Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Let's work together to get an AG opinion on 594

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by 8ball, Jul 28, 2014.

  1. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    The excellent posts by skjos (quoted below) gave me this idea. How about if we all adapt the letter below, send it to our Reps and Senators, and ask for a written opinion from the AG's office on 594? Only the legislature can ask for these, but they are usually quite extensive (see http://atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/default.aspx)

    I am sending it to Sen Litzow with the following cover letter.

    Dear Senator Litzow

    We corresponded back in January about 594 and background checks on gun transfers, which is now on the ballot for November.

    I've yet to see a cogent description of exactly what 594 entails, given that it covers transfers, and not just sales of firearms. I watched the recent Seattle Times debate with the bill sponsors and Dan Satterberg (see http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opini...debate-about-gun-initiatives-i-591-and-i-594/), and alarmingly even the bill supporters were unable to clarify some of these scenarios, and what exactly constitutes a legal transfer versus a felony.

    As a firearm owner who will be be impacted by 594, I respectfully request as my local member of the state legislature that you ask the Attorney General for a written opinion on 594 and some of the following common scenarios, before we are asked to vote on it this November.

    Thanks,

    8ball

     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014
    GunnyG likes this.
  2. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386

    You've just defined one of the biggest problems with the initiative. Nobody can explain what it precisely says. if something is that fouled up that NOBODY can explain what it means, including its sponsors, that's a pretty good sign there is something definitely wrong with it.

    I think it's a bad idea to ask the AG's office for an opinion, as Ferguson isn't exactly a friend of gun owners.

    I don't think he'll offer an opinion prior to the election anyway.
     
  3. WillametteWill

    WillametteWill Willamette Valley Active Member

    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    131
    We haven't exactly had great luck in the past few years with laws that we need to pass so we can see what is in them.
     
    WasrNwarpaint likes this.
  4. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    All the more reason to NOT pass this turkey.
     
  5. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    If the opinion comes back showing 594 really does suck as bad as we think it does, then that's good ammo for our side in the election.

    If the opinion comes back showing 594 really doesn't cover any of these scenarios we are worrying about, then at least we'll have that to fall back on if it does pass.

    If no opinion comes back, no problem. Apart from the AG being a slacker. o_O
     
  6. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Litzow responded and is looking into it.

    Anyone else try?
     
  7. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Crickets...
     
  8. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    An AG opinion can't give us any more ammo than we currently have. One of the arguments we currently have is that it is confusing and subject to varying opinions as to what certain parts mean. That is in our favor right now. It really isn't that unclear for the most part though. It is just confusing because of all of the exceptions and shear length. The definition of transfer is pretty clear and the exceptions detailed. Quite often what they tell us is technically accurate as well but very deceptive. For instance there is an exception for hunting and one for giving gifts to immediate family. This is deceptive though because the exceptions are very narrow with unrealistic requirements. We should be and are using that to our advantage.
     
  9. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    Let's not. Evidently, you've forgotten who the AG is. It's not Rob McKenna. It's Bob Ferguson, Democrat, who danced around the firearms issue when he was running with the standard "I support the Second Amendment...."
     
    Kable and GunRightsCoalition like this.
  10. Ranb

    Ranb Belfair, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    136
    The AG is not going to give an opinion on a bill or initiative. I think in this case we'll need to get an opinion on it if it passes. We also need to ask for specific opinions; not "what does this whole thing mean". If 594 passes I plan on asking my Senator to ask the AG a few things. I am hoping the AG defines what "while hunting" means or if simply holding a friend's gun or shooting it for a few minutes is a temporary transfer.

    Randy
     
    GunRightsCoalition likes this.
  11. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    Better yet, let's make sure it doesn't pass in the first place. ;)
     
    bnsaibum and 44mag2ndamend like this.
  12. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    And vote not on 591 also, someone stated on this site that the worse of two evils still ends up a tax!

    If this be truth, than get with it folks, I know of no one whom wants to be taxed more, even the extremely wealthy.

    Well that would be my Armchair Soapbox for the evening.