make a claim that your friend is a danger to himself or others... Hopefully your friend and his girlfriend live together in peace and harmony forever, because any kind of discord between the two of them could set the stage for the girlfriend to make your friends life a living hell trying to get his gun back.... Not that any girlfriend in the history of bad breakups has ever been vindictive towards their ex...