Flying with handgun under 594 ?

[Wayne]

As of now, locked case given at check in counter, legal, under 594 that would be a change of possession, illegal with out a BGC. No more flying ?

Read More

 

[gcban]

No, you're not transferring possession or allowing the use of the actual firearm to the gate agent or the TSA or anyone else for that matter. I'm not a lawyer but traveling with a firearm remains unchanged under this pile of dung initiative. This thing is probably going to be modified and drug out in court battles anyway. Pack your gun and go travel. I do regularly and I'm not changing a thing. Get back to living life my friend. Be safe! –G

 

[Wayne]

I beg to differ with you but under the new definition of transfer in 594, that would be a transfer or change of possession.
By the way, I have never not lived my life to the fullest, but thanks.

 

[Scott F]

I think you are transferring possession to the TSA agent but he is protected as an on duty LEO. He is protected taking it from you and giving it back at your destination. However, giving over to him or taking it back from him makes you guilty.

As mentioned in another post here if an officer takes a firearm from you he cannot give it back w/o and background check. CO is have the same problem.

 

[Scott F]

If this law stands I will change residency and no longer be a WA resident. I will have removed all of my firearms from WA before the first of December.

 

[gcban]

I beg to differ with you but under the new definition of transfer in 594, that would be a transfer or change of possession.
By the way, I have never not lived my life to the fullest, but thanks.

Under that logic that would mean that if I checked my firearm in with the airline, TSA or whomever in Arizona (No I-594 BS there "yet") and flew to WA State, that would require the airline or TSA or whomever in WA to do a background check on me before I could claim my bag with my firearm in it since they are now transferring it back to me. Just because you check a gun in for travel does not mean you have transferred possesion of it to anybody else. Like I said, Scott F, go travel and enjoy. If you dont want to risk it, leave your weapon at home. You have a choice. I will not be changing a thing and I travel with firearms almost weekly.

Also Scott at many airports the TSA is not directly involved in handling your firearm. They are all different in there procedures. In faact the TSA may not even be aware of a firearm in your luggage as per a face to face with a TSA agent. I have expereience alot of there firearms procedures, and many places it's just like checking a regular bag and some places (like Seattle) it's not.

 

[Scott F]

I understand as I have flown with firearms. However we are talking about 594 and the implications lined out in the wording. In your case you would have broken no laws handing over (transferring) you firearm at the airport in AZ and there would not be a TSA involved if they dumped you cased firearm on the luggage conveyor in Oregon but a transfer took place between whoever unloaded the aircraft and you when you picked it up in Washington.

I am not saying it makes sense, just that I think it is the way it is written.

Keep in mind I am just an old beat up service connected disabled vet, machinist, heavy haul truck driver, retarded, oops make that retired guy, not an attorney. These are just my thoughts.

 

[Scott F]

Also, not wanting to break and laws they uncertainty of this law is the reason I will not have a firearm in the state of Washington when the law takes effect in December.

 

[Gunguy45]

The TSA aren't the ones who take possession of your gun, they just have to check it and give you the tag. It goes into checked luggage along with everything else, meaning the baggage handlers have sole control over the gun, which is material possession. Also when you get your guns back at the end of the flight home, it's not the TSA giving them to you, it's an airline employee. -BANG, Gross Misdemeanor.

No one is going to enforce this. The more I think about it nd the more people I talk to in LE, the more I start to wonder if this will ever be enforced anywhere except at gun shows.

 

[Scott F]

As a non protected baggage handler I wonder how many felonies he would commit in one day.

The last time I flew I had to hand my cased rifle to a TSA agent. He opened the case and inspected my rifle, commented on it in a positive manor the when locked up placed it on a cart. In my eyes that was a transfer.

I agree, this will never get enforced the way it is written but we cannot let is stand this way because some DA somewhere will get a wild hair and decide to make some poor law abiding gun owner a felon.

 

[RVTECH]

because some DA somewhere will get a wild hair and decide to make some poor law abiding gun owner a felon

And therein lies the problem - this law screams 'Selective Enforcement'. So while many 'offenses' under this law may go unenforced leave it to one idealistic Crusader in Law Enforcement to make an example of someone.

 

[Gunguy45]

And therein lies the problem - this law screams 'Selective Enforcement'. So while many 'offenses' under this law may go unenforced leave it to one idealistic Crusader in Law Enforcement to make an example of someone.

I agree entirely. This needs to get fixed, repealed or whatever.
Also, I abhor unenforced laws. Laws should mean something or it undermines the entire system of justice.

 

[chariot13]

The plan is, that Under letter of law, pretty much everyone can be nailed for something. The job title 'lawmaker' has no expiration, no 'mission accomplished'... even after the day freedom becomes extinct, they will argue not about how you bend over (because you already are) but how else they can make you bend over. The idea is to make everyone believe that when you are not fined or arrested for going 66 in a 55 that the government under its own 'color of law' practice, is your saving grace. The almighty governments forgiveness is such a wonderment......all hail thee

 

[gcban]

I understand as I have flown with firearms. However we are talking about 594 and the implications lined out in the wording. In your case you would have broken no laws handing over (transferring) you firearm at the airport in AZ and there would not be a TSA involved if they dumped you cased firearm on the luggage conveyor in Oregon but a transfer took place between whoever unloaded the aircraft and you when you picked it up in Washington.

I am not saying it makes sense, just that I think it is the way it is written.

Keep in mind I am just an old beat up service connected disabled vet, machinist, heavy haul truck driver, retarded, oops make that retired guy, not an attorney. These are just my thoughts.

Understood Scott, and thank you for your service to our country. I am going to press on doing what I do when it comes to travel. I-594 is written for maximum confusion and they will take what ever they can get when it all settles down in the courts and legislature. Enforcement on this thing will be all but impossible. Background checks in Colorado went DOWN after their version of I-594 went into effect. Law enforcement pretty much said the same thing, very hard to enforce and resources to do so are all but non-existent. Be safe! –G

 

[Scott F]

Thank you sir.

We have no clue what this mess of a law will become when all is said and done. I pray it is so bad it gets thrown out in its entirety. Be ssfe.

 

[8ball]

This is a really good point. AG Ferguson needs to get off his fat bubblegum and issue an opinion.

 

[Gunguy45]

This is a really good point. AG Ferguson needs to get off his fat bubblegum and issue an opinion.

You REALLY don't want his opinion.

This is a very anti-gun doctrinaire liberal on this issue. Similar, sadly, too our state SC.

PLEASE write your legislator and senator if you haven't done so. It really makes a HUGE difference.

Legislature is NOT anti-gun. The AG and SC clearly ARE.

 

[8ball]

You REALLY don't want his opinion.

This is a very anti-gun doctrinaire liberal on this issue. Similar, sadly, too our state SC.

PLEASE write your legislator and senator if you haven't done so. It really makes a HUGE difference.

Legislature is NOT anti-gun. The AG and SC clearly ARE.

I already did, and Sen Litzow is waiting for an AG opinion.

I know Ferguson is anti gun but he is still the AG and without an opinion, everything else is speculation.

FYI, the Legislature needs a 60% majority to override 594, and the Governor can still veto it. So don't assume that's a sure fire solution before 2017.

 

[Gunguy45]

I already did, and Sen Litzow is waiting for an AG opinion.

I know Ferguson is anti gun but he is still the AG and without an opinion, everything else is speculation.

FYI, the Legislature needs a 60% majority to override 594, and the Governor can still veto it. So don't assume that's a sure fire solution before 2017.

It's not a solution.

It's the least crappy option we have out of a host of really crappy options. I've spoken with some very friendly Deputy Prosecutors and they all dread the AG or the SC weighing in on this, because it will make them do stuff that NO ONE wants to do.

I think there's a way to get amendments past Inslee. the key is to respect the voters obvious intention regarding the PERMANENT transfers.

That one, frankly we're going to be stuck with for the foreseeable future.

 

[8ball]

I just don't see Inslee signing anything because he backed 594. How many votes are needed to override a veto?