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

Passing your civilian owned firearm back and forth with LEO, post I-594

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by CarlMc, Nov 16, 2014.

  1. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    97
    I don't know if I read this right, or maybe am reading too much into it, but I know that LEO's can transfer firearms without a background check in the course of their official work among themselves, but how does a civilian pass one to an LEO for whatever reason, then GET IT BACK without the transfer process specified in I-594?
     
    corvus likes this.
  2. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Can't happen, must be between agency and employee.

    Section does not apply to:
    (d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official
     
  3. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    97
    So, according to the current wording, I can legally deny an LEO's request, legal or not, with the statement that doing so would entail me committing a felony?
     
    mjbskwim likes this.
  4. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,059
    Likes Received:
    6,808
    Maybe
     
  5. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    You can be forced to hand it over or rather allow the officer to take your firearm while he is on duty but I believe if he tries to give it back, as in a traffic stop of such, you should refuse or you will be guilty of a crime.
     
  6. aflineman

    aflineman Both South of Eugene and East of Portland. Active Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    122
    That might get interesting. I am an Oregon resident. Transfer would need to be done by an Oregon FFL (if it was a handgun). Who would pay for the transfer?
     
    mjbskwim likes this.
  7. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    If you were an Oregon resident with a Washing CCP and a WA officer remover your handgun during a stop you would have to go to Oregon FFL to do a background check and of course you would get the privilege of paying all the fees. I am not at all sure how the Washington officer would even begin to get your handgun from the point of the stop to a Oregon FFL but there probably be several transfers involved if you ever got it back.

    Some interesting speculations come to mind considering all this. Would the loss of your legally owned handgun be an unlawful confiscation because of the lack of ability to return it to you? Could you sue the police department? Will officers decline to remove firearms for potential threatening indentions because of this law and thus put themselves in serious danger? Will law abiding legal firearm owners just loose their firearms with no hope of recovering them?
     
  8. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    I brought this up earlier. Now I am a retired machinist and truck driver and NOT an attorney so take my views for what they are worth.

    If an on duty officer stops you and sees you have a loaded handgun on the seat beside you, a legal carry with a WA CCP and decides for safety reasons to take it from you for the duration of the stop he is protected from the law as an on duty LEO. However you allowing him to take it sounds to me like you just broke the law by allowing the transfer. Then if he tries to give it back and you do not refuse to take possession that becomes a second offense and you are now guilty of a felony.

    I would love to see how this works out but an not real excited about the idea of telling the officer he would be causing me to break the law bu removing my firearm now would I like to tell him that under fear of being forced into a felonious act I will not take the firearm back.

    I am in Oregon now for an extender stay but will be going back home for Thanksgiving. I have concealed carry permits, resident for WA and Nonresident for OR and as always I will be carrying. I am a law abiding kind of guy and seldom get stopped but if I do get stopped after Dec 4th the officer would hear my concerns about any transfers. I can buy another RIA 1911, I cannot deal with a felony arrest.
     
    CarlMc likes this.
  9. RVTECH

    RVTECH LaPine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    I wonder if the law was written with issues such as this being considered as a diabolical plan to inadvertantly GET people into trouble or if it was simply overlooked - and now being questioned by us, the gun owners, who stand to lose the most given the potential ramifications of the law.
     
    Koda and 8ball like this.
  10. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    97
    How would we go about getting an official answer to this question? The AG is quite busy dealing with a million other similar questions, but it still needs to be asked. I don't relish the thought of being the test case.
     
    Monica Cowles likes this.
  11. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    It is pretty to see conspiracies everywhere you look but I am guessing it was just a law written by feel good folks who have no clue what goes on in the real world.
     
    orygun, corvus and Norm0931 like this.
  12. RVTECH

    RVTECH LaPine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Or don't care.
     
  13. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    We will just have to wait and see. I am not sure this will ever become law. It has so many problems and it is getting picked apart by legal minds. The State Police aren't real happy about it and I am guessing behind the curtains they are doing all they can to get it to go away.

    I think it would be kind of funny if all that was left at the end is gun show vender's would be required to do background checks before selling a firearm. Since they already do it wouldn't change our lives much and it would just have been a huge waste of a bunch of big shot liberals money.

    Whatever happens I think it best if we stand our ground while we wait and see how the state interprets it.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  14. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    It is the "We are going to save the world" crowd who are clueless about what the world is all about that are behind the writing of this law. A smart writer who actually knew about firearms and their everyday uses would have come up withing something that would stand.

    Liberals with a feel good mentality have no concept of reality.
     
    freestoneangler, orygun and corvus like this.
  15. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    The miserable voter turnout is what angers me. We would not even had this discussion if so many did not bother to mark their ballots.
     
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  16. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    It's an off-year election which ALWAYS has low turnout except when there's some driving issue. 1994 and 2010 were exceptions, not the rule. Seriously, people just don't give a rip about guns for the most part and wish we AND the gun control people would all just shut up.
     
  17. RVTECH

    RVTECH LaPine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    3,054
  18. Scott F

    Scott F Oregon City, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    164
    Makes me ill.
    My wife and I are staying long term in Oregon taking care of her dad. We drove 470 miles round trip to make damned sure our votes were delivered not trusting the mail.
     
    Koda, Caveman Jim and IronMonster like this.
  19. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    The initiative passed because voters had no idea what they were voting for. Background checks for sales of guns is a fairly popular idea, even among a lot of gun owners. That's all this was sold to be.

    I really think Alan Gottleib was right when he said there was no way we are going to stop some form of mandated background checks on private sales. I think it was 2012 when he made the statement.

    I'm not happy about that and I don't expect he is either. But I think it's the reality. And frankly, if that's all 594 was, I wouldn't be terribly upset, though I certainly would have opposed it.

    I think a lot of us could live with some form of mandated BG checks on sales. It's the transfer language and the expanded waiting period and the removal of exemptions for CPL holders that really makes me howl.
     
    corvus likes this.
  20. erudne

    erudne The Pie Matrix PPL Say Sleeping W/Your Rifle Is A bad Thing? Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,279
    Likes Received:
    6,918
    I 594 is written just as ObamaCare was; intentionally vague and misleading so that, in a year or two, after the media has conveniently forgotten to cover the public's outrage, Judges can pass rulings that favor confiscation/fines and imprisonment