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

[Redcap]

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.

Absolutely not.

 

[Belial]

What in the world is happening for people to "give possession" of their sidearm to an officer for a stop? I am totally blown away that people are willing to do this. It is their right to ask and its yours to say no thanks....

 

[Gunguy45]

What in the world is happening for people to "give possession" of their sidearm to an officer for a stop? I am totally blown away that people are willing to do this. It is their right to ask and its yours to say no thanks....

You have every right to say no thanks. He's still going to take it. And yes, he DOES have legal authority to temporarily disarm you for the duration of the stop. You might not like it, but that's been the law for a very long time and it's been up to the SCOTUS.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Well 594 is a rat's nest full of troubles, and that's just one more.

 

[Belial]

You have every right to say no thanks. He's still going to take it. And yes, he DOES have legal authority to temporarily disarm you for the duration of the stop. You might not like it, but that's been the law for a very long time and it's been up to the SCOTUS.

My post said nothing of the legality of what police officers can and can't do under the protection of their badge.

In 20 years of concealed carry and driving like a youngster, when I was young, I have been asked to surrender my weapon once. I simply stated I didn't feel that drawing a loaded weapon from my holster on a traffic stop was in anyone's best interest. Do you think "He's still going to take it." applies here?? I respectfully disagree and if you think it did you would be wrong. Respect, courtesy, and attitude can make all the difference in the world.

While 594 is a complete and udder mess my bet is that law enforcement will turn a blind to these particular transfers. After all its to protect the children right?

 

[Phather]

The way I read the initiative, law enforcement is exempt while acting within the scope of their duties, but no mention is made about the lay person being exempt when complying with law enforcement. The very next paragraph exempts gunsmiths receiving firearms for repairs AND the return of those firearms back to the owner. I see nothing exempting the return of a firearm from law enforcement to a civilian.

This is how I can see it playing out:

Punk kid and his friend try to rob you while you are walking groceries to your car, so you tell them you are armed and defend yourself without having to unholster your weapon. Punk kid calls 911 and says you brandished a gun at him for no reason. Police respond and confiscate your weapon while they conduct their investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, they find you did nothing wrong. They then tell you that in order for your to retrieve your weapon, you must go through the FFL process to transfer your firearm from the police department back to you. OR The police will agree that the law is asinine and will just give your gun back because that is the right thing to do.

 

[Gunguy45]

My post said nothing of the legality of what police officers can and can't do under the protection of their badge.

In 20 years of concealed carry and driving like a youngster, when I was young, I have been asked to surrender my weapon once. I simply stated I didn't feel that drawing a loaded weapon from my holster on a traffic stop was in anyone's best interest. Do you think "He's still going to take it." applies here?? I respectfully disagree and if you think it did you would be wrong. Respect, courtesy, and attitude can make all the difference in the world.

While 594 is a complete and udder mess my bet is that law enforcement will turn a blind to these particular transfers. After all its to protect the children right?

Look, I haven't been pulled over in 20 years. I have this thing called not speeding. I don't do it, I don't get tickets, hence very cheap insurance.

I have been pulled oer a couple of times while armed. The response of the cop was "Thanks for letting me know, I really appreciate that. Just keep your hands where I can see them and we'll be done here. (And no ticket, despite the fact I was going 10 miles over).

In today's world, it really IS a different thing. I used to look at cops as my friend and protector. Now, I fear their very presence. Too many stories. And training and attitudes have also changed. So yes, I fully expect to be disarmed if I am dumb enough to disclose a concealed weapon.

Again, if the cop chooses to be a good guy and leave it be, good for him/her. If they insist on disarming me, well, I'm not going to kill someone over a temporary disarming. -And neither is anyone else here.

They HAVE the legal authority to disarm you at a stop. That is very long-settled law. The problem of course, is that if you have a real jerkwad cop or a very jerkwad COP that the cop has to answer to, you are at potential of committing a gross misdemeanor by accepting it back.

These are the kinds of interactions that I don't think even the writers of 594 thought about, much less Joe voter who voted for "background checks at gun shows."

Not that our real opponents CARE. But I wanted to bring to yours and any other readers attention that the cops DO in fact have well-established legal authority to disarm you for the duration of any stop at all. Resisting will NOT go well for the resister. Protest, by all means. But DO NOT resist, unless you want to go to jail at the least, get beaten or shot at the worst.

There are second amendment violations I might be willing to die for, but a traffic stop and TEMPORARY disarming isn't one of them.

 

[Scott F]

OR The police will agree that the law is asinine and will just give your gun back because that is the right thing to do.
Then arrest you for the crime for taking possession of a firearm without a background check. They are protected under the law, we are not. As the law appears to stand right now the safest thing you can do in the above situation is REFUSE to take your firearm from the police quoting 594 and saying you will NOT break the law.

 

[Scott F]

These are the kinds of interactions that I don't think even the writers of 594 thought about, much less Joe voter who voted for "background checks at gun shows."

Much less those who could not be bothered to vote at all. If you count those to lazy to vote against 594 as yes votes and those who voted for 594 then something like 85% of WA voter want this.

 

[8ball]

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.

I have zero doubt this was written to screw with us.

Did you see Cheryl Stumbo's confused response to similar questions in the KOMO debate? She clearly thought people just shouldn't shoot guns for recreation.

 

[Gunguy45]

Did you see Cheryl Stumbo's confused response to similar questions in the KOMO debate? She clearly thought people just shouldn't shoot guns for recreation.

Yes, I did. And I liken it to anyone who has not the slightest idea of what "gun culture" is all about. They simply don't have a clue, nor do they have any understanding of what various proposals actually DO to the very people they claim to protect.

I simply do not believe that anyone outside of the crafters of this bill had any notion of what he law makes illegal. It just frankly didn't occur to them and when confronted with it, were assuaged by the bogus BS opinion of a FORMER PA of King County and the lies of the crafters.

Old Saying: "Never attribute to Malice what Stupidity will easily explain." Me, I'm going with the stupidity/ignorance argument.

I really don't think that the overwhelming (95%) of voters had any idea of what effect this law would have. They just wanted "checks at gun shows," which would frankly be a fairly minor (if unconstitutional) law.

Give your fellow citizens some credit. No, they DIDN'T read through the 18 pages of this abortion. What voters INTENDED, however, has some very specific legal implications.

It's the fig leaf for the governor to sign an amendment to this abortion of a law. Fig leafs are important for politicians.

 

[revjen45]

I'm going with malice. Gates and Hanauer aren't stupid.

"Give your fellow citizens some credit."
Here I'm going with stupid. As support for this assertion note that Urkel the Magnificent (AKA Barack Obama) was elected twice.

 

[Riot]

WA State is not the only state that has ever had problems with these "transfer" laws and getting their guns back from the Police.

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/...25491/gun-transfer-laws-stall-firearm-returns

The last time Sara Warren saw her personal handgun was in the ambulance after an accident on March 28. The police have refused to give the firearm back to her.

The Loveland resident was taken to the Poudre Valley Hospital where her personal firearm was turned over to Fort Collins Police Services — where it's been ever since.

Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property.

"We had an opinion from our city attorney and district attorney not to return firearms without a (Federal Firearms License) check, and we don't have an FFL person in our office," said Fort Collins deputy chief Jim Szakmeister.

Last I checked, there's no WA LEO FFL office...

*smh*

On a side note...

The Lynden Pioneer Museum, near the Canadian border in the state's northwest corner, wrote on its Facebook page that it would risk violating Initiative 594 to keep the 11 rifles past Dec. 4, when the law takes effect. The weapons will be returned to the collectors who lent them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/washington-gun-law-leads-museum-remove-rifles-27023494

 

[CarlMc]

I decided to resurrect this thread. I got to thinking about this after watching a Mike the Cop video
Cops Should STOP Doing This to Concealed Carriers
And I remembered that the legislature did some tinkering, but other than hearing they tightened up the definition of transfer, I never found out if they did anything about this little detail.
Does anyone know?

 

[Jonnyuma]

I'd like to know too. I travel in OR, WA, and ID every week and this is an angle I hadn't considered before.
Read through the whole thread but never saw anything definitive, mostly conjecture and opinions. Nothing wrong with that, especially in an open forum. But I have my OWN opinions, I'm looking for something more concrete.

Much thanks to anyone who has researched this (ridiculous) "oversight*" in a ridiculous law.

*I'm being kind

 

[DuneHopper]

A particular group requires that laws passed for the masses as deliberately not be clear.
Let me explain, there are little or no laws written that hold the liability on those whom passed it, even if it has gone thru a court system they only look at the word of the law not the liability if they are wrong.

By design laws are written for people, and policies are written for all other government authority for the most part. It appears that why Civilian laws should out rule government policy, this is often decided by the same system that wrote the policy questioning your own liability.
This is why in the same state, and same city two people with the exact criminal record can be sentences to two different time frames because its is not up to you or your lawyer.

So the answer is, there is no answer you get to be informed about, if you are charged you will have a trial and a lawyer, where you can argue the letter of the law, and let the same government who wrote it, decide your fate.

Why is this so? Because laws written by government seldom hold them accountable for acts.
Most Leo's get in trouble when they violate department policy, usually not how they dealt with the law you broke. So there no motive to fix it, so you can hold them accountable, this is why government policy is usually not law and often contradicts the laws.

This question in the thread will be answered after you are charged and judged. Ya its not fair, but how judicial system works with laws, they do not work with policy.

 

[ma96782]

Your original question sounded like this true life event.

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

___________________________________

Story time:
A friend (gun owner) I know served his ex-GF with a law suit. She was upset and countered his move.....

She went down to the "Domestic Violence Help Center" with her made up story of abuse. She spoke to an adviser, the paperwork was filed with the court and.....Viola! She was granted a TRO (Temprary Restraining Order). The TRO said that he could not contact her, he had to say 100 feet away from her and he was prohibited from having any firearms or ammunition. All of that happened "ex parte." Meaning: The Judge granted it. All without his right to mount a defense at a court hearing before the Judge.

The next day, he got served. Being that the order was served by the police and since the police was already at his home.....well, it was easy to collect all of his guns and ammo.

Within 90 days a hearing was held before the Judge about the TRO. His lawyer advised his client, not to fight the restraining order, as winning his law suit was more important to the BIG PICTURE. He followed his lawyer's advice and the TRO was changed into a regular Restraining Order (good for 1 year).

I could imagine that she was advised by her lawyer (from the initial law suit) to get the TRO. You know.....in an effort to break his will. Anyway, within the year, the initial Law Suit was settled in his favor. Then, she moved to extinguish the restraining order.

So, he got his guns and ammo back?

Humm......not so fast buddy! He wasn't able to get his gun collection and ammo back that easily as it had been taken away. He had to get his lawyer to get the judge to sign an order to "restore" his gun ownership rights.

Once that was accomplished, he had to go to the Police Station and pick up his collection. WTF? No delivery service?

___________________________________

OK, Ok, ok........it might not be exactly why the OP was asking. But, you can see that the Wheels Of Justice just doesn't work as easily as they should. Bottom Line: It might be necessary, to get a COURT ORDER.

Aloha, Mark

 

[CarlMc]

Your original question sounded like this true life event.
>>SNIP<<
___________________________________

OK, Ok, ok........it might not be exactly why the OP was asking. But, you can see that the Wheels Of Justice just doesn't work as easily as they should. Bottom Line: It might be necessary, to get a COURT ORDER.

Aloha, Mark

That would be just another excuse as far as I'm concerned, but in this case, there's no structural process to return firearms, meaning you still have to go through the legislature first. Unlikely you'll get a judge to change the law around here in favor of a gun owner.

 

[ma96782]

No Structural Method = Law Suit (Court Order, in some cases)

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

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.

If you are debating this.......

IMHO, you're reading too much into it.

Aloha, Mark