Washington I-1639 / More info

[SCARed]

I predict WA will either postpone implementation 6mos to a year, OR will continue forward and face lawsuits of unbelievable proportion.

 

[Sporting Systems]

My last reply to you on this. The RCW 9.41.122 IS LAW in WA and allows a non prohibited resident to purchase out of state as long as no part of the transaction takes place in Washington. Read it. it is clear.

It has not been changed. We are not talking about others coming to WA to purchase. I don't disagree about leo knowing the laws.

What we have here is a failure to understand federal law, which trumps state law. State laws can be more restrictive, but don't absolve you of compliance with federal law. I work in a world of absolutes, under federal and state law. It's not an if or maybe...I lose my license and go to jail. No need to reply, I've provided accurate information on the topic and I'm confident in its accuracy. You would like to hear a different answer, so you reject the fact that I work in the industry and testify in the state legislature 20 times a year, and I'm a consultant to a number of our state representatives on the topic. By the way, the NRA and the Second Amendment foundation believe in me enough to back my lawsuit against the state of Washington in federal court. Basis of our claim, restriction of trade. I'm the only party in court fighting 1639, with lawyers to back me up. Nuff said. Keep asking for a different answer, you'll get it, it just won't be correct.

 

[GWS]

Bottom line is 1639 is a train wreck and never should have been on the ballot to begin with, for both the signatures and not complying with the single topic requirement. Both of those alone should have been no-brainers a first-year law clerk court have argued.

Those that ramrodded it through are probably laughing as our side scrambles to deal with it.

Here's hoping Sporting Systems is able to beat this in the courts, for all our sakes.

Click here to support 1639 Legal Defense Fund organized by Daniel Mitchell

Boss

Well said
And thanks for including that link. Makes it easy to donate to support the cause.

 

[Talos32]

What we have here is a failure to understand federal law, which trumps state law. State laws can be more restrictive, but don't absolve you of compliance with federal law. I work in a world of absolutes, under federal and state law. It's not an if or maybe...I lose my license and go to jail. No need to reply, I've provided accurate information on the topic and I'm confident in its accuracy. You would like to hear a different answer, so you reject the fact that I work in the industry and testify in the state legislature 20 times a year, and I'm a consultant to a number of our state representatives on the topic. By the way, the NRA and the Second Amendment foundation believe in me enough to back my lawsuit against the state of Washington in federal court. Basis of our claim, restriction of trade. I'm the only party in court fighting 1639, with lawyers to back me up. Nuff said. Keep asking for a different answer, you'll get it, it just won't be correct.

I'm pretty sure what TCOV is saying is that since RCW 9.41.122 is the statute specifically dealing with out-of-state purchases, and it does not state that a local check agency background is required, it supercedes the general background check rules. It does specifically state that a background check does not need to be conducted in the state of WA unless a portion of the sale takes place here. In essence it seems like WA has two completely different laws regarding the purchase of rifles and shotguns: one for in state and one for out of state.

Federal law requires out of state purchases comply with the laws of the state the purchaser resides in. Since WA has a specific law dictating the rules for out-of-state purchases, TCOV is saying that law is the controlling one in this circumstance.

It's a compelling argument, and unless something like this has been litigated before, I don't think we can say for sure who is correct.

That doesn't mean that out-of-state retailers won't necessarily hedge their bets and comply with the more restrictive local background checks requirements until they hear otherwise.

 

[quneur]

HIPPA rules only pertain to healthcare providers. The courts and LE agencies are not health care providers and they can. They can and have required you to waive your right to privacy for ever. The attorneys are still looking for the right angle to pursue this.

What's the value of a right? There is only one person qualified to question another's right as pertaining to the 2nd, a certified Doctor of Psychology. Even then it should only pertain to the patient's possible harm to others (or another's right). Authorities should then require a judge to take/restrict you from exercising that right. And if you appeal the decision, you should be allowed to face your accuser, the doctor of psychology.

I'm tired of the fact these restrictive laws are being written and letting unqualified health personnel being the arbitrators of you being able to execute your right. I don't want an anti-gun nurse practitioner seeing me for a non-related injury/sickness slipping in a note into my file.

A doctor of psychology makes evaluations.

A judge makes judgements.

That is how it should work.

Edit: if you don't need a Dr of Psychology, you shouldn't need to get on this registry.

 

[ActionHero1980]

While we are at this, am I understanding correctly that renewing or applying for a CPL will require a permanent HIPPA waiver also?

 

[User 1234]

"....AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That when any part of the transaction takes place in Washington , including, but not limited to, internet sales, such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter." I believe the point Dan was making is that this language in 9.41.122 conflicts with the "no dealer shall deliver to a purchaser" language in other sections, evidencing the defective structure of 1639, and the fact that federal law requires FFLs in any state to comply with the purchaser's resident state laws. Federal law does not simply state that an Idaho (or any state) dealer must comply only with RCW 9.41.122. Also making 1639 even worse is that Washington's firearm laws don't define "dealer" to mean only an FFL dealer within Washington. The question then becomes how Washington could dictate the actions of an FFL dealer in a different state. Washington (probably) cannot do so, but federal law can regulate FFL dealers in every state, so 18 USC is essentially extending the effect of state laws to other states. A dealer in Idaho could be charged with a federal crime for violating federal law, based on the dealer's violation of the purchaser's resident state law.

 

[Talos32]

"....AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That when any part of the transaction takes place in Washington , including, but not limited to, internet sales, such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter." I believe the point Dan was making is that this language in 9.41.122 conflicts with the "no dealer shall deliver to a purchaser" language in other sections, evidencing the defective structure of 1639, and the fact that federal law requires FFLs in any state to comply with the purchaser's resident state laws. Federal law does not simply state that an Idaho (or any state) dealer must comply only with RCW 9.41.122. Also making 1639 even worse is that Washington's firearm laws don't define "dealer" to mean only an FFL dealer within Washington. The question then becomes how Washington could dictate the actions of an FFL dealer in a different state. Washington (probably) cannot do so, but federal law can regulate FFL dealers in every state, so 18 USC is essentially extending the effect of state laws to other states. A dealer in Idaho could be charged with a federal crime for violating federal law, based on the dealer's violation of the purchaser's resident state law.

That would have to be decided in court. The standard way laws work is that the specific outweighs the general. So if there's a section dealing with transfers, and another section dealing with out-of-state transfers, the more specific section should be controlling when and if it contradicts the general one.

 

[User 1234]

That canon of interpretation only applies if the two cannot be harmonized to give effect to both. Given the rulings on the 1639 petition I would expect the WA Supreme Court to harmonize the statutes in a way that saves them. If the federal court punts the interpretation of the state statute to the WA courts this could easily happen. And given the train wreck that 1639 created how do out of state FFLs know what exactly the WA purchaser's home state laws are that the FFL must honor? Sporting Systems and that team are attacking all of these problems head on in the courts, and I encourage people to donate to the SAF to help fund it.

Decades ago the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created different types of gambling, and states tried to shut it down, including trying to embargo any suppliers off the reservation from transporting or selling any electronic bingo games to the tribes. It was only through the courts that the states were forced to accept limits.

In the 1960's the states tried to suppress blacks' constitutional rights. After decades of court rulings gradually defined the scope of the right the states were forced to back off. It will be the same way for 2A rights as the years pass since Heller recognized an individual's constitutional right to defend themselves with firearms.

 

[Talos32]

That canon of interpretation only applies if the two cannot be harmonized to give effect to both. Given the rulings on the 1639 petition I would expect the WA Supreme Court to harmonize the statutes in a way that saves them. If the federal court punts the interpretation of the state statute to the WA courts this could easily happen. And given the train wreck that 1639 created how do out of state FFLs know what exactly the WA purchaser's home state laws are that the FFL must honor? Sporting Systems and that team are attacking all of these problems head on in the courts, and I encourage people to donate to the SAF to help fund it.

Decades ago the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created different types of gambling, and states tried to shut it down, including trying to embargo any suppliers off the reservation from transporting or selling any electronic bingo games to the tribes. It was only through the courts that the states were forced to accept limits.

In the 1960's the states tried to suppress blacks' constitutional rights. After decades of court rulings gradually defined the scope of the right the states were forced to back off. It will be the same way for 2A rights as the years pass since Heller recognized an individual's constitutional right to defend themselves with firearms.

You are correct, except in this case there is no way to harmonize both. If normal background checks were to apply to out-of-state purchases, it would have the effect of rendering all of RCW 9.41.122 moot, as the only thing statute does is establish that WA residents may purchase out of state (assumed unless a state has a law to the contrary) and that a WA background check only needs to be conducted if a part of the transaction takes place in WA.

Perfidy of the biased WA court system side, courts give deference the legislative branch and assume that when a law is written legislators are actually trying to accomplish something and don't just write meaningless statutes. For RCW 9.41.122 to have any meaning, it must supersede normal background check requirements.

As I said, who is "right " can only be determined through litigation as it's a toss-up on how the court would rule.

 

[Tony617]

I didn't think a firearm could be mailed/shipped to a non-FFL?

Boss

I had to return my M14 for repair and got a UPS label from the company that was doing the repair work. I took the local UPS depot and they asked if I was an FFL and said no I am the owner. They accepted it and got a working M14 back in about two weeks.

 

[Ura-Ki]

OK, If I was a Wa resident, and I ordered a rifle from an Or. FFL before the July 1st cutoff but the rifle doesn't get delivered until after the July 1st cut off, does it still have to be shipped to a Wa FFl to go through the B.S?

Asking for a friend!

 

[rdb241]

OK, If I was a Wa resident, and I ordered a rifle from an Or. FFL before the July 1st cutoff but the rifle doesn't get delivered until after the July 1st cut off, does it still have to be shipped to a Wa FFl to go through the B.S?

Asking for a friend!

Yes from an above post from a lawyer that is a member here.




OK, I have received a legal answer to my question. This is from a second amendment lawyer in Tacoma who is also a member of this site.

The law states that, on and after 7/1, the dealer must comply with I-1639 in order to "deliver" a semi-auto assault rifle. I interpret this to mean that I-1639 applies on delivery, not purchase. So if the delay extends past 7/1, the dealer will need to comply with I-1639 before you can receive the firearm. You can discuss the issue with your preferred dealer to see if s/he interprets it the same way or not.
Vitaliy Kertchen | Attorney at Law
Kertchen Law, PLLC | 253-905-8415 | kertchenlaw.com
917 S 10th St | Tacoma, WA 98405

 

[User 1234]

That's a good point about rendering all of .122 moot, I hope the judges see it that way too.

 

[DRZ400S]

So, what if I want to build an AR single shot with a 30 round magazine? Its not a semi-auto assault rifle.if the gas block is blocked off. Hmmmm

 

[rdb241]

So, what if I want to build an AR single shot with a 30 round magazine? Its not a semi-auto assault rifle.if the gas block is blocked off. Hmmmm

WHY? You can still build a semi auto from just a stripped receiver. As stated above. A stripped receiver under Washington's definition of assault rifle does not apply. It is simply a receiver and not a semi automatic rifle.

 

[TCOV]

So, what if I want to build an AR single shot with a 30 round magazine? Its not a semi-auto assault rifle.if the gas block is blocked off. Hmmmm

It wouldn't be a single shot if it took a 30 round magazine.

 

[User 1234]

It wouldn't be a single shot if it took a 30 round magazine.

I think he meant manually operated, straight pull bolt action.

 

[DRZ400S]

Correct

 

[User 1234]

We meant what you know.