Southwest Firearms
Simply Triggers
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Low Price Guns
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Sporting Systems
HighLine Firearms
Gun Deals
Defensive Arts
J&B Firearm Sales
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Oregon Rifleworks
Messages
417
Reactions
425
New Ruling

A Feb. 25 state Supreme Court ruling has struck down the Washington law that makes simple drug possession a crime.

The now-stricken law made possession of a controlled substance a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a hefty fine. Five justices, led by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud, said in the 5-4 ruling the statute was unconstitutional because it doesn’t require prosecutors to prove that someone knowingly or intentionally possessed the drugs.

Local authorities can no longer arrest someone solely because the person has a few grams of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine or other illegal drugs — unless, however, there is suspicion that the individual intended to deliver those drugs, according to Snohomish County Prosecutor Adam Cornell. About a half-dozen people will be released from his county’s jail “as soon as possible” as a result of the decision, Cornell said. Those inmates were awaiting trial for simple drug possession alone, or serving sentences after being convicted of only those charges.

Now let’s see how this works for guns and ammo:

A Feb. 25 state Supreme Court ruling has struck down the Washington law that makes simple guns and ammo possession a crime.

The now-stricken law made possession of a controlled substance a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a hefty fine. Five justices, led by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud, said in the 5-4 ruling the statute was unconstitutional because it doesn’t require prosecutors to prove that someone knowingly or intentionally possessed the guns and ammo

Local authorities can no longer arrest someone solely because the person has a few rounds of ammunitions or other illegal firearms — unless, however, there is suspicion that the individual intended to deliver those guns and ammo, according to Snohomish County Prosecutor Adam Cornell. About a half-dozen people will be released from his county’s jail “as soon as possible” as a result of the decision, Cornell said. Those inmates were awaiting trial for simple gun possession alone, or serving sentences after being convicted of only those charges.
 

WAW44

Messages
493
Reactions
836
Best analogy is felon in possession. The ruling basically says that law can't be a strict liability rule, and that it must allow for due process and defense. So, you have a felony criminal record, you served your time, you did not petition to have your state firearm rights restored, you borrow your buddies crew cab truck and go camping. You get pulled over for suspicion of a DUI and the LEO does a search of the truck. Under the rear seat of the cab, they find a 9mm.

So, are you a
felon in possession and should you be found guilty based on the facts above? The ruling says no, you should have the opportunity to present a defense of not being in known possession.

So, to think about it, this will affect 9.41.040, at that also seems to be a strict liability law.
 

bolus

Messages
5,265
Reactions
16,752
Is there currently a Washington state law that "makes simple guns and ammo possession a crime"?

There is here in Hawaii. If you are not bringing ammo directly home from the store it is a crime. There is no open or concealed carry. Tazers are still illegal despite the supreme court ruling against it.

But then again, fireworks are illegal as well and this is what we think of that law:

 
Messages
325
Reactions
523
Best analogy is felon in possession. The ruling basically says that law can't be a strict liability rule, and that it must allow for due process and defense. So, you have a felony criminal record, you served your time, you did not petition to have your state firearm rights restored, you borrow your buddies crew cab truck and go camping. You get pulled over for suspicion of a DUI and the LEO does a search of the truck. Under the rear seat of the cab, they find a 9mm.

So, are you a
felon in possession and should you be found guilty based on the facts above? The ruling says no, you should have the opportunity to present a defense of not being in known possession.

So, to think about it, this will affect 9.41.040, at that also seems to be a strict liability law.

But Wa. state had not previously gotten rid of the due process laws, right?

If I were a felon, and still the same responsible person I am, I would certainly ask if the house I was staying in overnight, or vehicle I was borrowing had any weapons or other illegal items I needed to know about, prior to accepting or taking said item into my possession.

Mistakes happen. You either want to recover or not.

If a felon and in possession "AGAIN" of more illegal items, well your parents must be proud of you.
 
Messages
417
Reactions
425
I think you guys are missing the point. There is no war on drugs. If you are arrested with simple possessions the police must ,let you go. The war on guns is real. I'm simple try to use the same logic for when you arrested for firearm possession. The new law says: in the 5-4 ruling the statute was unconstitutional because it doesn’t require prosecutors to prove that someone knowingly or intentionally possessed the drugs. I guess they were to Sh#tfaced to know they put the drugs in their pocket
 

WAW44

Messages
493
Reactions
836
I think you guys are missing the point. There is no war on drugs. If you are arrested with simple possessions the police must ,let you go. The war on guns is real. I'm simple try to use the same logic for when you arrested for firearm possession. The new law says: in the 5-4 ruling the statute was unconstitutional because it doesn’t require prosecutors to prove that someone knowingly or intentionally possessed the drugs. I guess they were to Sh#tfaced to know they put the drugs in their pocket

Ahem, no, you seem not to understand how this works. The Police doesn't have to anything different. They can arrest you on suspicion as they had before. This rulling only adresses the fact that before, the DA did not have to prove you knowingly processed, just that you processed. When applied to 9.41.040, this is actually a good thing.
 
Messages
122
Reactions
197
Best analogy is felon in possession. The ruling basically says that law can't be a strict liability rule, and that it must allow for due process and defense. So, you have a felony criminal record, you served your time, you did not petition to have your state firearm rights restored, you borrow your buddies crew cab truck and go camping. You get pulled over for suspicion of a DUI and the LEO does a search of the truck. Under the rear seat of the cab, they find a 9mm.

So, are you a
felon in possession and should you be found guilty based on the facts above? The ruling says no, you should have the opportunity to present a defense of not being in known possession.

So, to think about it, this will affect 9.41.040, at that also seems to be a strict liability law.
The court decision itself is concerning whether "possession" without "knowledge or intent" (aka "simple possession") is a crime, and the court says it is not. It's not legalizing drugs at large, but the downstream impact of the decision (and of other changes in society around recreational drug use) is that police departments are not arresting people as often for possessing small quantities of drugs.

The war on drugs by arresting the end users of drugs has been a proven waste of manpower and money for decades. Arresting a junkie and putting them in a jail cell on the taxpayer's dime doesn't stop the flow of drugs; arresting the dealer/distributors does.

This decision does not protect you from being arrested, however. If it's not crystal clear to an officer in the field that you were in possession without "knowledge or intent", they will arrest you and you'll have to make your case in court. This court decision makes it easier for you to be acquitted.
 
Messages
325
Reactions
523
Ahem, no, you seem not to understand how this works. The Police doesn't have to anything different. They can arrest you on suspicion as they had before. This rulling only adresses the fact that before, the DA did not have to prove you knowingly processed, just that you processed. When applied to 9.41.040, this is actually a good thing.
tenor (1).gif
 
I don't know WA law, nor am I going to research the past history and case decisions of "possession" but generally, yes, you (officers and prosecuting attorneys) need to prove knowledge. As in if you borrow a friend's jacket and there is dope in the pocket that you legitimately don't know about then that should not be a crime.

Factually, many guys knowingly carrying dope will tell you, "these are not my pants." Yes, seriously. Same with "friends" stashing their dope in you car. So one would need to look into the facts of this case to see where they were coming from.

To you point on relating it to gun possession...good one!
 

MichaelH

Messages
152
Reactions
130
I think you guys are missing the point. There is no war on drugs. If you are arrested with simple possessions the police must ,let you go. The war on guns is real. I'm simple try to use the same logic for when you arrested for firearm possession. The new law says: in the 5-4 ruling the statute was unconstitutional because it doesn’t require prosecutors to prove that someone knowingly or intentionally possessed the drugs. I guess they were to Sh#tfaced to know they put the drugs in their pocket

The war on drugs is real. Remember this is one ruling in one state, and Oregon now has a statute that does the same thing... so two states out of 50. The jails, here and elsewhere are full of people convicted of possession or intent to distribute. Those folks might ALSO have weapons related charges too, but there are a very small number who are in jail solely for weapons charges. Moreover, nothing about drugs is protected by the Constitution.
 
Messages
417
Reactions
425
S. 1924

To prevent the purchase of ammunition by prohibited purchasers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 20, 2019
Mr. Blumenthal (for himself and Mr. Murphy) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To prevent the purchase of ammunition by prohibited purchasers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as “Jaime’s Law”.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to enhance the background check process in the United States to prevent the purchase of ammunition by individuals prohibited from doing so.
SEC. 3. TRANSFERS OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION.


(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking subsection (s);
(2) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (s);
(3) in subsection (s), as so redesignated—
(A) by inserting “or ammunition” after “firearm” each place it appears except in paragraph (3);
(B) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting “in the case of a firearm,” before “3”;
(C) in paragraph (3)—
(i) by striking all that precedes subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a transfer between a licensee and another person if—
“(A) (i) in the case of a firearm transfer—
“(I) such other person has presented to the licensee a permit that—
“(aa) allows such other person to possess or acquire a firearm; and
“(bb) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and
“(II) the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by such other person would be in violation of law; or
“(ii) in the case of an ammunition transfer—
“(I) such other person has presented to the licensee a permit that—
“(aa) allows such other person to possess or acquire ammunition, or to possess or acquire a firearm; and
“(bb) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and
“(II) the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of ammunition by such other person would be in violation of law;”; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking “(as defined in subsection (s)(8))”; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
“(7) In this subsection, the term ‘chief law enforcement officer’ means the chief of police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee of any such individual.”; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (s), as so redesignated, the following:
“(t) (1) (A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer ammunition to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the ammunition for the purpose of complying with subsection (s).
“(B) Upon taking possession of ammunition under subparagraph (A), a licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring ammunition from the inventory of the licensee to the unlicensed transferee.
“(C) If a transfer of ammunition described in subparagraph (A) will not be completed for any reason after a licensee takes possession of the ammunition (including because the transfer of the ammunition to, or receipt of the ammunition by, the transferee would violate this chapter), the return of the ammunition to the transferor by the licensee shall not constitute the transfer of ammunition for purposes of this chapter.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;
“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;
“(D) a transfer if the transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm; or
“(E) a transfer, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the ammunition in a crime or is prohibited from possessing ammunition under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the ammunition is exclusively—
“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;
“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—
“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the ammunition in a place where it is illegal; and
“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or
“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.
“(3) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.
“(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring licensees to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1).
“(C) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring persons not licensed under this chapter to keep records of background checks of ammunition transfers.
“(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision limiting the amount of any fee a licensee may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1).
“(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer possession of ammunition to another person who is not so licensed unless the importer, manufacturer, or dealer has provided such other person with a notice of the prohibition under paragraph (1), and such other person has certified that such other person has been provided with this notice on a form prescribed by the Attorney General.”.
 
Messages
1,098
Reactions
80
The majority of people want gun legislation, yeah it makes no sense, but we ignore that at our own peril. What if we are rounded up as repeat offenders and sent off to deprogramming centers, supporting an industry of re-education and social sensitivity training? Heck, it sounds like fun. Probably beats me spending half my life trying to keep my frickin' electronics running. I need a good rehab vacation, and we can always carve Glocks out of soap!
 
Southwest Firearms Forum
Sporting Systems
Project Appleseed
NW Custom Firearms
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Cerberus Training Group
Copeland Custom Gunworks

Upcoming Events

22 Rimfire Challenge
Redmond , OR
Appleseed Patriots Day Event
Dundee , OR
Rimfire Challenge May 8th @ DRRC
Eagle Creek , OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top Bottom