Washington I-1639....

[WasrNwarpaint]

1639 says that any gun that uses a bolt, lever, slide or pump is NOT applicable to the term "semi automatic assault rifle" and is not restricted by this law. How does the first bullet get chambered in ANY gun?
Im serious, I'm not trolling. Laws need to be picked apart piece by piece.

I've got so many questions with this new law (as well as 594, I just moved back to WA in the past four months

it was meant to be ambiguous

 

[gomi_otaku]

a ar receiver marked pistol doesn't mean its just a pistol

Somebody else who deals with ARs is going to have to address this, but as far as I know, if it's serialized as a pistol, it can't become a rifle .you can mount the parts on it yes, they are fully interchangeable, but the RECEIVER IS THE FIREARM and if it's a pistol in official records, it's a pistol.
Just like a machine gun receiver- without ANY OTHER PARTS it is just a chunk of metal, but if you get caught holding it without papers, you're going to federal "pound me in the bubblegum" prison.

 

[gomi_otaku]

it was meant to be ambiguous

I don't get what you mean .They purposely put specific exclusions in there, to make it impossible to enforce the law as written?
Because EVERY SINGLE ONE of my semi automatics has some form of mechanism for chambering the first round- a bolt, a slide, a pump...
I'm seriously asking, can ANYONE be prosecuted under this law AS WRITTEN?

 

[Buck13]

I tried to focus on what's new in I-1639. The medical privacy waiver is not new. It's been in effect for handguns since 1994. I-1639 just extends this waiver to AR purchases.

Wait, what?!? I've already authorized the state to dig into my medical records with my handgun purchases? I've NEVER been told that when buying.

 

[WALawyer]

RCW 9.41.094, enacted in 1994:

A signed application to purchase a pistol shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.

 

[Buck13]

Secondly, we learned from the Eyman initiatives (and set state law precedents) on multiple subjects. It is a previously held majority opinion that an initiative gets one subject on which to ask a question. Multiple questions that create a situation where a voter may want to approve one but not another causes a violation of that precedent and has thrown initiatives out on that basis.

IANAL, and my memory is poor, but IIRC Eyman had a bad habit of mixing a tax and a barely-related non-tax provision in one initiative, so the single-subject violation was pretty clear.

In I-1639, I'm afraid a judge will simply say "gunz is gunz" and allow it since all the provisions cover restriction and regulation of gun ownership. I very much hope I'm wrong.

 

[Buck13]

RCW 9.41.094, enacted in 1994:

Thanks. I reckon the state doesn't bother to exercise this law very often?

 

[11Charlie]

@WALawyer here is a legitimate question for you. I have read this thing six times and the one thing that pops up for me is for long guns. I live near Portland but in Washington. I can legally go to Portland buy a long gun and bring it home. Does this follow me to Washington if purchased in Oregon?

 

[cascadian]

IANAL, and my memory is poor, but IIRC Eyman had a bad habit of mixing a tax and a barely-related non-tax provision in one initiative, so the single-subject violation was pretty clear.

In I-1639, I'm afraid a judge will simply say "gunz is gunz" and allow it since all the provisions cover restriction and regulation of gun ownership. I very much hope I'm wrong.

Oh, don't get me wrong... I too am concerned.... But the ruling wasn't on whether both were proper under the 'subject,' but that there was more than one question in the initiative that was asked. It wasn't enough to ask if the car tabs were too high and then push a bunch of stuff under it, but that the citizens were asked to approve or disapprove a whole host of things with no ability to say yes on some or no on some.... "Gunz is bad" as a subject with all of those sub-provisions wouldn't fly under the precedent....

I'm no Polyanna, and realize how tortured folks in Olympia can get to have their way. But, objectively, this initiative must be reviewed on the basis set previously. And if the lower courts won't do it, well, higher courts can force them to.

If anything, this will delay any implementation one would hope

 

[gomi_otaku]

@WALawyer here is a legitimate question for you. I have read this thing six times and the one thing that pops up for me is for long guns. I live near Portland but in Washington. I can legally go to Portland buy a long gun and bring it home. Does this follow me to Washington if purchased in Oregon?

Seriously? Do you get searched when you cross the border? Are your guns on a registry? Just don't say anything.

 

[cascadian]

RCW 9.41.094, enacted in 1994:

Yes, it exists in law. That's fine. But I would ask how many times has a denial happened? I am guessing that it's not been used and has created no aggrieved party that would cause standing to sue. As long as there is no injury, there is nothing to challenge that provision.

The thought that the entire judicial system in America would allow the 'state' to force the relinquishing of medical privacy to access or assert a right under the bill of rights is unthinkable. For, Roe vs Wade, created that right of privacy from state interference between doctors and patients and their treatment. Hence also doctor/patient confidentiality. No, event the most liberal courts would not allow the right of medical privacy to be weakened. Especially when the American Psychiatric Association is against the forced release of medical records for these purposes...

 

[11Charlie]

Just don't say anything.

I like my gun rights or whats left of them! I can not move for another 6-8 years until I retire, so until that day I will follow the letter of the law.

 

[cascadian]

I like my gun rights or whats left of them! I can not move for another 6-8 years until I retire, so until that day I will follow the letter of the law.

Indeed... I am an absolutist on being a law abiding citizen and will obey all laws. And if I ever obtain a firearm, I will without hesitation willingly and enthusiastically comply with all laws, regulations, understandings, compliance mandates and requests.

 

[DuneHopper]

This particular item in Washington was something Sen Prozanski Considered in SB941, it was something at the time was able to have worked out of it as well as retain family transfers private. When I was speaking with him over this particular measure idea, it was something at the time they wanted to wait on. Its not on Kates agenda. But Prozanski may revisit this, someone want to pass this along to Kevin Starret, he never listened and refused to meet over SB941 so he is not aware of those conversations. Might be time OFF got their heads out of the sand and see what been going on. 1639 could be here next session, but I have not heard nor seen a draft.
Perhaps they are on to me LOL

 

[Dwesson]

Somebody else who deals with ARs is going to have to address this, but as far as I know, if it's serialized as a pistol, it can't become a rifle .you can mount the parts on it yes, they are fully interchangeable, but the RECEIVER IS THE FIREARM and if it's a pistol in official records, it's a pistol.
Just like a machine gun receiver- without ANY OTHER PARTS it is just a chunk of metal, but if you get caught holding it without papers, you're going to federal "pound me in the bubblegum" prison.

I may have old information but I am pretty sure on a 4473 a stripped AR15 lower is transferred as "Other" regardless of whether the receiver has "pistol" stamped on it. You can do what you want with it.

 

[Mr Smith]

Guess I forgot option 2 of my post...most of WA splits off from western king county and becomes its own state. let Seattle do whatever the hell it wants and we secede from them or build a wall around them. maybe include Lynnwood, Kirkland, and Everett with it.

 

[Buck13]

Guess I forgot option 2 of my post...most of WA splits off from western king county and becomes its own state. let Seattle do whatever the hell it wants and we secede from them or build a wall around them. maybe include Lynnwood, Kirkland, and Everett with it.

LOL

In the immortal words of Bender Rodriguez: "Wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!"

Posts like this are not useful.

 

[bikemutt]

I talked to an FFL dealer Thursday about the medical waiver. His take on it is the existing WA pistol transfer form signature grants the state a one-time opportunity to consider the transferee's mental health. Under 1639, an assault rifle transfer will grant the state the right to check your mental health as often as they want, forever. He may be incorrect of course, but that's how he sees it right now.

 

[WALawyer]

Thanks. I reckon the state doesn't bother to exercise this law very often?

It's exercised all the time. How else is the state supposed to deny firearm purchases to mentally ill individuals?

@WALawyer here is a legitimate question for you. I have read this thing six times and the one thing that pops up for me is for long guns. I live near Portland but in Washington. I can legally go to Portland buy a long gun and bring it home. Does this follow me to Washington if purchased in Oregon?

The storage provisions would apply, the "under 21" prohibition would apply, but the firearms training and waiting period would not.

Yes, it exists in law. That's fine. But I would ask how many times has a denial happened? I am guessing that it's not been used and has created no aggrieved party that would cause standing to sue. As long as there is no injury, there is nothing to challenge that provision.

The thought that the entire judicial system in America would allow the 'state' to force the relinquishing of medical privacy to access or assert a right under the bill of rights is unthinkable. For, Roe vs Wade, created that right of privacy from state interference between doctors and patients and their treatment. Hence also doctor/patient confidentiality. No, event the most liberal courts would not allow the right of medical privacy to be weakened. Especially when the American Psychiatric Association is against the forced release of medical records for these purposes...

Denials based on mental health illness happen all the time. Your privacy concerns are legitimate, but ultimately there has to be a way to prevent mentally ill people from buying guns.

 

[Tangent123123]

LOL

In the immortal words of Bender Rodriguez: "Wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!"

Posts like this are not useful.

And the bubblegum response was even less so.