Washington Pistol Registration in Washington

[slimmer13]

I'll bet you a dollar if they passed a confiscation they will know who has what...

Ish

 

[FireArm]

Those lists/backdoor registration will eventually turn in to the ERPO lists of whos guns to take. If politicians cant force a registration/confiscation law or laws they will make gun owners who own over a certain number of firearms onto ERPO lists.
Idaho keeps sounding better and better. . .

 

[KKG]

I can tell you the "Form" has been around for some 50 years. I've been filling them out for that long. But then I'm already on everybody's list anyway, so...

If you have purchased a handgun in WA in the last 50 years then you too are on the list.

 

[awshoot]

Wow -- this looks like a very very old provision! The way to figure it out is to look at the bottom of the statute and click the links showing the previous amendments to the law. Here is the statute: RCW 9.41.090: Dealer deliveries regulated—Hold on delivery.

This is what the legislative history links look like at the end:



The online history only goes back to the 1935 amendments -- this provision might have even pre-existed 1935 so it is at least that old, but might older. You'd have to visit a law library to know for certain how old it is (the reference you would ask for comes from the RRS section noted in the picture above -- the book is named Remington's Revised Statutes -- brief searching did not turn up a digital copy, but the emphasis on that search is "brief").

Anyway, here is the pertinent section from the 1935 legislation (clicking the links shown in the picture above will give you a PDF):



Interestingly, today when I filled out paperwork for a new pistol, the paperwork asked for my occupation and didn't think twice about writing it down. However, in looking through all the revisions of this over the years, at least the ones online, I note that the requirement to provide my occupation appears to have been eliminated in the 1985 amendments (page 6 of the pertinent PDF at the end of the statute).

 

[awshoot]

An additional detail -- the mention of sending a copy to the "director of licenses" is included in all the versions up through 1969. But the 1983 version indicates the chief of police will maintain a file containing the original application. Previously it mentioned the CoP getting a copy of the application.

What is interesting in the 1983 amendments, is that the removed text does not have the usual strikethrough, and the new text does not have the usual underline.

In 1994 (this one: 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 410), the CoP was relieved of the duty to keep a file of the applications and that duty transfered back to the Director of Licensing -- although it is sort of confusing because there seem to be multiple sections dealing with this issue.

I would say a tentative timeline (the legislation needs a more careful reading so don't take it as gospel) is:

• Before 1935: unknown
• 1935: Director of Licenses gets a copy.
• 1983: Director of Licenses removed from process, replaced by local Chief of Police
• 1996: Local CoP relieved of recordkeeping duty, Director of Licensing takes over.

 

[Sandaholic]

Those lists/backdoor registration will eventually turn in to the ERPO lists of whos guns to take. If politicians cant force a registration/confiscation law or laws they will make gun owners who own over a certain number of firearms onto ERPO lists.
Idaho keeps sounding better and better. . .

I was listening to AM talk radio this morning and there was a report of a rape over in Coeur d'alene ID. A reporter was talking to a few locals and this gal (who decided to keep her OPSEC in check by refusing to name herself) said "she would be keeping her daughters inside and her rifle under her pillow until they find this guy."

Then they talked to a gentleman from the neighborhood and he said something to the effect of "look if anyone around here gets wind of something like that (rape) going down the perpetrator will be lucky to still be alive by the time the police show up."

I will be relieved when we finally throw off the yoke of the communists and get out of here.

 

[SIG34]

I'll bet you a dollar if they passed a confiscation they will know who has what...

They will know who legally has guns...

Good old days of Walmart gun trades private transfer... No registration?

 

[Caveman Jim]

They will know who legally has guns...

Good old days of Walmart gun trades private transfer... No registration?

Yep, been there done that & bought the T-shirt...

But my boat rides lousy on big waves & I loose stuff...

 

[HuckFin]

An additional detail -- the mention of sending a copy to the "director of licenses" is included in all the versions up through 1969. But the 1983 version indicates the chief of police will maintain a file containing the original application. Previously it mentioned the CoP getting a copy of the application.

What is interesting in the 1983 amendments, is that the removed text does not have the usual strikethrough, and the new text does not have the usual underline.

In 1994 (this one: 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 410), the CoP was relieved of the duty to keep a file of the applications and that duty transfered back to the Director of Licensing -- although it is sort of confusing because there seem to be multiple sections dealing with this issue.

I would say a tentative timeline (the legislation needs a more careful reading so don't take it as gospel) is:

• Before 1935: unknown
• 1935: Director of Licenses gets a copy.
• 1983: Director of Licenses removed from process, replaced by local Chief of Police
• 1996: Local CoP relieved of recordkeeping duty, Director of Licensing takes over.

I wish I had your investigative skills. Could it be possible that the "director of licenses" was disbanded and quit storing applications in 1983? leaving that task to the CoP of each local municipality then later in 1994 that duty was transferred back to the "director of licenses"

The reason I was wondering when the DoL started keeping firearm data is because of the "Firearm Owners Protection Act 1986" (FOPA) that makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country after 1986 to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.

So I was hoping you or anyone can take a closer look and see if there is anything here.

 

[awshoot]

... Could it be possible that the "director of licenses" was disbanded and quit storing applications in 1983? leaving that task to the CoP of each local municipality then later in 1994 that duty was transferred back to the "director of licenses" ...

I was thinking the question was on that topic. I think "Director of Licenses" and "Department of Licensing" basically mean the same thing - many state agencies have continued to do the same thing they've always done, but had their names changed.

I'll have to look at FOPA -- that 1983 to 1996 gap where the local CoP was tasked with storing the documents is pretty interesting in this context. It may be that WA lost the right to keep this back door registry by relinquishing that job to local gov't entities during the time period FOPA passed, but that will depend on the language of FOPA (which I've never read) and looking at Federal legislation is a bit harder to do than Washington's, at least for me it is.

 

[awshoot]

Starting with Wikipedia (Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia _ ), I get a citation to the actual portion of FOPA which forbids a registry: 18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations which states in part:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

So what is interesting to me is that the phrase "...nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established" must have been interpreted somewhere at some time to mean that pre-existing registration schemes are OK. I guess it literally does mean that but it doesn't sound like that is what was meant from a natural reading.

Big question: is the Chief of Police a "political subdivision" of the state? Does the CoP become a political subdivision by virtue of the RCW directing them to keep the records? Significant follow up: if the CoP is not a political subdivision, does that mean they are allowed to keep records or does it mean they are prohibited from keeping records?

Anyway, looking at the way this law has been interpreted by the courts sounds like an interesting puzzle, but also one that might take some time.

 

[awshoot]

This is sort of fun, one of the cases interpreting 18 USC 926 is NRA v. Reno. It doesn't answer any of the questions above, it is just the first one I ran across clearly addressing the statute. Guess which judge voted for Reno's registry? Merrick Garland. There's a bullet dodged!

FindLaw's United States DC Circuit case and opinions.

 

[HuckFin]

I was thinking the question was on that topic. I think "Director of Licenses" and "Department of Licensing" basically mean the same thing - many state agencies have continued to do the same thing they've always done, but had their names changed.

The director of licensing is the person that oversees the department of licensing.

I'll have to look at FOPA -- that 1983 to 1996 gap where the local CoP was tasked with storing the documents is pretty interesting in this context. It may be that WA lost the right to keep this back door registry by relinquishing that job to local gov't entities during the time period FOPA passed, but that will depend on the language of FOPA (which I've never read) and looking at Federal legislation is a bit harder to do than Washington's, at least for me it is.

That is what I am hoping for, the way I read FOPA they were no longer grandfathered in. Also the part that says "Any portion of the Contents of Such Records be Recorded at or TRANSFERED to a facility owned, managed or controlled by the United States or any State or POLITICAL Subdivision Thereof be Established"... Appears to say the records were not allowed to be transferred back to the DOL to be stored as a registry anyway or am I reading this part wrong?

What is "the language of FOPA," Is it how a lawyer interprets it?

 

[Hayshaker]

For your information.
I bought a Ruger 44 mag in 1960. It was stolen in 1985 from my house. Reported it to the local law/w serial#'s and etc. They asked where I had purchased it and I couldn't remember which of two dealers I had gotten it from. They traced it to the correct dealer. So records [registration] were kept in Washington state in 1960.

 

[Certaindeaf]

My wedding registry had a buncha pistols on it. Good times.

















not really

 

[KKG]

But, the "Only" purpose, in 1960, was to help you and others to get their Property back. In the '70s-'80s it was still that way.

 

[awshoot]

But, the "Only" purpose, in 1960, was to help you and others to get their Property back. In the '70s-'80s it was still that way.

If that was the only purpose, I would expect it to be voluntary -- like mailing in a warranty registration card.

Anyway, I haven't done any more work on this. Going to the range instead. ;-)

 

[KKG]

If that was the only purpose, I would expect it to be voluntary -- like mailing in a warranty registration card.QUOTE]Well, I can attest to the fact that it did work the way it was supposed to during the '70-'80' time frame.

 

[awshoot]

No doubt -- I just don't think it was the only purpose back then. What the other purposes were, is open to speculation.

 

[KKG]

What the other purposes were, is open to speculation.

Which makes these Threads a complete waste of time. I do know I was only able to recover several stolen Pistols because the information was available at the time. That's good enough for me.