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

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:
    111
    Likes Received:
    124
    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:
    1,663
    Likes Received:
    1,826
    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:
    409
    Likes Received:
    305
  4. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    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:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    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:
    149
    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.