Is WA 594 on hold?(legally)

[aboveandbeyond]

Friend of mine purchased a handgun in WA last week, from a dealer(store front with an address), and he did not have a waiting period. He has a concealed permit. The dealer mentioned that 594 is on "hold" for legal reasons. Something about a conflict with the WA State Constitution. Anybody have more or better information?? Thanks

Read More

 

[IronMonster]

First I have heard of it, Hope its accurate

 

[spectra]

From what I have heard it you have a permit there is no waiting period even with 594. I was told this by my local dealer. Don't hold me to this as it is just what I heard.....

 

[blackadder]

From what I have heard it you have a permit there is no waiting period even with 594. I was told this by my local dealer. Don't hold me to this as it is just what I heard.....

Correct. IF they get a proceed. If not (but not denied) then you would have to wait, possibly up to 10 days depending on who you talk to. Last I heard SAF was SEEKING an injunction, but have not heard if it was approved.

 

[BrimstoneGunsmithing]

594 literally changed nothing regarding the sale of firearms through/from a dealer. So, same as always, if you have a valid ccw no waiting period.

The transfer definition is up in the air (if I hand you a gun, is that a transfer?) and widely regarded as unenforceable. Sort of a giant grey area that law enforcement is, to date, unwilling to touch. The law is NOT on hold, just no one knows what it means. It might conflict with the state, but that's not been determined yet.

The only thing everyone agrees on is that you cannot sell firearms between private parties without going through an FFL.

 

[Wayne]

594 literally changed nothing regarding the sale of firearms through/from a dealer.

It did change the waiting period for non CPL holders from 5 days to 10 days. There has been a lawsuit filed but has not been heard yet.

 

[Dave Workman]

As an authority on the lawsuit, nothing is "on hold." It's a federal court lawsuit, there has been no movement on it so far (not unusual), and so far as CPL is concerned, yes, if you purchase from a dealer, nothing has changed. If you do not have a CPL, the waiting period has doubled. With CPL, if you clear the NICS check, you walk out same day.

 

[NotLoaded]

I have no specific info on the lawsuit. However, I know some general law in this area. Even if the court had issued a preliminary or temporary injunction [although issuance of a temporary injunction is a good sign], a temporary injunction would only enjoin enforcement until a hearing and final judgment/order. If a permanent injunction is not entered, the temporary injunction does not grant permanent immunity to prosecution for acts during the pendency of the final order.

 

[Joe13]

I594... Never heard of it...

 

[SCARed]

I594... Never heard of it...

It's a new highway they built in eastern WA that ends in a very hot and dusty place. Dubbed "highway to hell".

 

[Monica Cowles]

I594... Never heard of it...

Wish I hadn't....

 

[aboveandbeyond]

Thank you for the responses.

 

[Gunguy45]

594 is NOT on hold, legally.

Practically? yes, because NO ONE can decipher it.

But yes, you ARE at risk (probably very small) of prosecution for ANY transfer -except for the very specific ones listed in 594 as exempt.

 

[Classic]

594 is NOT on hold, legally.

Practically? yes, because NO ONE can decipher it.

But yes, you ARE at risk (probably very small) of prosecution for ANY transfer -except for the very specific ones listed in 594 as exempt.

For some reason I thought that legally the buyer - not the seller was responsible for getting the transfer done

 

[Xader]

Didn't the 9th Circuit just hold that Cali's "waiting period" was unconstitutional?

Yet another part of 594 that can't be enforced.

 

[deen_ad]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

Didn't the 9th Circuit just hold that Cali's "waiting period" was unconstitutional?

Yet another part of 594 that can't be enforced.

Technically what happened in the 9th doesn't affect WA directly but it did set a precedent.
Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member
Vancouver Rifle and Pistol Club member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[Dave Workman]

Didn't the 9th Circuit just hold that Cali's "waiting period" was unconstitutional?

Yet another part of 594 that can't be enforced.

For people who passed the NICS check who already had guns.http://www.saf.org/?p=4080

 

[Truenorth]

I don't know what's going on in the rest of the state but I have yet to find and FFL in King County that will accept FTF transfers. Checked with 1/2 a dozen dealers in person and not a single one will touch it.

They all say the same thing.
WA state has not provided them with instructions or paperwork to file a personal firearms transfer.
Without an official document from the state they're NOT putting their license on the line for a private sale.
Can't say I blame them.

So, for now I'm stuck;
Say my neighbor wants to buy a low end used shotgun from me. Ok, no biggie.

Now, I have to post it on Gunbroker.
He has to use buy it now to purchase it.
I have to ship it a 1/2 mile to my FFL to complete the transfer.

But, here's the kicker.
Adding Gunbroker listing fee, WA sales tax, ship cost and FFL transfer fee to an old $100 H&R single shot would basically double what I asked for it a couple months ago.

Does he still want it?
Probably not.
Do I want to lose money so he can still have it for a 100 after fees?
Not really.

So there we are.
Everyone has pickup or camping gun they don't care much about. Now we're stuck with it.
Even if I gave it away for free there's still shipping, tax and transfer fees somebody has to pay to make it legal.

I feel kind of burned.
Never gave those old single shot break barrels and bolt action .22's a second thought.
Now I might as well make furniture and wind chimes out of them. At least I could sell those.

If anything 594 has effectively made private firearms sales completely illegal in WA state.

 

[BlindedByScience]

....If anything 594 has effectively made private firearms sales completely illegal in WA state.

...they'd like us to think that's an unintended consequence. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I know that disinformation and confusion have been used as a tool in situations like this before. Write a law that's so ambiguous, so confusing that not only can you not be sure if you're following the law, but no FFL is willing to put their license on the line to help you comply. This should be tied up in court for a long time. Interesting, you have to admit.....

 

[Martini_Up]

State Constitution? What about the U.S. Constitution?? Firearm ownership is already defined there and it's very clear. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Does i594 infringe upon that right? Even a little?