I-594 question, returning a gun to its owner

[addiction]

I have not read all 18 pages, is there an exemption in I-594 exempting the transfer of a gun from the person it was loaned to, back to the guns owner? is that also considered a transfer? thus requiring a background check?

Read More

 

[Scott F]

Has to go through a dealer both ways or you become guilty of a felony.

 

[bnsaibum]

It would appear to be considered a transfer and thus it would likely need a background check:
"Sec. 2(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." (emphasis added)

There are specific exemptions for bona fide gifts to family members (Sec. 3(4)(a)), but that does not address your question. The specific exemptions in Sec. 3(4)(c) and Sec. 3(4)(f) seem to imply that in those exact circumstances that are exempted you would not have a problem transferring back and forth and would not need to have a background check. All other 'transfers', temporary or otherwise, would. It is interesting to note the use of the phrase "intended delivery" as 'delivery' has legal meaning, usually in connection with a change of ownership, but not solely limited to it. As with the definition of 'transfer' this initiative appears to expand the definition of 'delivery' as well, at least for WA.

I-594 pdf

 

[Barf]

I have not read all 18 pages, is there an exemption in I-594 exempting the transfer of a gun from the person it was loaned to, back to the guns owner? is that also considered a transfer? thus requiring a background check?

Don't forget about the use tax you are required to pay.
7 -10= % each way

 

[Redcap]

I594 is just a bunch of stupid crap that most of us will ignore anyway.

 

[IronMonster]

I for one wont be ignoring it. Stupid crap yes. Incredibly stupid. However it will also be pretty easy to prosecute those who dont comply since there will be a chain of custody record for every firearm purchased if the initiative goes into effect. You could become a felon with no involvement other than selling the gun to someone under the table. If you buy it, it is basically registered to you. If it is then found in someone else s possession either that person bought it from you without a transfer, you gave it to them as a gift or they stole it. Two of those are a crime for you, all three for him. If this becomes law its only a matter of time till someone is prosecuted for "constructive transfer" where the chain of custody records are used to convict someone. It wont be me.

Actually my long term plan whether this becomes law or not is to move to Idaho where personal property and firearms laws are not controlled by socialists

 

[Bazooka Joe]

It's not at all clear if a temporary loan is considered one transaction (one temporary transfer and return) or should be two (one temporary transfer and one permanent transfer back), so you can bet it will be interpreted to the detriment of gun owners.

 

[bnsaibum]

... However it will also be pretty easy to prosecute those who dont comply since there will be a chain of custody record for every firearm purchased if the initiative goes into effect...

How so?

Currently it is legal to sell privately to anyone not prohibited. There is no paper trail. All firearms in WA have the theoretical possibility of not being currently owned by the person who purchased it through a dealer or otherwise has it registered in their name. There is no way to have a continuity of the chain of custody from before to after.

It will be possible for any firearm sold or transferred through a dealer afterwards should the initiative pass, but not all firearms by a long shot.

 

[IronMonster]

As my post says, purchased, referenceing any new or used purchase after the initiative goes into effect. As time goes on there will be fewer and fewer guns out there that are "unregistered" because even existing used guns will get added to the system as time goes on.

 

[Just Jim]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...War-Chest-To-Nearly-9-5-Million-In-Wash-State

 

[bnsaibum]

As my post says, purchased, referenceing any new or used purchase after the initiative goes into effect. As time goes on there will be fewer and fewer guns out there that are "unregistered" because even existing used guns will get added to the system as time goes on.

I thought that is what you meant, but the way it is typed it could mean any gun purchased at any time. The initiative would only apply to those sold after should it pass, as you well know.

(edit: it should read "The initiative would only be provable on those guns sold after..." In our communications with other voters who may be on the fence it is imperative to be as factual as possible. While the intent of my initial sentence can be guessed, it is technically incorrect.)

I cannot fathom why anyone would rationally support this initiative for a variety of reasons. One being their apparent acceptance of merely 'reducing' violent offenses involving firearms through attrition.

 

[Joao01]

be sure to fight it. Talk to everyone you can. And either read the thing or go to voteno594.com to learn more.

 

[Browning55]

They ran into the same problem when the governor and legislature in Colorado listened to Bloomberg instead of their own people and their own law enforcement community. A lady with a legal firearm was in an accident and when she was transported to the hospital the police took her gun for "safe keeping." Then they couldn't give it back because they weren't FFL's. The whole transfer umbrella is the ridiculous and unworkable aspect of 594 and not one local news agency has fulfilled its obligation to objectively and fairly inform the public about what that initiative would really do.

 

[Wajim]

I cant find the exemption in the bill for the transfer between buyer and seller.

On a FTF sale.

Would a buyer first have to fill out a 4473 before he actually could hold the firearm to check it out and then if he didn't want it the seller would have to fill out the transfer papers to get his firearm back?

Handing a firearm to another individual regardless of the length of time he has possession is a 'Transfer'

No?

 

[Browning55]

I cant find the exemption in the bill for the transfer between buyer and seller.
On a FTF sale.
Would a buyer first have to fill out a 4473 before he actually could hold the firearm to check it out and then if he didn't want it the seller would have to fill out the transfer papers to get his firearm back?
Handing a firearm to another individual regardless of the length of time he has possession is a 'Transfer'
No?

There is no exemption in 594 for a FTF private sale.
You are correct that under 594 you'd have to go through the whole FFL process to handle someone else's gun because of the way it defines transfer. It would be OK under the federal definition but not the 594 definition.

You could transfer to a close family member if it was a "bona fide gift" but if someone tried to say they were simply gifting it back and forth their actions would be a suberfuge and a they would become felons.

The so-called emergency transfer is really non-existent. 594 uses the self defense definition which applies to a POINT in time when use of deadly force is justified. But you could not make a temporary emergency transfer until then - by which time it's all over.

The whole thing really appears to have been written with hostility towards gun owners in general and would prohibit normal and safe conduct between law abiding people that's been going on for hundreds of years.

 

[mjbskwim]

After you rob the store you have to go transfer the gun back to the guy in the alley with the guns in his trunk.
Everyone knows this

 

[freestoneangler]

I-594 is a Trojan Horse... spread the word everyone.