I-594 Q? What about firearms were bought before the law?

[clearconscience]

So what happens when we we get pulled over or stopped while shooting/hunting/fishing etc and they run your firearm and it comes back registered to someone else?
What's to stop them from saying you bought it illegally?
Would the burden of proof be on you?

Read More

 

[Oklahomie]

That's interesting, on a side note if you make a sell without background checks what is stopping you from claiming that you bought it prior to 594?

 

[IronMonster]

No, we theoretically still are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof falls on the court. (The real world may not be that cut and dry). Unless the firearm has a manufacturer date after Dec 4 2014 and is listed with the DOL as purchased in Washington by someone other than you with no record of sale you should be golden.

Honestly I do not think it will ever be an issue. I cannot see law enforcement enforcing I-594. It's a feel good thing and unless they caught you in the act of an illegal sale or you used a gun in a crime and it was ill-gotten I don't think you will ever see prosecutions. Same deal with handing your rifle over to your buddy to take a few shots out plinking. No sane cop is going to charge you or even give you any greif even if they catch you in the act. Of course there are a few cops who are less than sane or reasonable. Personally I will follow the intent of the law but not the letter of the law. I will not be selling or buying firearms to or from people on forums or armslist without a BGC, but if my buddy wants to take a few shots with my rifle while out plinking no one is going to stop me. I don't care what the law says, it's not a crime to any sane person. I am a honast and upstanding citizen and simply will not be intimidated. I am a threat to nothing except the lack of common sense the crafters of this crap initiative display.

 

[rupey7]

"So what happens when we we get pulled over or stopped while shooting/hunting/fishing etc and they run your firearm and it comes back registered to someone else?"

I don't see any reason for handing over any firearm to have the numbers run for a check. Someone please cite the rcw here, doesn't it fall under search and seizure laws where there has to be a warrant or permission granted? Unless obviously a crime has been committed or being investigated.

 

[clearconscience]

I can see just saying no but itay invite problems futher poking around to see if they can get you on something.
I was stopped while shooting one year and they ran my AR's S/N.
Which is why I asked. We weren't doing anything wrong and ended up having the LEOs say we were doing everything right and no probs.

Same neighbors who lived next to BLM called because they were stupid enough to build a house right by BLM and then didn't like that people would shoot there.


But your right unless the S/N is newer than the law or someone else bought it and it was registered to them after the date then they wouldn't be able to tell.
I can just see someone getting charged for it and making them prove their innocence to the courts. That happens all the time.

 

[IronMonster]

That's what Lawyers are for.

I stand by what I said, I know what is "criminal" and what is not and so should every other sane adult in this state including the police and prosecutor. 99.5% of them don't want to harass good folks. The idea of the law is to stop bad guys from getting guns. If the law is used to that effect and nothing else then so be it. The problem is when it starts being used to turn good guys into criminals (which I am afraid at some point may happen, we can only hope the system works in those cases and common sense prevails)

And don't take this as support, but often dumb laws are simply not enforced, I just suspect that will be the case with this one in all but the most egregious examples.

 

[clearconscience]

Time will tell.

I do strongly agree people need to educate themselves, and would help themselves out of trouble. But I also know cops will arrest you or hassle you and let the courts handle whats is or isn't law or right.

Will be interesting to see when if any law enforcement try to enforce or hassle people over this.

 

[balaperdida]

<snip> The idea of the law is to stop bad guys from getting guns.<snip>

Being that I am Idaho, I have probably not been following I594 closely enough to render a completely informed opinion.

Nevertheless, my opinion is that the quote excerpt from IronMonster above parrots the Bloomboogers' propaganda.

My further opinion is that the true purpose of I594 is to criminalize activities among law-abiding citizens that have historically been lawful.

 

[IronMonster]

Well yes, If you pull one line out of my post it does to misrepresent what I say, then yes it sounds like that. AND that is why I said the "idea" behind the law rather than the law.

However if you would have bothered to read the whole thing you would see that what you said is exactly what I already said and that I do not agree with the law.

Did you just point that out to be a troll or did you have a point?

 

[balaperdida]

^^^^^^^^ Although the Bloomboogers might not have used Iron Monster's phrase verbatim, isn't that the message they kept repeating to forestall critical examination of I594?

Yes, I did read IronMonster's entire post. The fundamental problem with I594 is that it does not distinguish bad guys/gals from the good. It actually presumes that every gun owner is a nascent bad guy/gal.

 

[IronMonster]

"The problem is when it starts being used to turn good guys into criminals"

Which is exactly what I said.

 

[The Heretic]

I-594 is not about having a registration system that they check currently.

I doubt that they will be doing any real prosecution or enforcement on it except maybe spot checks at WAC gun shows, or maybe stings, just to put the fear of GOV into gun owners to make them comply.

What it is really about is building a database of ownership until it is time for confiscation (partial or whole).

They can't enforce this law unless they catch a person in the act of transferring without complying, or they catch you in possession of a firearm that is in the database as belonging to someone else.

Since the huge majority of firearms in WA state were possessed by someone before 594 went into effect, it will be some decades before some significant percentage of private firearms are in the system - unless they go the next step (and they probably will eventually) of requiring firearms you own currently be put into the system whether you transfer them or not.

My sympathies.

 

[Koda]

No, we theoretically still are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof falls on the court. (The real world may not be that cut and dry). Unless the firearm has a manufacturer date after Dec 4 2014 and is listed with the DOL as purchased in Washington by someone other than you with no record of sale you should be golden.

Honestly I do not think it will ever be an issue. I cannot see law enforcement enforcing I-594. It's a feel good thing and unless they caught you in the act of an illegal sale or you used a gun in a crime and it was ill-gotten I don't think you will ever see prosecutions. Same deal with handing your rifle over to your buddy to take a few shots out plinking. No sane cop is going to charge you or even give you any greif even if they catch you in the act. Of course there are a few cops who are less than sane or reasonable. Personally I will follow the intent of the law but not the letter of the law. I will not be selling or buying firearms to or from people on forums or armslist without a BGC, but if my buddy wants to take a few shots with my rifle while out plinking no one is going to stop me. I don't care what the law says, it's not a crime to any sane person. I am a honast and upstanding citizen and simply will not be intimidated. I am a threat to nothing except the lack of common sense the crafters of this crap initiative display.

while I agree with your sentiment isn't it unsettling that the letter of the law is written such making it illegal to let your friend try your rifle out without a BGC?

 

[IronMonster]

It's asinine, idiotic and pointless.

 

[clearconscience]

I-594 is not about having a registration system that they check currently.

I doubt that they will be doing any real prosecution or enforcement on it except maybe spot checks at WAC gun shows, or maybe stings, just to put the fear of GOV into gun owners to make them comply.

What it is really about is building a database of ownership until it is time for confiscation (partial or whole).

They can't enforce this law unless they catch a person in the act of transferring without complying, or they catch you in possession of a firearm that is in the database as belonging to someone else.

Since the huge majority of firearms in WA state were possessed by someone before 594 went into effect, it will be some decades before some significant percentage of private firearms are in the system - unless they go the next step (and they probably will eventually) of requiring firearms you own currently be put into the system whether you transfer them or not.

My sympathies.

I think you nailed it. It's a systematic way to implement a gun registry and after a few more katrina's, sandy hook's, and ferguson's they can then provide the avenue for the confiscation after all our children have been groomed through our liberal education system to comply "for their own good"

 

[U201491]

Should call this the nose ring attachment thread.

 

[IronMonster]

Yeah?, Why's that

 

[The Heretic]

However, as a matter of routine, they may still check every firearm they come across, just to see if they can catch someone. If it isn't in the DB at all, then they put it in when they check it, as belonging to the person in possession. This would be a way to add firearms to the DB even though they haven't been sold.

Already, it is a matter of practice for any LEO to take a firearm found in your possession in a public place, into their possession for "safety". They also often run the firearm with your ID/warrants check.

If you object, then this makes you a suspicious person and they insist.

I could very easily see laws passing requiring you to declare firearms in your possession when stopped by LEOs.

It is truly a slippery slope - the end goal being a complete enough registration DB to facilitate confiscation.

Also, once people start seeing this happening, and think through the ramifications, you can bet this will have a "quieting effect" on firearm ownership and usage (concealed carry, hunting, etc.); there will be a negative incentive to participate in these activities because you risk your unregistered firearms finding their way into the registration DB.