Post I-594 clarification from Department of Fish and Wildlife

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by donaldc, Dec 4, 2014.

  1. donaldc

    donaldc
    Seattle
    Active Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    126
    Found this on another site and thought it would be useful:
    http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,166188.0.html

     
    Nick Burkhardt likes this.
  2. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt
    NE Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    2,395
    As I read it they are using the logic of A=B, B=C therefore A=C for their agents, but then make the leap that C and D are right next to each other so A=D. Hey whatever works to keep a good program going, but I doubt their logic would stand up in court.
     
  3. Bazooka Joe

    Bazooka Joe
    Lower Yakima Valley
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    307
  4. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman
    Western Washington
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,243
    Likes Received:
    2,436
    I-594: They passed it, now we get to see what’s in it

    As provisions of Initiative 594 kick in today, the first signs of what this legislation means are beginning to show up exactly where the anti-gun proponents insisted they would not: Hunter Education and promoting firearms safety, according to a discussion unfolding right now on the Hunting-Washington forum that begins with a Tuesday memo from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/i-594-they-passed-it-now-we-get-to-see-what-s-it
     
  5. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40
    Willamette Valley
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    2,482
    The legal opinions did not come from the state AG. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to me, saying that volunteers for the DFW are acting as law enforcement is more than a convenient stretch of the law. More like pure BS. Instead of actually tasking the AG with a binding opinion that can be applied elsewhere, they simply offered a convenient opinion so that they didn't have to challenge the state.
     
    Brigadier, 8ball and Bazooka Joe like this.
  6. TastyWheat87

    TastyWheat87
    Washington
    Active Member

    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    195
    That's the problem, and the antis goal with I-594. Lie about 18 pages of crap the average voter will not read, get it passed, and use the confusion as a smoke screen to deter people from exercising 2A rights.

    bubblegum I-594. This is the US...repeal the 2a or remove all of the unlawful restrictions from the books. Both cannot exist.
     
  7. 8ball

    8ball
    WA
    Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Based on the blog post linked from page 3, the Departments opinion that instructors are covered under the law enforcement exemption is clearly wrong. They are not badged law enforcement officers.

    Watching Ferguson squirm out of this mess is going to be interesting.
     
    Brigadier likes this.
  8. Simonpie

    Simonpie
    Portland
    Active Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    150
    The bit about a student being able to hand their gun t an instructor, and the instructor hand it to another student because of the cop exemption is interesting. It implies any cop can sell to anyone without a background check. I hadn't read that into the law before, but it does ring true to the text.
     
    8ball likes this.

Share This Page