i-1639 training

[User 1234]

This isn't a binary situation though as the firearm IS legal in the resident's state. The issue is there are now additional requirements that constitute a legal transfer as well as additional burden on the FFL.

How would the FFL know that the training certification meets the criteria unless there's some centralized database? Sure the buyer has to swear under penalty of perjury that it does, but does that absolve the FFL? Additionally, what FFL is going to do this?

(9)(a) A true record in triplicate shall be made of every pistol
or semiautomatic assault rifle sold, in a book kept for the purpose,
the form of which may be prescribed by the director of licensing and
shall be personally signed by the purchaser and by the person
effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other, and shall
contain the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and
manufacturer's number of the weapon, the name, address, occupation,
and place of birth of the purchaser, and a statement signed by the
purchaser that he or she is not ineligible under ((RCW 9.41.040))
state or federal law to possess a firearm.

(b) One copy shall within six hours be sent by certified mail to
the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county
of which the purchaser is a resident, or the state pursuant to RCW
9.41.090; the duplicate the dealer shall within seven days send to
the director of licensing; the triplicate the dealer shall retain
for six years.

I think the end result is while the firearm may be defacto legal to be sold to a WA resident, no FFL is going to trouble themselves with the overhead of selling a rifle, any rifle, to a WA resident anymore. Which is ridiculous, not sure how we got this situation when only a few years ago I could be visiting out of state relatives and pick up a rifle at the local sporting goods store with no more issue than buying locally.

I see your point; that if 1639 only dictates what a "dealer in this state" shall do then it would not forbid other state FFLs from selling to WA residents (unless it contained a provision saying that). I'd have to go read the text again to see what it actually says.

 

[rdb241]

Alexa play I Will Not Comply Bass Boosted Remix

EF.....Alexa also. I will not ever have that eves dropping POS in my home ever...........

 

[DB is Here]

EF.....Alexa also. I will not ever have that eves dropping POS in my home ever...........

Had one until I heard about it's snooping, so now it's unplugged awaiting a field trip. Next time at the range, my Alexa will take a 1oz slug and I'll share the video here.

 

[44Brent]

Training is a joke. Anyone charging for it should be tarred and feathered. Its a massive intrusion on your civil rights. We are putting together a class that will be offered for free.

I would ask you to think long term strategically about the effect of what you are doing. I am of the opinion that by offering free classes (or any classes at all for that matter) that you are screwing over potential gun owners, including myself. By jumping through hoops to offer classes, you are doing the work of Bob Ferguson and his team of lawyers. Consider the following scenarios:

1) In the first scenario, no one is able to purchase a semi-auto because there are no classes that comply with vague legal requirements for training. SAF or the NRA sues over a complete inability for anyone to comply with the requirements to purchase a semi-auto, and WINS.

2) In the second scenario, a few people here and there are able to purchase semi-autos after taking questionable classes that may or may not meet legal requirements for training. Perhaps the SAF or NRA sues over difficulties presented to potential gun owners. Bob Ferguson's crack team of lawyers comes to the defense of the law and points to your class as proof that anyone can get FREE TRAINING. Congratulations! You just did Bob Ferguson's work, and in the process make it impossible for SAF and NRA to obtain an easy win.

 

[Sporting Systems]

I would ask you to think long term strategically about the effect of what you are doing. I am of the opinion that by offering free classes (or any classes at all for that matter) that you are screwing over potential gun owners, including myself. By jumping through hoops to offer classes, you are doing the work of Bob Ferguson and his team of lawyers. Consider the following scenarios:

1) In the first scenario, no one is able to purchase a semi-auto because there are no classes that comply with vague legal requirements for training. SAF or the NRA sues over a complete inability for anyone to comply with the requirements to purchase a semi-auto, and WINS.

2) In the second scenario, a few people here and there are able to purchase semi-autos after taking questionable classes that may or may not meet legal requirements for training. Perhaps the SAF or NRA sues over difficulties presented to potential gun owners. Bob Ferguson's crack team of lawyers comes to the defense of the law and points to your class as proof that anyone can get FREE TRAINING. Congratulations! You just did Bob Ferguson's work, and in the process make it impossible for SAF and NRA to obtain an easy win.

Being deep inside the legal process on 1639, I have some insight into what the attorneys think they can win on...and what they can't. Keep in mind, the state will be unable to comply with the law for sometime, pushing some legal challenges farther down the road.

First, classes are already being offered with a wide range of prices. So, its already in the market place. I disagree with them completely, however, they are in the market and most people will comply with the requirements to seek the training. The laws vagueness on training can be only be challenged if a party is harmed by it, thus a person is denied a purchase because the the state refuses to acknowledge the training "certificate" or affidavit. The state and local LE have NO plan to address the training portion of this yet, with 60 days to showtime...it's a problem.

Second, there is no easy win here. Maybe getting gun owners to vote is the easiest path to fixing this mess. If you saw the legal maneuvering happening by Bob and the other 1639 defendants, you'd wonder how we can ever be successful challenging a BS law. Courts have already ruled that training requirements are NOT an undue burden on a gun owner, as displayed by all the training requirements for carry permits and such across the country.

Bottom line, training is in the law and its vague at best. I don't think "instructors" or shops should profiteer off the poorly written law but they already are. The state is not ready for data basing the training certifications, its a hot mess. I think making a mockery of it is the best path for resistance, until the law gets thrown out.

I welcome your opinion.

 

[Dwesson]

Being deep inside the legal process on 1639, I have some insight into what the attorneys think they can win on...and what they can't. Keep in mind, the state will be unable to comply with the law for sometime, pushing some legal challenges farther down the road.

First, classes are already being offered with a wide range of prices. So, its already in the market place. I disagree with them completely, however, they are in the market and most people will comply with the requirements to seek the training. The laws vagueness on training can be only be challenged if a party is harmed by it, thus a person is denied a purchase because the the state refuses to acknowledge the training "certificate" or affidavit. The state and local LE have NO plan to address the training portion of this yet, with 60 days to showtime...it's a problem.

Second, there is no easy win here. Maybe getting gun owners to vote is the easiest path to fixing this mess. If you saw the legal maneuvering happening by Bob and the other 1639 defendants, you'd wonder how we can ever be successful challenging a BS law. Courts have already ruled that training requirements are NOT an undue burden on a gun owner, as displayed by all the training requirements for carry permits and such across the country.

Bottom line, training is in the law and its vague at best. I don't think "instructors" or shops should profiteer off the poorly written law but they already are. The state is not ready for data basing the training certifications, its a hot mess. I think making a mockery of it is the best path for resistance, until the law gets thrown out.

I welcome your opinion.

Agree with your whole post and thank you for challenging this nonsense in court as well as offering free training intended to meet their stupid criteria.

Only critique is bolded (by me), please don't conflate training requirements for a concealed carry permit vs the training requirements to purchase the firearm in the first place.

 

[44Brent]

Bottom line, training is in the law and its vague at best. I don't think "instructors" or shops should profiteer off the poorly written law but they already are. The state is not ready for data basing the training certifications, its a hot mess. I think making a mockery of it is the best path for resistance, until the law gets thrown out.

I welcome your opinion.

Thanks for listening. I think we understand each better now.

Since you are going to proceed with offering classes, let me make a request - there is nothing in the law that prohibits a class instructor from teaching additional material about civic history and rights to vote, so make sure all the class participants are given multitudes of handouts instructing them to vote against specific Democrats (and occasional Republicans) by name. And then, advertise this so that other class instructors follow your model of using classes to get gun owners voting against the politicians. If you do enough of these types activity and it is covered in the news, Democrats might not be so eager to force buyers into classes ("Hey, people are using those classes to organize resistance and vote us out of office. WTF?").

Here's an example of gun owners failing to think strategically: remember when I-594 passed (that's the one that prohibits transfers)? Enthusiastic gun rights supporters went to the state capitol and held an "I will not comply" rally outside the dome. Then, a group of enthusiasts decided to hold the same type of rally INSIDE the capitol from the gallery of one of the voting chambers. TV cameras broadcast images of a rowdy crowd of people waving their guns around in the gallery. This was the ideal image for gun prohibitionists because it gave them the excuse to ban people from carrying inside the state capitol (even though the signs have no force of law). The people that went waiving their guns for the TV cameras inside the voting chambers were total and complete idiots because they did the work of people like Bob Ferguson for free.

There is an alternative that these people could and should have done: they should have amassed outside the entrance to the capitol building and told the WSP officers present that "We WILL comply and want you to personally hold our rifles while we go make a visit inside the building". WSP officers likely would have been forced to say "NO" to this request for fear that they would be violating the law in question. Then, instead of looking like idiots for the media, the legislature would have looked like idiots because the WSP was being prevented from performing "transfers". The inability for WSP to legally perform transfers would have illustrated to the media and legislature about how bad this law was.

 

[GWS]

The training requirement is simply a hindrance another point in the process where a gun buyer may ask if its worth it. If just one buyer says "No.", its a victory for the anti's.
The class is BS. You can rest assured that the state will not accept any liability for flaws or accidents that may be related to training and following whatever points or requirements the state demands.
Its just a hindrance, another hoop to jump through and nothing more.

 

[Sporting Systems]

The training requirement is simply a hindrance another point in the process where a gun buyer may ask if its worth it. If just one buyer says "No.", its a victory for the anti's.
The class is BS. You can rest assured that the state will not accept any liability for flaws or accidents that may be related to training and following whatever points or requirements the state demands.
Its just a hindrance, another hoop to jump through and nothing more.

Exactly! And we're going to make a mockery of the training requirement, making it fast, simple, free and in full compliance with the law. BS law, gets a BS reply from us.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Thanks for listening. I think we understand each better now.

Since you are going to proceed with offering classes, let me make a request - there is nothing in the law that prohibits a class instructor from teaching additional material about civic history and rights to vote, so make sure all the class participants are given multitudes of handouts instructing them to vote against specific Democrats (and occasional Republicans) by name. And then, advertise this that you are including civics education as part of the training so that some other instructors figure out how to repeat the tactic of enhancing training classes by adding civics education. If you do enough of these types activity and it is covered in the news, Democrats might not be so eager to force buyers into classes ("Hey, people are using those classes to organize resistance and vote us out of office. WTF?").

Here's an example of gun owners failing to think strategically: remember when I-594 passed (that's the one that prohibits transfers)? Enthusiastic gun rights supporters went to the state capitol and held an "I will not comply" rally outside the dome. Then, a group of enthusiasts decided to hold the same type of rally INSIDE the capitol from the gallery of one of the voting chambers. TV cameras broadcast images of a rowdy crowd of people waving their guns around in the gallery. This was the ideal image for gun prohibitionists because it gave them the excuse to ban people from carrying inside the state capitol (even though the signs have no force of law). The people that went waiving their guns for the TV cameras inside the voting chambers were total and complete idiots because they did the work of people like Bob Ferguson for free.

There is an alternative that these people could and should have done: they should have amassed outside the entrance to the capitol building and told the WSP officers present that "We WILL comply and want you to personally hold our rifles while we go make a visit inside the building". WSP officers likely would have been forced to say "NO" to this request for fear that they would be violating the law in question. Then, instead of looking like idiots for the media, the legislature would have looked like idiots because the WSP was being prevented from performing "transfers". The inability for WSP to legally perform transfers would have illustrated to the media and legislature about how bad this law was.

I concur, many of the pro-gun actions don't serve a greater purpose, but I wont tell anyone how to express themselves. I'll just disagree. "Don't comply" statements are great, but 1639 is enforced at our level...it's my FFL that gets yanked for willfully violating state or federal law, and then I get to spend some extra time in lock up too, I'll pass. FYI - law enforcement is except from the transfer requirements if it's part of the duty of their job. I'm fairly certain no trooper would accept the "please hold my beer" offer, as they don't have too in doing their job at the capital.

We need people to get active on support 2A rights, reducing restrictions on lawful possession and purchase, and start focusing on the criminal element. You can't make overweight people skinny by telling skinny people they can't eat ice cream.

 

[G1GRANDEUR]

Local LE for approvals just like pistols after July 1.

i was out of firearm loops for a while. can someone explain to me what's going to happen after July 1st?

 

[Diamondback]

i was out of firearm loops for a while. can someone explain to me what's going to happen after July 1st?

Gun shop has to get a "Big Brother May I?"--no matter how long it takes--before you can pick up your gun.

 

[FireArm]

Who doesn't have pile of striped lowers in the safe. Build away

Better, 80% lowers

 

[G1GRANDEUR]

Gun shop has to get a "Big Brother May I?"--no matter how long it takes--before you can pick up your gun.

okay so after july 1st, when purchasing handgun there will be a extra step to bring handgun home.

training certification is required to semi auto rifle is required now or it kicked in july 1st?

 

[Dwesson]

The training has to be within 5 years to be considered valid to buy a rifle.

What happens after 5 years?

(The question is rhetorical, I fully expect them to amend this legislation at some point to require you have training completed every 5 years)

 

[Diamondback]

okay so after july 1st, when purchasing handgun there will be a extra step to bring handgun home.

training certification is required to semi auto rifle is required now or it kicked in july 1st?

Also July 1 as I understand it. Not that I particularly care, all my guns are untraceable 80%'s so they can all go suck a big fat Bubblegum!

 

[Sporting Systems]

training is required for purchase after july 1. required to be re-certified every 5 years or DOL will notify local LE that youre in illegal possession of a rifle. the state has no database or system to make that happen.

 

[DB is Here]

training is required for purchase after july 1. required to be re-certified every 5 years or DOL will notify local LE that youre in illegal possession of a rifle. the state has no database or system to make that happen.

So that's for Semi Auto Rifle's only correct.

 

[Sporting Systems]

So that's for Semi Auto Rifle's only correct.

Yes, for now.

 

[Nosferatu]

I'm curious if anyone has experience with these guys: Safe Insight

I like that it's completely online.

I think $40 is robbery for this "training". But at the same time, I'm not against someone being compensated for putting in the work it takes to put it together.