Question on I 594 ?

[Wayne]

My daughter and her husband come to visit me twice a year for a week and we like to spend one day at my gun club shooting some of my guns. My club must be a state recognized range because they collect taxes on the range part of my dues.
My daughter and her husband live in Maryland (He is stationed at Andrews AFB) but residents of Colorado were the are both legal gun owners.
I think it would be legal to hand my daughter a gun at the range, but not her husband, as he is not an immediate family member. Would it be legal for me to hand one to my daughter then she could hand it to her husband then he could hand it back to her and her to me ?
I see nothing in 594 that addresses what she can do once it is a temporary transfer to her.

Thanks

Read More

 

[GUNARCHER]

You would think that active service members would be exempt. but Dems don't really care

 

[slimmer13]

Act free and do what you want.

 

[Wayne]

Act free and do what you want.

Sounds easy but I would not want to put my daughter or her husbands status with the Air Force in jeopardy. Thanks anyway.

 

[Merlesdaughter]

If there is a policeman or sheriff's deputy standing behind you watching, act accordingly.

 

[Mark W.]

Has anyone actually see a draft of i594 yet to have a clue what is in it? It was my understanding there was barely even a reading of the bill.

 

[deen_ad]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

Has anyone actually see a draft of i594 yet to have a clue what is in it? It was my understanding there was barely even a reading of the bill.

Uhh.... I-594 went into effect very late last year, where have you been?

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member
Vancouver Rifle and Pistol Club member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[Gutpile00]

Strawman??

 

[Mark W.]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?



Uhh.... I-594 went into effect very late last year, where have you been?

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member
Vancouver Rifle and Pistol Club member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

Sorry got the original Post confused with the stupidity going on in Salem NOW.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Act free and do what you want.

Hmmm, wonder what the Washington State Constitution says about this…

Article 1, Section 32
"A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government."

Article 1, Section 29
"The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise."

I don't know Slimer, I dare say that the State Constitution appears to agree with you. Dare to say also that the howler monkeys of 1-594 didn't get taught the State Constitution in public school, nor anyone else for that matter. Ahhh I-594... made possible by our beloved "free" education.

 

[boogerhook]

The way I read 594, this section would apply Sec 3, (4) (f) (ii)

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

sub sections (i) and (ii) are independent of each other despite the little word "if" which could make you believe otherwise. (ii) would have to be a sub sub section of (i) if it was a constraint of the first. (i) means you can temporarily transfer to your wife or partner, (ii) means while at the range you can transfer to anyone else at the range so long that person and the gun stay at the range.

One of many reasons I cannot stand 594, it's so poorly worded that law abiding citizens like you, your daughter and your son in law will loose more sleep over it than any bad guy that would be the intended target of such legislation. Or is it?

I have to put a disclaimer: I am not an attorney, I am just giving you my interpretation. You should post your question to our Attorney General Ferguson and ask for clarification. His response would be somewhat authoritative and it would also remind him of how poorly this is worded.

Keep your powder dry.

 

[scott_see]

Handing someone a gun at a range would not constitute a "transfer."

 

[boogerhook]

Handing someone a gun at a range would not constitute a "transfer."

yes it would.

 

[bakersman345]

My understanding is that at a state "approved" range you can pass your firearms back and forth since there is someone keeping a eye on you.
I think all ranges that aren't the woods is probably state approved. I'd call you club and ask.

-where do they come up with this crap I just got over my 594 rage until I read this. You have to to watched of you want to share with your family and if not your a criminal. How could any of our legislators actually out this into law. Makes me sick to my stomach

 

[boogerhook]

Has anyone actually see a draft of i594 yet to have a clue what is in it? It was my understanding there was barely even a reading of the bill.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_483.pdf

 

[boogerhook]

Handing someone a gun at a range would not constitute a "transfer."

add to what I said earlier - it's open ended:

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

 

[Wayne]

Thanks for the replies, I have read 594 over 50 times in the past year and still don't understand it, must be old age.
We do have a number of local police that are members and every once and awhile they come come in to shoot, it would my luck they would pick the day we are there.
I think as I laid it out it would be legal, just not sure. Thanks

 

[Merlesdaughter]

Transfer means that due to sale, gift, or loan, The gun came to the dance with one person and went home with another person

To suggest that touching, holding, or shooting another person's gun constitutes a transfer is just plain silly.

 

[boogerhook]

it's not "limited to" a gift or loan... also keep in mind that they would not not have to mention Sec 3, 4, f, (ii) if letting someone else shoot your gun was not considered a "transfer"... not silly unfortunately

 

[Merlesdaughter]

And what is your interpretation of "intended delivery"?