i-1639 training

Discussion in 'Firearm Laws & Legal' started by WowReactsOnly, Apr 23, 2019.

  1. WowReactsOnly

    WowReactsOnly
    Vancouver
    Active Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    190
    After much looking looks like here's the training for I-1639:

    I-1639 Firearms Safety Training

    I wonder though is this training truely what meets requirements?
     
  2. surevaliance

    surevaliance
    Auburn WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    # 1. I do not comply unconstitutional requirements.
    # 2. The credibility of those so-called trainers is very questionable.
    # 3. See # 1.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  3. WowReactsOnly

    WowReactsOnly
    Vancouver
    Active Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    190
    My thoughts exactly how do you know the class is sufficient unless the State approves it?
     
    surevaliance likes this.
  4. Cerberus Group

    Cerberus Group
    Goldendale, WA.
    Supporting Vendor Supporting Vendor

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    2,432
    I think it's a shame that instructors will take advantage of it and charge that much.

    I posted months ago that I'll do it for free...but then again see #1
     
  5. rutilate

    rutilate
    Tacoma
    Active Member

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    141
    We run women-only training. We've wrestled with the 1639 training issue. The #1 biggest problem right now is there is no mechanism for us to certify completion, and therefore no way for dealers to verify completion before the sale. The 2nd biggest problem is there are no specific guidelines for curricula. Any class delivered right now cannot be certified. And any class delivered right now might be invalidated the moment guidance is released.

    And worse, if legislators never quite get around to producing guidance, all the gun owners here will, in essence, be prohibited from buying guns. And dealers are going to have huge holes in their cash flow.
     
    SUPER X and Slobray like this.
  6. Dwesson

    Dwesson
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    563
    So I think the question is if there is no mechanism in place by the time that training requirement goes into effect, how will any dealers follow the guidelines?

    I assume they are either going to either ignore it or suspend selling firearms subject to the law until the state infrastructure is put in place (hah).

    I would think if it was the latter and otherwise legal firearms sales in the state were suspended due to the state lacking infrastructure that would be grounds for a lawsuit.
     
  7. rutilate

    rutilate
    Tacoma
    Active Member

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    141
    I certainly hope so. Because that may be the only way anyone can buy after July 1. It is all well and good for Sheriffs to say they won't comply right now, but we'll see what that means after July 1 w/o the mechanism to certify compliance.
     
    Slobray likes this.
  8. User 1234

    User 1234
    Pierce County
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    2,105
    So if an FFL places a copy of the buyer’s training certificate in the file, and the training certificate lists the required topics, who is to say the training requirement was not complied with?
     
    SUPER X and Slobray like this.
  9. rutilate

    rutilate
    Tacoma
    Active Member

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    141
    Who is to say that it IS?
     
  10. 11Charlie

    11Charlie
    IN COMING!!!
    Moderator Staff Member Gold Supporter 2017 Volunteer

    Messages:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    44,803
    If you lost all your guns in a really horrible boating accident then you don't need no stinking classes!!;):p:D
     
    Joe13 likes this.
  11. User 1234

    User 1234
    Pierce County
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    2,105
    The FFL. If the state cites the FFL for insufficient compliance with 1639 the state has the burden of proof on the violation. The practical consideration for the FFL is the cost of disputing the citation (or whatever enforcement tool is used).
     
    Slobray likes this.
  12. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim
    Fish killer....
    Kokanee Slayer 2016 Volunteer 2017 Volunteer

    Messages:
    13,355
    Likes Received:
    35,045
    Many of us have already had our training we don't need to put up with this bubblegum.

    Carry on.
     
  13. Joe13

    Joe13
    NW of Vancouver
    Opinionated & Blunt 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer 2017 Volunteer

    Messages:
    11,786
    Likes Received:
    34,953
    Time to start building pistols and buying rifles in another state;)
     
    FireArm, Mrnorke, Slobray and 2 others like this.
  14. American123

    American123
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    3,243
    Not to thread jack, but I read the advertisement from the link and it states “anyone who wants to purchase a semiautomatic rifle”

    Is 1639 limited to semiauto rifles only? That was not my understanding.
     
  15. Dwesson

    Dwesson
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    563
    The training portion pertains only to semi-automatic rifles, correct.
     
    PapaBear1519 likes this.
  16. American123

    American123
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    3,243
    I’ll have to reread it to tell for sure.

    Completed lowers are not rifles they are “other”

    So... buy a AR lower and upper separate and you’re in the clear? Unlikely, but that would be a nice hiccup in their plans.
     
  17. edslhead

    edslhead
    Vanc
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    3,578
    Likes Received:
    9,658
    Who doesn't have pile of striped lowers in the safe. Build away:D
     
    HuckFin, FireArm, Slobray and 3 others like this.
  18. Dwesson

    Dwesson
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    563
    A lower is transferred as “other” and not subjected to the semi-auto (assault weapon) definitions in the law.

    And yes that is a nice gap. I verified with several FFLs. There is some irony that the one rifle most targeted by this inane law most easily circumvents it.
     
    PapaBear1519, No_Regerts, EPS and 2 others like this.
  19. Dwesson

    Dwesson
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    563
    Here is the initiative link:

    https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

    And the relevant section:

    (2) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
    dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser
    thereof until:

    (a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
    recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
    years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
    (i) Basic firearms safety rules;
    (ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and
    talking to children about gun safety;
    (iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
    (iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
    (v) Safe handling of firearms; and
    (vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited
    firearms transfers.
    The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or
    municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a
    nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms
    training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified
    by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers
    firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a
    certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training
    included the minimum requirements; and
    (b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
    or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
    that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under
    RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
    chief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is
    4
    eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided in
    subsection (3)(b) of this section; or
    (c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been
    satisfied.

    So you can see the training requirement pertains to their definition of assault rifle only, and that basically is defined as a any semi-automatic rifle.

    Their definition:

    (25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which
    utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract
    the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which
    requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
    "Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms,
    any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any
    27
    firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide
    action.
     
    awshoot likes this.
  20. User 1234

    User 1234
    Pierce County
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    2,105
    Based on section 25 above that would not include smooth bore shotguns because they are not rifles. Look at 9.41.010:

    (22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
     
    awshoot likes this.

Share This Page