An experiment worth trying?

[Simonpie]

If you want an example of the harm of the background check laws, use a real one, not a hypothetical. I know of youth shooters (in Washington) that used to get driven to their home range by their parents, the rifle handed to the coach and the team road trips to an away match. Now, the coach is too scared to take possession of the rifle, the kid is too young to do it, so the kid misses out on away matches unless the parents can go.
Sounds minor enough, but the lost experiences could be the difference between a college scholarship or not.
Who is this making safer?

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

capdek's scenario will even be more effed up when they add the mandatory lock up law soon.

Capdek brings his .22 caliber lever action rifle over to his friend's house one Sunday evening to show him how pimped up it is with the new engraving.
Has to leave friend the gun because of a work emergency. His friend has no safe BTW

Next day all hell has broken loose.

Friend has had some medical emergency/domestic dispute with girlfriend.
EMTs and Cops have been in the house and secured the gun that was on the coffee table because unsecured guns in a house are now illegal!

The rifles SN puts its manufacture after SB941 and girlfriend blabbed that it was capdek's not hers or her boyfriend's who is now in hospital.

Far fetched but someone is going to be the first to get busted.

 

[freestoneangler]

Is a firearm considered a firearm if all the original parts are not in one place? Just thinking out of the box here, but could dis-assembly solve the dilemma - in this example and others?

If you took a barrel section to work and left in the car... would that constitute a firearm? If no, then the remaining pieces left with your buddy would by default not be a firearm either... right?

 

[capdek]

SB941

SECTION 2. (1) As used in this section:

(a) "Transfer" means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. "Transfer" does not include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:

(A) At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a similar lawful activity;

(B) For the purpose of hunting, trapping or target shooting, during the time in which the transferee is engaged in activities related to hunting, trapping or target shooting;

(C) Under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm are in the presence of the transferor;

(D) To a transferee who is in the business of repairing firearms, for the time during which the firearm is being repaired;

(E) To a transferee who is in the business of making or repairing custom accessories for firearms, for the time during which the accessories are being made or repaired; or

(F) For the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury, and the provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent the death or serious physical injury.

Obviously, subsections A through F do not apply in the scenario I've described. However, I'm pretty sure an attorney could make a strong argument that temporarily leaving my rifle at my friend's home for half an hour while I run a time-critical errand would not constitute the sale, gift, loan or lease of the rifle to my friend. The problem lies with the preceding clause "but not limited to". This clause gives prosecutors complete leeway to decide whether or not to press charges. There's a chance a pro-gun prosecutor may not actually press charges since it would be fairly obvious my intent was not to sell, gift, loan or lease the rifle to my friend. However, there's little doubt an anti-gun prosecutor would use the "but not limited to" clause to justify bringing charges.

As I mentioned in my last response, I am convinced SB941 is more about roadblocks and registration. However, if we go out on a limb and assume a significant number of gun owners actually support universal background checks as some of our politicians claim, SB941 could appear more genuine if the politicians simply took out the "but not limited to" clause. Doing that would pretty much guarantee that I would not be committing a crime by temporarily leaving my rifle with my friend under the circumstances I described. But the fact is, the politicians did not remove that clause, and that fact speaks volumes about the intended consequences of SB941.

 

[capdek]

Clemm is a liar . . .
How do you spell liar? Well, it ends with "rat"!!!!!!!!

Sheldon

If Clemm is not a liar, he was at least being duplicitous. He most likely pulled this subterfuge in an attempt to win brownie points with his predominantly pro-gun constituents - even though he had already decided to tow the party line and vote yes on the bill.