Question on I 594 ?

[boogerhook]

that you intentionally hand over / deliver the firearm to the other person

 

[svxr8dr]

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.

You are so wrong and part of the reason this POS in I-594 even passed. It's people like you and scott_see and other minions spreading disinformation if not outright lies.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

How could any of our legislators actually out this into law. Makes me sick to my stomach

That's just it… Legislators had nothing to do with 594. Your very own emotionally-vulnerable, constitutionally-illiterate (thank you public schools) fellow citizens threw this vomit in your face. They gathered the petition signatures and voted it in. You are fighting weaponized ignorance and NOW you know why direct democracy (i.e. the initiative/petition system) is so dangerous and why the founders required all States to be "guaranteed" a "Republican" form of government (Article 4, Section 4)…. i.e. not a "democracy". The word "democracy" does not occur once in the federal Constitution.

 

[Merlesdaughter]

You are so wrong and part of the reason this POS in I-594 even passed. It's people like you and scott_see and other minions spreading disinformation if not outright lies.

Whoa there. "People like me"? You are blaming me for the passage of this initiative.

I am puzzled that so many folks claim no one knows what this law means. Yet, on the other hand, these same folks insist they know precisely what it means. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Merlesdaughter]

That's just it… Legislators had nothing to do with 594. Your very own emotionally-vulnerable, constitutionally-illiterate (thank you public schools) fellow citizens threw this vomit in your face. They gathered the petition signatures and voted it in. You are fighting weaponized ignorance and NOW you know why direct democracy (i.e. the initiative/petition system) is so dangerous and why the founders required all States to be "guaranteed" a "Republican" form of government (Article 4, Section 4)…. i.e. not a "democracy". The word "democracy" does not occur once in the federal Constitution.

Correct.

Democracy means majority rule. Majority rule scares me.

 

[svxr8dr]

Whoa there. "People like me"? You are blaming me for the passage of this initiative.

I am puzzled that so many folks claim no one knows what this law means. Yet, on the other hand, these same folks insist they know precisely what it means. You cannot have it both ways.

Yes indeed people like you, that misrepresent the definition of "transfer" even though it is defined in I-594. What part of not limited to a gifts or loans do you find confusing?

 

[bakersman345]

That's just it… Legislators had nothing to do with 594. Your very own emotionally-vulnerable, constitutionally-illiterate (thank you public schools) fellow citizens threw this vomit in your face. They gathered the petition signatures and voted it in. You are fighting weaponized ignorance and NOW you know why direct democracy (i.e. the initiative/petition system) is so dangerous and why the founders required all States to be "guaranteed" a "Republican" form of government (Article 4, Section 4)…. i.e. not a "democracy". The word "democracy" does not occur once in the federal Constitution.

The legislation had the opportunity to amend or clarify the measure. They almost always do that, but the second amendment is the one that defends the rest but guns aren't safe. Lets take them away.

 

[Merlesdaughter]

What I find confusing is that so many claim that the wording of the law is ambiguous. According to you, the wording is crystal clear.

That you don't like the law is another matter.

 

[svxr8dr]

The wording is crystal clear....it's crystal clear in it's violation of Article 1 Section 24 of the State Constitution hence the AG's inability to answer any requests for clarification.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

The wording is crystal clear....it's crystal clear in it's violation of Article 1 Section 24 of the State Constitution hence the AG's inability to answer any requests for clarification.

There you go. Thank you svxr8dr. This is a State Constitution issue, not 2nd Amendment. The source of the infringement of rights (I-594) is from the State level, not the federal government. Therefore, the 2nd has no place in the discussion.

The only reason why the 2nd Amendment is the first thing to pop into people's heads, and thus the first thing to roll out of their mouths, is because public schools have taught NOTHING to kids about their own State Constitutions. I met someone recently who thought I was joking when I showed her the Freedom Foundation's little pocket-sized book that contains both the federal and State Constitutions (great little resource by the way). She snickered and quite genuinely said something like… "Yeah, like there's a State Constitution." I just stood there looking at her for a couple seconds and started nodding my head as I quite genuinely introduced to her that, yes indeed, all States have Constitutions. And to top it all off, this was at a gathering of people who were all about God & country.

Would the "left vs. right" wedge that divides our country now be such a prominent problem if Americans all graduated high school as constitutionally savvy and informed? You know, like if all States required public schools to provide special emphasis study time on the Constitutions during the last five years of their tax-paid education, the same way Oregon does? My bet would be no and we also wouldn't be complaining about I-594 either.

Thank you svxr8dr for being a true Oath Keeper.

 

[Monica Cowles]

The 'temporary transfer' that would occur at a range was hinted at in this clarification by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for their hunter education courses...the loophole I affectionately (sarcasm) call the 'strawman' transfer is spelled out at the bottom...

• Although we are still evaluating I-594, it does not initially appear that student-to-student transfers of firearms would fall within the general WDFW exemption for law enforcement agencies. For students under eighteen, however, temporary firearms transfers for educational purposes are exempt if the student is under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult (such as a Hunter Education Instructor) who may lawfully possess firearms. Students eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption. However, regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range. If adult student-to-student transfers are not exempt, then adult students may, without triggering I-594's background check/transfer requirements—
 Use inert firearms or air rifles (which do not meet the definition of a firearm); or
 Hand their functional firearms to an instructor who then hands it to the other student.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

The 'temporary transfer' that would occur at a range was hinted at in this clarification by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for their hunter education courses...the loophole I affectionately (sarcasm) call the 'strawman' transfer is spelled out at the bottom...

Monica, as involved as you are with gun rights advocacy and as accustomed to reading law as you no doubt are, based on your I-594 post above, you seem like a good one to ask. I am curious to know (roughly speaking) how much class-time opportunity your high school gave you to study the Constitution…. not US History…. the Constitution itself. How much time did you get to spend on your State Constitution? Thanks.

 

[Monica Cowles]

erm...I hate to disappoint you, but I graduated from HS 30 years ago...the details of my education were fuzzy then, but now? Dey GONE!!!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

erm...I hate to disappoint you, but I graduated from HS 30 years ago...the details of my education were fuzzy then, but now? Dey GONE!!!

That's true for most of us I suppose. That's why I inserted "(roughly speaking)" into my questions. Feel free to put your answer in terms of days, weeks, months, etc., whatever feels closest to your recollection. Did you get to study your State Constitution at all?

 

[Merlesdaughter]

If touching/handling firearms constitutes a transfer, why is WAC allowed to conduct gun shows? Are they not promoting an illegal activity?

 

[slimmer13]

What do gun shows have to do with anything? Just because the state is currently not enforcing it that way does not mean they might not later.

You are confusing discretion in enforcement with what it actually says. Can't make it must clearer than that.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Funny how stand-off'ish people are about their State Constitutions and the benefits they could bring to a discussion about things like I-594. I mean, rather than getting lost in the weeds, quibbling over the minutia of what 594 means to law-abiding citizens (and in-so-doing conceding the legitimacy of 594), why aren't law-abiding citizens who have the resources, or are connected to resources, dumping 594 on its disgusting head with Wash. Const. Art 1, Section 32, Section 29 & Section 24... which say:

SECTION 32 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.

SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

It's pretty easy to see how 594 is "impairing" our gun rights, in violation of Section 24, which is "mandatory" according Section 29. The fact that we have been made sooo ignorant of how to defend ourselves with our Constitutions is a sure sign that Section 32 needs a thorough dusting off, especially since it too is made.... "mandatory", by Section 29. If conservative types truly want to see a re-birth of the fundamental principles our society was founded on, why aren't we turning Article 1, Section 32 into a bandwagon for everyone to jump on? After all, who can argue against "mandatory"?

We already know that schools don't want to teach about the State Constitution, but it even appears that Washington's court system doesn't want to talk about them if they can help it either. If you go to (http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/) and click on their link to the State Constitution ( <broken link removed> ), it sends you to a page that says this:

Page Not Found
The page you're looking for doesn't exist.

Luckily, you can find it at (http://leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx)

Just sayin'