I-594 details?

[ak56]

That exception is for ONLY at government authorized shooting range.

NO, the exception for spouse and the exception for the range are two separate exceptions.

section 4 (f) is a list of exceptions for temporary transfers.

(4) This section does not apply to:
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

The use of semicolons implies that they are read as separate items. The use of 'or' between items (iv) and (v), with the absence of any 'or' or 'and' between any of the other items, means that the 'or' is implied in the other cases.

So you only need to meet one of the exceptions, not all of them.
So this would be read as:

(4) This section does not apply to:
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
or
(ii)if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range...
or
(iii)...
or
(iv)...
or
(v)...

So I can temporarily transfer to my spouse anywhere.

I could temporarily transfer to any non-prohibited person at an established shooting range.

 

[twoclones]

I wonder how long "temporary" lasts?
How long can you be out of town on business before a transfer is required for the gun left in the safe at home?

 

[GunnyG]

I wonder how long "temporary" lasts?
How long can you be out of town on business before a transfer is required for the gun left in the safe at home?

What all isn't the "... established shooting range authorized by the governing body ..." demanded in (4)(f)(ii)?

Even by AK56's generous intepretation, I still wouldn't be allowed to lend a firearm to my mom or adult son, over a weekend if I wasn't there; or if we weren't at whatever constitutes the "...lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm..." without her/him getting a UBC to receive it, and I don't see what would permit me to receive it back without me doing another UBC to receive it on return.

During hunting season, I could lend my son a firearm. Meeting all other conditions specified in (4)(f)v), what happens if that firearm isn't an approved caliber for the current game/season?

 

[slimmer13]

I 594 details....

 

[donaldc]

The biggest issue I see is the wording around the temporary transfer. Can someone explain what a "temporary transfer" means in this bill? Would letting a friend shoot my gun on private property be illegal even if I am present the entire time? Could someone even help carry my guns to my car on the way to the range or would that be a temporary transfer as well?

 

[Dave Workman]

League of Women Voters 'targeted?' CCRKBA says 'put up reward'



Gun control proponents are making something of a "big deal" out of the alleged discovery of a perforated paper target at the League of Women Voters office in Seattle, intimating in today's Seattle Times that this may be an effort to intimidate the group for its stance on Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure being pushed by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR).


Today, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms fired back…


<broken link removed>

 

[ak56]

...
Even by AK56's generous intepretation, I still wouldn't be allowed to lend a firearm to my mom or adult son, over a weekend if I wasn't there; or if we weren't at whatever constitutes the "...lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm..." without her/him getting a UBC to receive it, and I don't see what would permit me to receive it back without me doing another UBC to receive it on return.

It isn't a 'generous interpretation', it's a grammatical one; you get good at reading these types of documents after decades in the telecom and aerospace industries.

But by my reading of 594, yes, it would require a UBC to lend it to them, and another to get it back.

During hunting season, I could lend my son a firearm. Meeting all other conditions specified in (4)(f)v), what happens if that firearm isn't an approved caliber for the current game/season?

594 doesn't specify that the firearm has to be one that is approprriate for the current game/season, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

The biggest issue I see is the wording around the temporary transfer. Can someone explain what a "temporary transfer" means in this bill? Would letting a friend shoot my gun on private property be illegal even if I am present the entire time? Could someone even help carry my guns to my car on the way to the range or would that be a temporary transfer as well?

Here is their definition of a transfer.

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

My assumption would be that a temporary transfer would be one where you would expect them to give it back at some point.

(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

If letting your friend shoot your gun at an established range is considered a 'temporary transfer', so would letting him shoot it on private property. The range has an exception, private property does not, so yes letting him shoot it on private property would be illegal under 594. As far as helping you carry your guns, how well do you trust your local prosecutor?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have many years experience in reading legal and technical requirements documents which require very precise wording and interpretation. The above is my best interpretation of what I believe I-594 states.

I-594 is bad law, and far over-reaches what the proponents claim, and I suspect that few of it's proponents even know what it really means.

 

[twoclones]

Does Washington State offer a "temporary emergency" concealed pistol license? While reading I-594, I discovered that current RCW 9.41.090 does not recognize the temporary emergency CPL for the purpose of firearms transfer. This means that I-594 could require someone who has a recognized self-defense emergency to go through the up to 30 Sheriff/Chief wait plus the 10 day mandatory wait before receiving that firearm (purchase, gift, loan) they were given an emergency license to carry.

Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of issuance;

 

[twoclones]

594 doesn't specify that the firearm has to be one that is approprriate for the current game/season, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

This below does sound like an inappropriate firearm would be a problem since the firearms in the situation mentioned would not be legal for the hunt.

or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

Heaven help you if your drive through an area where your deer tag isn't valid

 

[twoclones]

Why does Law Enforcement oppose I-594?
An explanation is offered on the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association website.

 

[John H]

This means that I-594 could require someone who has a recognized self-defense emergency to go through the up to 30 Sheriff/Chief wait plus the 10 day mandatory wait before receiving that firearm (purchase, gift, loan) they were given an emergency license to carry.

Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of issuance;

According to SEC3-4-C & Ci

No wait period is needed

If you read the first part of your bold, it state FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, this has nothing to do with temporary tranfers for emergencys

 

[twoclones]

According to SEC3-4-C & Ci

No wait period is needed

If you read the first part of your bold, it state FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, this has nothing to do with temporary tranfers for emergencys

Please show us what does have to do with temporary transfer for emergency.

 

[twoclones]

I594 very clearly and broadly defines a transfer as any movement of a firearm from one person to another, no matter how temporary, and even without any money changing hands; this law is not about firearm sales. If you take possession of a firearm for any length of time and for any reason (safekeeping, hunting, loan, recreational sharing, safety training, coaching, transport, etc.) then you have met the I594 definition of transfer. Even in an emergency.

 

[John H]

Please show us what does have to do with temporary transfer for emergency.

Like I stated, under the exemptions SEC3-4-C & Ci

 

[Dave Workman]

Why does Law Enforcement oppose I-594?
An explanation is offered on the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association website.

MEDIA BIAS??????


Is media deliberately ignoring law enforcement opposition to I-594?

Are Washington State news agencies deliberately ignoring rank-and-file law enforcement opposition to Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure already endorsed by the Seattle Times, and financed largely by wealthy Seattle-area elites, while reporting – as did the Seattle P-I.com – who supports the measure?

<broken link removed>


BE SURE TO LEAVE COMMENTS AT EXAMINER.

 

[twoclones]

Like I stated, under the exemptions SEC3-4-C & Ci

Thank you.

 

[twoclones]

MEDIA BIAS??????

Is media deliberately ignoring law enforcement opposition to I-594?

Is the WACOPS formal position statement available online?

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Don't count on the law agreeing AK56. The way it is written leaves it open to interpretation. The inclusion and exclusion of the word if has as great of an impact as the comma vs. semi-colon and therefore that part can be interpreted either way depending on whether the judge/jury happens to be for or against gun control.

I missed this question earlier however I went through and did my best to pick apart I-594 and have had some lawyers look at it as well. What it boils down to is that much of it is so poorly written that its a best guess as to what it means for much of it until tested in court. Anyway here is the pamphlet I put together which I think is what the OP is looking for.

<broken link removed>

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Is the WACOPS formal position statement available online?

Very good question. I'll see if I can find out. I have no doubt that this is their position though based on the sources it is coming from. CCKRBA, SAF, etc. I've spoken to many in Law Enforcement and so far 100% agree that it's a bad initiative. Of the four sheriff candidates in Clark County the only one that is not against it is........... Oops, sorry, every single one of them has publicly come out against it.

 

[John H]

What it boils down to is that much of it is so poorly written

Imagine that!!!