i-1639 training

[Talos32]

1639 does not require the government to teach the class, so if nobody created a class with the required subjects then no FFL dealer could transfer a semi rifle after July 1st. The antis would be perfectly happy with that.

If the government conditions the exercise of a right or requires a citizen to do something that depends on the voluntary participation of private industry, the refusal of private industry to participate then becomes grounds for the the law in question to be struck down. For example, whenever insurance is mandatory it is accompanied buy a prohibition on insurers refusing to cover you for just this reason.

Even California has it in their law that dealers must perform transfers, and has a maximum fee they can charge. To do otherwise would be to risk having their law struck down when someone couldn't have a transfer done for them.

Which is exactly what I said should have happened when WA passed its universal background check law, as they don't have similar provisions. All we would have had to do was find someone who lived in a small town that only had two or three FFLs within an hour drive and get them to all agree to refuse to do a transfer, and now that person has standing to sue. I sent the suggestion to SAF after their lawsuit was tossed for lack of standing, but never heard anything back.

 

[User 1234]

California only requires dealers to do PPTs on the type of guns they sell, so for example Big 5 does not sell handguns and won't process a PPT for handguns.

The unconstitutional conditions doctrine is different from a mandate that infringes on a fundamental constitutional right. Mandating an applicant for unemployment insurance to profess their allegiance to a religion is an unconstitutional condition. The thing the person is trying to do, get unemployment benefits, is not a constitutional right. But the government can't force you to violate your constitutional right to abstain from religion in order to apply for the UI benefits.

A different scenario is when the thing you are trying to do is a fundamental constitutional right, e.g. buy a firearm for self defense. The government tries to make it a PITA to exercise your right by imposing a training class. The training class itself is not outside of the government's power to impose in most circumstances, but when used as a barrier to achieving the constitutional right it is an infringement. If the government would make it easy to comply with but nobody tries to achieve it that scenario makes it harder to show an infringement, not easier. ( This assumes that the courts as of today are not honoring the all or nothing meaning of the word infringement of course, which they should but have not).

 

[SCARed]

I wonder if all the training is a moot point anyway. From a previous post, the DOL and WSP have said they don't/won't receive a copy of the training, and that dealers likely won't keep a copy either. If that's the case that no one will need a copy, what's the point?
If a dealer is that hard up they need to keep a copy when it's not required they do, they dont need to be in business.


From a previous post by Cerberus...
Straight from an email I received from DOL;

"Customer should be keeping their cert with them. Some dealers will be making a copy of the cert for their records. It doesn't go to LEA for the background check. It doesn't come to DOL either."

It appears DOL and anyone associated with the Wa State on this matter will never see the training certificate.

 

[User 1234]

There are different counties now telling FFL dealers to retain a copy of the certificate, and additional hearsay that some counties want to see the cert, so it looks like it will vary.

 

[SCARed]

it will be interesting to see what counties want the certs. King, Clark, Spokane I could understand. But any that have a SAPO or outspoken 2A supporting Sheriff, should definitely not be collecting the forms. Otherwise that just makes them hypocrites.

 

[CyberBill]

In my opinion, no county has any jurisdiction or legal ability to require any information about the training be supplied to them, other than perhaps a checkbox. RCW 9.41.090 says the training information goes to the FFL and nobody else.

 

[outontherange]

Does the waiver of hippa rights fall into purchase of bolt action too?

 

[quneur]

Does the waiver of hippa rights fall into purchase of bolt action too?

Only semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

 

[Merlesdaughter]

This on-line class meets the I-1639 requirement. It's $29.99, takes less than an hour, and you print your certificate upon completion.

My Legal Heat

 

[CyberBill]

Or save $10 and take mine for $20. RifleClass.com | Firearm Safety Class | Entirely Online, 1-Hour, $20

 

[bentoncity]

Or how about no one comply with an illegally passed law and we forget about all the hogwash in it?

I still want to know why the illegal petitions were accepted by Wyman and ferguson (even though he's a full blown blah blah) didn't go after her for accepting them. They(the petitions) clearly violated the RCW's. That's a fact that can not be altered! Denied, yes, altered NO! Feel free to prove me wrong.

Dan

 

[DB is Here]

Or how about no one comply with an illegally passed law and we forget about all the hogwash in it?

Works if you never buy another semi auto rifle in this state.

 

[Diamondback]

Works if you never buy another semi auto rifle in this state.

The time has come for those three little letters: E! P! L!

 

[titsonritz]

As if I-1639 training is training. But yeah, I'm sure it'll make all the difference in the world. I'm sure people will clue in someday.







Not really.