Washington Jay Inslee - "Hey Oregon, Hold my beer"

[sobo]

If you legally purchased a pistol or SAR in the state of WA after 1639 went into effect, you did.

I grabbed up everything I wanted before that POS "law" became effective. The last thing I bought was a SIG 1911 on June 30th, 2019. I remember distinctly mentioning to the FFL and the transferer that Jackboot Jay and Sideshow Bob could eat a bag of dicks, EACH, as I completed the transfer. Phuq 'em!

 

[slimmer13]

I grabbed up everything I wanted before that POS "law" became effective. The last thing I bought was a SIG 1911 on June 30th, 2019. I remember distinctly mentioning to the FFL and the transferee that Jackboot Jay and Sideshow Bob could eat a bag of dicks, EACH, as I completed the transfer. Phuq 'em!

Then I imagine that you would not be subject to the perpetual BGCs.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Here's another provision I-1639 put into Washington law:

(1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:
(a) For failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful;
(b) For preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm;
(c) For issuing a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person ineligible for such a license;
(d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person eligible for such a license;
(e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license or alien firearm license;

Heads they win, tails you lose. There's no serious down side for revoking your CPL or failing to issue one to an eligible person as long as they claim they acted "in good faith". Not a high bar for most of the liberal, anti-gun judges in the most populous parts of the state.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Then I imagine that you would not be subject to the perpetual BGCs.

If by "perpetual" you mean annual then you imagine wrong (see RCW 9.41.139).

 

[sobo]

My timeline for moving the bubblegum out of this communist bubblegumhole just moved up markedly...

 

[sobo]

If by "perpetual" you mean annual then you imagine wrong (see RCW 9.41.139).

So when it says, "...(a) Verify, on an annual or more frequent basis, that persons who acquired pistols or semiautomatic assault rifles pursuant to this chapter remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law; and..." does that mean pursuant to just RCW 9.41.139? Or to all of RCW 9.41?

How do they realistically think they're going to fund (well, never mind - I already know the answer to that one ), implement, and enfore this bullshiit?

 

[RobMa]

Tyrants!!

 

[Stomper]

From WA AG Ferguson's office:

So you waive constitutional rights to exercise certain constitutional rights….. seems legit.

 

[RobMa]

I wonder how long it will be before engaging in "wrongspeak" will give the tyrants an excuse to take away our 2nd amendment rights...

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

And 1639 changed it from a one and done check, to a recurring check and added SARs. It was discussed here and elsewhere exhaustively.

I don't know what was said before about the waiver of confidentiality but it has been a permanent, open-ended waiver since 1994. In 1994, the triggering event for the waiver was applying for a concealed pistol license. That's still the law under RCW 9.41.070(4).

As amended, by I-1639, RCW 9.41.094 says:

A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.

The waiver of confidentiality is related but different from the background check. The waiver doesn't require the "inquiring court or law enforcement agency" to be seeking information for a background check.

If the court or LE agency have a "signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle" (or for a CPL) from any time then your confidentiality is permanently waived. The law also doesn't require the inquiry to be prompted by an actual attempt to purchase a pistol or SAR. In practice, most such inquiries will probably be linked to a purchase attempt but that is not required. I am unaware of any case law that contradicts this expansive reading of the statutory law.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

If you legally purchased a pistol or SAR in the state of WA after 1639 went into effect, you did.

There's nothing in Washington law that limits the scope of the waiver of confidentiality to purchases after I-1639 became effective. Current Washington law says any signed application for a CPL or the purchase of a pistol or SAR constitutes a waiver of confidentiality.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

That's a crock of shiit. Consider the source. Sideshow Bob himself!

So, "an inquiring court or law enforcement agency"... The State doesn't even need a reason now? Just free to go snooping through people's "private" medical records? Wow, welcome to Nazi Germany...

You can't fairly blame Bob F. These provisions were enacted by the legislature (CPL) and the voters (pistol & SAR). You're right, the waiver statute doesn't require "a reason" though, I'm not sure, there may be other statutes that apply.

 

[Xaevian]

If I remember right, pre-1639, it was a 1-time waiver, not a perpetual permission slip like it is now.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

So when it says, "...(a) Verify, on an annual or more frequent basis, that persons who acquired pistols or semiautomatic assault rifles pursuant to this chapter remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law; and..." does that mean pursuant to just RCW 9.41.139? Or to all of RCW 9.41?

How do they realistically think they're going to fund (well, never mind - I already know the answer to that one ), implement, and enfore this bullshiit?

They mean the entire chapter--all of RCW 9.41.

Never underestimate the desire or ability of the anti-2A types--I mean gun violence prevention advocates--to figure out how to make taxpayers fund their schemes. I'm sure someone is working on a way right now to require gun owners to pay for the background checks just like you pay for a CPL application and a SAR purchase.

 

[Xaevian]

If I remember right, pre-1639, it was a 1-time waiver, not a perpetual permission slip like it is now.

And 1639 changed it from a one and done check, to a recurring check and added SARs. It was discussed here and elsewhere exhaustively.

Slimmer13 remembers! Thanks!

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

If I remember right, pre-1639, it was a 1-time waiver, not a perpetual permission slip like it is now.

Pre-1639, the triggering event was a signed application for a CPL but it was still "a perpetual permission slip" in that scope of the waiver of confidentiality was not time-limited. Now, there are two triggering events--CPL app and pistol or SAR purchase app.

 

[GWS]

Well, one way could be to 'threaten' gun owners (who have bought guns via 4473 and are in the 'system' and can be identified they will face confiscation if they fail to get the annual BGC.

Yea, yea I understand they can't get to everyone due to sheer numbers but they could do a lot of 'random' contacts, letters etc. to people in the hopes of scaring others into it.

Also I assume by pistol and semiautomatic rifle owners - they mean semi auto pistols only - and not revolvers?

Okay so if they have that info already, why can't they just do their own damn check?
Say they know Jack Mehoff has an AR. All they should do is look at the crime reports/records for the year and if Jack's name doesn't show up he passes the check. Anything more than that is an infringement. I am not going to these pricks once a year to prove I'm innocent of crimes, and if they're stupid enough to charge for this then it becomes a fee to exercise a constitutional right and that gets them a massive lawsuit too!

 

[Loc]

I never signed any document such as that. That POS totally smacks of unconstitutionality...

Me either. Just a federal 4473, which wasn't impacted by I-1639.

 

[RobMa]

I was under the false impression that this was only affecting individuals who purchased semi automatic rifles such as the dreaded AK-47 or AR 15's, Boooo.... scary stuff.

 

[Xaevian]

Pre-1639, the triggering event was a signed application for a CPL but it was still "a perpetual permission slip" in that scope of the waiver of confidentiality was not time-limited. Now, there are two triggering events--CPL app and pistol or SAR purchase app.

No, that is wrong. It was a 1-time check upon handgun purchase that was expanded to SARs. 1639 also added a provision to review the medical records and review a background check at least annually outside of any purchase. That was the big issue.