Getting ready for the ban

[User 1234]

An Idaho or Oregon resident could take a photo of the magazines laying on top of a USGS marker in WA, print that photo, have a notary notarize your signature on that printed photo, and that might be of some use. But if a LEO decides to hassle someone over a magazine after July 1st they might just ignore the paperwork and let you deal with the court system.

 

[BAJ475]

An Idaho or Oregon resident could take a photo of the magazines laying on top of a USGS marker in WA, print that photo, have a notary notarize your signature on that printed photo, and that might be of some use. But if a LEO decides to hassle someone over a magazine after July 1st they might just ignore the paperwork and let you deal with the court system.

Again, thanks for your reply. The difficulty I see is that it is not clear just when the magazines have to be lawfully possessed in WA. For instance, could I travel to WA tomorrow with my high capacity mags and then be allowed to return to WA with them after 7/1/2022 or do I need to legally possess them in WA on 7/1/2022 in order to bring them back into WA after that time?

 

[sobo]

Again, thanks for your reply. The difficulty I see is that it is not clear just when the magazines have to be lawfully possessed in WA. For instance, could I travel to WA tomorrow with my high capacity mags and then be allowed to return to WA with them after 7/1/2022 or do I need to legally possess them in WA on 7/1/2022 in order to bring them back into WA after that time?

As the law was written, passed, and signed, the answer to that question is yes. Travel to WA tomorrow (or anytime prior to the end of day on June 30, 2022) with your standard-capacity magazines, and you have effectively met the letter of the law by possessing those magazines in WA prior to the effective date of the law (July 1, 2022). That's all that is required, according to the legislation as passed. There is no "proof" requirement - that was removed in the final bill.

The thing is, and what we're trying to get across, is that there is no way for anyone (except you) to prove when you had said magazines. The requirement to prove possession prior to the effective date of July 1, 2022 was removed in the final bill. Therefore, it will be an uphill climb for LE/DA to prove you did not have them prior to the effective date, which is what they would have to prove if they wished to prosecute you. In effect, the prosecutor would be forced to prove a negative (and you are not required to prove a positive, i.e., your possession prior to July 1, 2022), which as we all know is extremely difficult if not impossible to do convincingly, which just makes this law that much more silly than it already is.

 

[Chess Lover]

As the law was written, passed, and signed, the answer to that question is yes. Travel to WA tomorrow (or anytime prior to the end of day on June 30, 2022) with your standard-capacity magazines, and you have effectively met the letter of the law by possessing those magazines in WA prior to the effective date of the law (July 1, 2022). That's all that is required, according to the legislation as passed. There is no "proof" requirement - that was removed in the final bill.

The thing is, and what we're trying to get across, is that there is no way for anyone (except you) to prove when you had said magazines. The requirement to prove possession prior to the effective date of July 1, 2022 was removed in the final bill. Therefore, it will be an uphill climb for LE/DA to prove you did not have them prior to the effective date, which is what they would have to prove if they wished to prosecute you. In effect, the prosecutor would be forced to prove a negative (and you are not required to prove a positive, i.e., your possession prior to July 1, 2022), which as we all know is extremely difficult if not impossible to do convincingly, which just makes this law that much more silly than it already is.

Not trusting Olympia, I have all of my magazine receipts, and I plan on taking a picture of myself with my magazines. If I were really obsessive-compulsive, I would also get a notarized affidavit, signed by two witnesses, that I owned my magazines before July 1, 2022.

 

[Diamondback]

Burden of proof is on the accuser. It'd be like me being directly challenging Ferguson to prove he doesn't schlong prepubescent boys and have that stand in court, because "it's not the weight of the evidence but the seriousness of the allegation"...

 

[sobo]

Not trusting Olympia, I have all of my magazine receipts, and I plan on taking a picture of myself with my magazines. If I were really obsessive-compulsive, I would also get a notarized affidavit, signed by two witnesses, that I owned my magazines before July 1, 2022.

Man! And I thought *I* was OCD...

 

[Chess Lover]

Man! And I thought *I* was OCD...

Man! And I thought *I* was OCD...

There is a method to my madness. The government has nearly unlimited resources to prosecute political cases, like gun control. I don't have unlimited resources. So the faster I am able to shut down the government's case, the better it will be for me financially. I also need to buy Law Shield Insurance. I don't have it now because I don't conceal carry. But once HB 5078 goes into effect, I had better have it.

 

[Diamondback]

There is a method to my madness. The government has nearly unlimited resources to prosecute political cases, like gun control. I don't have unlimited resources. So the faster I am able to shut down the government's case, the better it will be for me financially. I also need to buy Law Shield Insurance. I don't have it now because I don't conceal carry. But once HB 5078 goes into effect, I had better have it.

Assuming Chomo Kreidler doesn't ban it like he did USCCA, ACLDN etc...

 

[sobo]

Assuming Chomo Kreidler doesn't ban it like he did USCCA, ACLDN etc...

As you can see in my autosig...

 

[GWS]

There is a method to my madness. The government has nearly unlimited resources to prosecute political cases, like gun control. I don't have unlimited resources. So the faster I am able to shut down the government's case, the better it will be for me financially. I also need to buy Law Shield Insurance. I don't have it now because I don't conceal carry. But once HB 5078 goes into effect, I had better have it.

You can't have it.
You live in Washington

 

[sobo]

You can't have it.
You live in Washington

Incorrect. U.S. Law Shield is currently the only concealed carry insurance in WA that our overlords have deemed legal for the peasants to purchase...

 

[GWS]

Incorrect. U.S. Law Shield is currently the only concealed carry insurance in WA that our overlords have deemed legal for the peasants to purchase...

Really? How did they make the cut?

 

[sobo]

Really? How did they make the cut?

They somehow complied with the demands of Jackboot Jay, Sideshow Bob, and Chomo Kreidler to come up with an insurance policy that is different than what USCCA, NRA, ACLDN, and all the rest were selling. I don't know the particulars, but William Kirk of Washington Gun Law says they're the only ones allowed to do business in WA right now.

 

[Tinman357]

Ol' Jay hates anything firearm related. That insurance company must have "accidentally dropped" a fat envelope in his office when they went in to beg permission to operate a legal business in his kingdom.

 

[Tony617]

Assuming Chomo Kreidler doesn't ban it like he did USCCA, ACLDN etc...

I was a member of ACLDN before the ban so they let existing members renew. But If I did not have anything then I would get US Law Shield since I believe that is the only choice for Washington State residents right now.

 

[BAJ475]

There is a method to my madness. The government has nearly unlimited resources to prosecute political cases, like gun control. I don't have unlimited resources. So the faster I am able to shut down the government's case, the better it will be for me financially. I also need to buy Law Shield Insurance. I don't have it now because I don't conceal carry. But once HB 5078 goes into effect, I had better have it.

Is there a reason that you don't conceal carry? WA CPLs are shall issue and low cost.

 

[Flopsweat]

They somehow complied with the demands of Jackboot Jay, Sideshow Bob, and Chomo Kreidler to come up with an insurance policy that is different than what USCCA, NRA, ACLDN, and all the rest were selling. I don't know the particulars, but William Kirk of Washington Gun Law says they're the only ones allowed to do business in WA right now.

I forget the details but there's a requirement that you get your company certified in some way in order to write or underwrite (I forget which) policies in WA. They acquired the needed certification. None of the other companies have, to my knowledge, even tried.

 

[sobo]

I was a member of ACLDN before the ban so they let existing members renew. But If I did not have anything then I would get US Law Shield since I believe that is the only choice for Washington State residents right now.

You are correct, U.S. Law Shield is the only concealed carry insurance available to WA residents at this time.

 

[sobo]

I forget the details but there's a requirement that you get your company certified in some way in order to write or underwrite (I forget which) policies in WA. They acquired the needed certification. None of the other companies have, to my knowledge, even tried.

The first two sentences of your post are correct. Not the last sentence.
Tim Schmidt at USCCA told me in a personal email that they were working on getting recertified for WA State.

 

[RX-79G]

The thing is, and what we're trying to get across, is that there is no way for anyone (except you) to prove when you had said magazines. The requirement to prove possession prior to the effective date of July 1, 2022 was removed in the final bill. Therefore, it will be an uphill climb for LE/DA to prove you did not have them prior to the effective date, which is what they would have to prove if they wished to prosecute you. In effect, the prosecutor would be forced to prove a negative (and you are not required to prove a positive, i.e., your possession prior to July 1, 2022), which as we all know is extremely difficult if not impossible to do convincingly, which just makes this law that much more silly than it already is.

Is this even an issue? The ban is on selling/giving mags to someone else, not possession, not even purchasing them. If someone mails you mags from out of state, they are the importer, not you.

The only thing you might have to demonstrate is if you had a mag before you left the state with it for when you return, and that wouldn't have to be before 7/1/22, just anytime before you left.