How absurd is I-594? Here is a flow chart.

[Kid@Heart]

This law is insane - if your wife even knows the combination to your gun safe and you are away from the house you are guilty of a gross misdemeanor at a minimum. If she gets the combination a second time you are a felon.

You told your wife the combination to your safe??

 

[3MTA3]

You told your wife the combination to your safe??

A lot of what's in there is hers, and what if she needs to shoot somebody when I'm out of town on business?

 

[Gunguy45]

My flow chart is more simplified.

No, actually it's not. It's so damned complicated that no one not already sharing your POV will even read through it.They'll instead dismiss it as propaganda, regardless of facts.

The simple fact is that this is a TOTALLY UNENFORCEABLE LAW.

I will continue to buy and sell guns regardless of this law. PROVE I DID IT.

Oh yes, there is nothing in thie law which would even remotely help enforcement, and so it will be ignored by EVERYONE outside perhaps of a gun show, which EVERY empirical data point shows to be AT MOST, 1-2% of crime guns.

So people supporting this bill are aiming AT MOST at 1-2% of guns, which they must ALSO then suppose would NOT have been transferred absent this law.

That's just GD insane.

And we need to be making the case that the defense of our person or home is a RIGHT, not a privilege.

I liken i-594 to a state initiative making blacks second class citizens.

It's really no difference. BOTH fundamentally make SOME Americans less than full-fledged Americans. Based on the hysterical, cowardly, ignorant claims of people who have bodyguards ARMED with e GUNS to defend them.

 

[Dave Workman]

Washington gun control measure: Really just semantics?


The gun control battle in Washington State is getting more attention yesterday and today on both sides of the state, as the Seattle Times late Saturday published a lengthy piece on the dueling initiatives — I-591 and I-594 — and the Spokane Spokesman Review has Op-Eds from a leading gun rights advocate, and the executive director of the YMCA in Spokane.

<broken link removed>

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Questions

1) Are transfers to NFA and family trusts now (after 594 is passed) illegal because you cannot perform a background check on them?

2) Will we be arrested/beaten during a stop when we have to say, "I'm sorry, officer, but I cannot hand over my firearm because it would be against the law."? If a police officer forcibly removes the firearm, is he or are both of you still guilty of the misdemeanor?

3) Are gun buyback programs now illegal? Either from the standpoint of not being able to transfer to an organization, or not legally being able to transfer to anyone without registration and background checks?

 

[Just Jim]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...War-Chest-To-Nearly-9-5-Million-In-Wash-State

Looks like the left has put 9 million into gun control, ya'll voted for them so I guess you get to live under their laws.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

The 5 billionaire's that have put millions into trying to buy this are not elected. The exception is Bloomberg and he has never received any votes from anyone in Washington.

 

[bolus]

I heard on the radio (OPB did the report I think) that guns are available to buy online without a background check (what the 594 proponents are saying)

Anyone know what they are referring to? The only way I think I could buy online is go into the Darknet and buy illegal guns with bitcoins. Im just curious if they are completely wrong, or talking about something that is already illegal. Or do they mean arranging a person to person purchase on a forum?

Just curious what the 594 proponents are claiming. (basically, where can I go online to buy some guns and have them shipped to my house )

 

[3MTA3]

I think they are splitting hairs and saying that technically you buy it without a background check but then need the background check to to transfer it. Since the end justifies the means they leave out the background check part. Since our side seems to be unable to get the truth out the lie becomes fact to those outside the firearm community.

This lie is what really makes me angry about the executive LEO's that support it. They know the truth and help to perpetuate the lie.

 

[bolus]

I think they are splitting hairs and saying that technically you buy it without a background check but then need the background check to to transfer it. Since the end justifies the means they leave out the background check part. Since our side seems to be unable to get the truth out the lie becomes fact to those outside the firearm community.

This lie is what really makes me angry about the executive LEO's that support it. They know the truth and help to perpetuate the lie.

I figured it out. they are talking about going on Armslist, finding a local seller and then doing a private sale within state. They just want people to think crooks are buying guns off amazon.com

It would be nice to have a reporter that actually does an investigation before reporting.

Good luck washington

 

[Kid@Heart]

Thanks for the "Good Luck" wishes. If this passes in Washington...


You are next.

 

[Scarint]

This flow chart points out how absurd I-594 is and makes it clear that it is meant to create criminals from most law abiding gun owners. You may need to open the link below the image to read the chart. View attachment 103453

http://i.imgur.com/QLMj1Em.png

This is not entirely accurate. I just finished reading the bill again the other night, there is nothing in there about someone having access to your firearms or knowing where they are. There never was.

Also, a "gift" can be to any immediate family which includes and is limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents/children, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, uncles.

A temporary transfer can only take place between domestic partners or spouses, or in the case if imminent death. Great wording there: imminent.

The law isn't very confusing to read at all, some of the word choices suck (like for a transfer at a range, it reads: "if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range..." This seems to literally mean that if you loan a firearm to a friend at a legitimate range, it has to remain forever at the range.

Questions

1) Are transfers to NFA and family trusts now (after 594 is passed) illegal because you cannot perform a background check on them?

2) Will we be arrested/beaten during a stop when we have to say, "I'm sorry, officer, but I cannot hand over my firearm because it would be against the law."? If a police officer forcibly removes the firearm, is he or are both of you still guilty of the misdemeanor?

3) Are gun buyback programs now illegal? Either from the standpoint of not being able to transfer to an organization, or not legally being able to transfer to anyone without registration and background checks?

1. Family trusts (specifically) are not mentioned (see below, regarding definition of "person"). See above regarding family. I'm not sure what you mean by transfers to NFA; if you mean to firearms dealers/gunsmiths, these are clearly exempted.

2. No. Transfers to law enforcement (in the line of duty) are clearly exempted.

3. Technically, yes, due to Section 2.11: "Person" means an individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity." Though they would be able to take place with appropriate background checks....so at least we probably don't have to worry about gun buybacks!

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, but I have read the bill, and am confident in my understanding of it.

 

[Scott F]

2. No. Transfers to law enforcement (in the line of duty) are clearly exempted.

What about from. If an officer takes possession of my gun during a trafic stop and then tries to give it back would I break the law by taking it?

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

2. No. Transfers to law enforcement (in the line of duty) are clearly exempted.

What about from. If an officer takes possession of my gun during a trafic stop and then tries to give it back would I break the law by taking it?

That may seem to be obvious but in Colorado they actually have people that they can't figure out how to get their guns back to them because of the way their law is written.

 

[TastyWheat87]

I'm going to print out your flow chart and wipe my butt with it. Not because I don't like it, but because I don't like it. I'm sure you understand.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

2. No. Transfers to law enforcement (in the line of duty) are clearly exempted.

2. No. Transfers to law enforcement (in the line of duty) are clearly exempted.

What about from. If an officer takes possession of my gun during a trafic stop and then tries to give it back would I break the law by taking it?

We were talking about this in another thread, don't remember if it was on this forum, and it isn't clear. The line merely says that on duty LEOs are exempt. But if I am a non-LEO handing my firearm over to a LEO, then I, then transferor, am the one who is required to deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the transfer. But maybe that means that the on-duty LEO is exempt from having to do when he gives it back.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

1. Family trusts (specifically) are not mentioned (see below, regarding definition of "person"). See above regarding family. I'm not sure what you mean by transfers to NFA; if you mean to firearms dealers/gunsmiths, these are clearly exempted.

Here I just meant NFA trusts and family trusts. NFA trusts are the ones often made so that people can share NFA firearms and silencers -- not necessarily family. My concern is that if the criminal or the public safety background checks can't be run on a trust, then the firearms can't be transferred to it.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

There is a huge problem with the transfers because under state law anything purchased after a marriage is community property. The whole idea of temporary transfers between spouses under I-594 is absurd because by law the property is equally owned.

 

[Scott F]

That may seem to be obvious but in Colorado they actually have people that they can't figure out how to get their guns back to them because of the way their law is written.

Yep, I know about that one and it is why I asked.

Clearly the officer is exempt while on duty but returning it would be a transfer the way I read the law and require a background check since I am not a LEO.

 

[Scarint]

There is a huge problem with the transfers because under state law anything purchased after a marriage is community property. The whole idea of temporary transfers between spouses under I-594 is absurd because by law the property is equally owned.

This is interesting, and I'm glad to know it now; more ammunition to use against I594.

For those playing the "Let's petition this to stop it" game at home, my thoughts are that it can only now be stopped by careful, technical, and legal contradictions in the law and with previous laws. We will lose the "gun control" part of the debate (cite: we just did); but we just MAY be able to get it turned over from a legal standpoint.

Here I just meant NFA trusts and family trusts. NFA trusts are the ones often made so that people can share NFA firearms and silencers -- not necessarily family. My concern is that if the criminal or the public safety background checks can't be run on a trust, then the firearms can't be transferred to it.

Then I believe they still must undergo background checks as stated above under the definition of a "person" (just re-iterating for clarity's sake).

I don't know how background checks are done against trusts, but the (new, crappy) law is clear on this one.

Good points on the LEO's passing the gun back to the individual, too. I like that. Receiving your firearm back from the state/county/city is now even more difficult...