Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by task1, Jan 16, 2015.
I thought it was pre 1898
I would not rely on any pro-594 website to accurately describe the law. You should read the law.
ANTIQUES - RCW 9.41.010(1) defines antique firearm; manufacture date is "in or before 1898"
GIFTS - Section 3(4) of 594 is now codified in RCW 9.41.113. An exempt gift is a "transfer" [as defined in RCW 9.41.010(25)] to any one of the immediate family members listed in RCW 9.41.113(4)(a). However, to be exempt any such transfer must be a "bona fide gift". "Bona fide gift" is not defined in either the statute or 594. Generally, a legal or "bona fide" gift has two elements: transfer/change of possession and donative intent. Donative intent generally means that the gift is intended to be permanent and unconditional. The State would argue that any transfer back and forth between family members is not a gift and therefore not exempt. It is not exempt because it is not a permanent transfer, and, therefore not a bona fide gift. It is my expectation that at some time the Department of Licensing will require some sort of filing from either the gift giver or receiver requiring a sworn statement to evidence the gift. See Section 8 of 594 which grants DOL "the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended". As of Monday, there is no notice on the DOL website of adopting any rules.
SELF-DEFENSE is not necessarily what you or the average person would expect. Like the gift exception the self-defense exception is a little more complicated. RCW 9.41.113(4)(c) allows a temporary transfer but it is limited to transfers "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred." In other words, this exception is restricted to real time acts, e.g. you can't loan your handgun to your sister when she is being stalked by some psycho unless the psycho is there and death or serious injury is imminent. [And if you were there to hand her your gun, wouldn't you draw on the psycho yourself?] One could make the case that this self-defense exception is meaningless when applied in real life. But in the election materials it sounded "reasonable" to voters.
Well there is more, this temporary transfer can only last "as long as immediately necessary to prevent " the death or great bodily harm." And the person "to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law." So, I would think twice about sliding your handgun to someone you don't know. Also, it appears that, without obtaining a background check, it would violate the statute for you to slide your handgun to someone else to defend you if you are unable to defend yourself because the exception is limited to defending the "person to whom the firearm is transferred."
BURDEN OF PROOF: And you need to keep in mind Section 9 of 594, a section of 594 that is rarely discussed. In short, exceptions are considered an affirmative defense to a criminal violation. That is a defendant's burden. In other words, the prosecutor does not need to prove in its case in chief that the exemptions don't apply. That would be your burden of production. In other words, you better be able to put forward enough evidence to prove a bona fide gift or serious, not just any, bodily injury. And also hope that your kid doesn't tell law enforcement that you expected him to re-gift the gun back to you next weekend.
Two things here.
If it has to do with saving someone's life,who cares? Besides,if it was purchased before Dec 4th,who could tell who's gun it is?You gave or received it before that date
Same with hunting. No provisions for having guns labeled as to who's they are,so any gun in the vehicle could be anyone's. Burden of proof is on them and I doubt any GW could care much less
Again, if the gun was purchased before Dec 4th,who will know when you gave the gun to a family member?
*This is all GTG as long as all participants are reasonably safe and sane*
This advise is worth what you paid for it
C&R - only need to be 50 years old
C&R isnt exempt. 594 was very carefully written to avoid allowing C&R.
this isn't the exemption you're hoping for.
Separate names with a comma.