I 594 Answer

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Wayne, May 27, 2015.

  1. Wayne

    Wayne
    Near Tacoma
    Active Member

    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    245
    I just called the sheriffs office to find out if it is still ok for me to take my daughter and her husband to my club/range and let them use my guns without a transfer. After speaking to 3 different people my final answer was they really did not know but don't worry about it as no one was going to arrest me for it or prosecute it. He also said he knew of no sheriff that understood it all or thought it was a good law. God , ya got to love this state and the wisdom of the voters.
     
    Tbucket and ZA_Survivalist like this.
  2. mcfoto

    mcfoto
    Newberg
    Active Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    236
    My understanding is that this type of scenario was addressed in addendum as it went through the state legislature. I also understand that most of law enforcement in Oregon do not have the resources or inclination to actively investigate violations. My impression is it will be one of the laws in their back pocket to deal with people breaking other laws giving them probable cause to investigate or arrest. Otherwise, as long as you are respectful and comply with their direction, they'll send you on your merry way.
     
  3. pdrake

    pdrake
    WA
    Active Member

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    117
    Hey Wayne, I just thought of something. We should do exactly what you did, and randomly call our local PD or sheriff's office, daily. Keep asking this question. Until they go bonkers, and get the legislature to amend/revoke 594.

    State Patrol was first to state they would not enforce this silly initiative. I still predict it would be overturned in court on the basis of violating the "single subject rule" (see Wash. Const. Article II Section 19). The supreme court stated clearly in Amalgamated Transit that the single subject rule applied to initiatives.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1823136209530606834&q=I-695&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36

    Can anybody claim with a a straight face that I-594 did cover a single subject?
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2015
  4. slimer13

    slimer13
    Deer Park
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    3,802
    Act free and ignore that stupid bubblegum.
     
    Redcap likes this.
  5. Fast Eddie

    Fast Eddie
    Vancouver
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    714
    Yes, harassing law enforcement always turns out well.
     
    40calruler and mcfoto like this.
  6. mcfoto

    mcfoto
    Newberg
    Active Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    236
    +1. Outside of the People's Republic of Metro, most law enforcement officials are pro-second amendment. As was explained to me by one of Yamhill County's finest: it's not the cops you have to worry about when it comes to firearms. It's the DA's who are typically young lawyers, a bit on the left-leaning side of politics, and anxious to make their mark in the world who will foul you up.
     
    Stomper likes this.
  7. Stomper

    Stomper
    Ungovernable!
    Become Ungovernable! Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    14,529
    Likes Received:
    26,196
    ^^^there it is, right there!^^^
     
  8. Dyjital

    Dyjital
    Albany, Ore
    Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,816
    Likes Received:
    8,373
    i-594 = Washington
    SB941= Oregon

    Wrong state bud.
     
  9. mcfoto

    mcfoto
    Newberg
    Active Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ooops. That's very different. Never mind... (Emily Lattila voice)
     
    Dyjital likes this.

Share This Page