Touching a firearm at a dealer, post I-594

[CarlMc]

Unless the firearm is chained down preventing actual possession, according to the wording of I-594, is a customer allowed to handle a firearm prior to purchasing?

It seems from the plain word reading of the initiative, this is also prohibited. Is this correct?

Read More

 

[Monica Cowles]

It seems, thus far, to be a mystery we are supposed to wait for unless someone wants to stick their neck out and start the leglislative adjustments in court...

 

[Just Jim]

Should put quite a strain on training people on how to use a gun too...

 

[John H]

Ok here is what we need to do.

EVERYONE need to send there questions to the AG one at a time, EVERYDAY.

Flood the email box so they can hardly see any other emails.

If it takes 50 emails per person per day so be it.

 

[CarlMc]

Going to the AG's web site
<broken link removed>

They have the statement:
"To date, there have not been any lawsuits filed against I-594, nor has our office received any AGO opinion requests."

I find that hard to believe, and it helps that they don't have a date on the page.

 

[Monica Cowles]

That. ^
Is a splendid idea! Thanks! I'm gonna send this link to my local county prosecutor and urgently request an answer since my business practices depend on this clarification, and CPs are one of the peeps the AG wil give opinions to.....

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I still camt beileive a cluster-F like I-594 passed.
Just like the healthcare extortion.

 

[Gunguy45]

Unless the firearm is chained down preventing actual possession, according to the wording of I-594, is a customer allowed to handle a firearm prior to purchasing?

It seems from the plain word reading of the initiative, this is also prohibited. Is this correct?

Technically, "transfer" (as in what you could charge say a prohibited person with) involves "material possession," according to a Deputy PA I spoke with.

"Material possession" means complete control. As in, you could do anything you wanted to do with the gun. You'd get shot trying to load a gun you were looking at in the store. In other words, you don't have total freedom of action with the firearm. That means you can still handle the gun, your friend can handle the gun at your home.

The really sticky issue is with LOADED guns. As in what a trainer might provide to you in a class at a range or you handing your gun to your buddy to shoot. LOADED="Material Possession." You can't even begin to argue that having a loaded firearm in your hands doesn't constitute this. The "transfer," without question, occurs the moment someone has sole control over the gun. LOADED means sole control. Period.

Alternatively, say you're going out of town for the weekend and your friend is house-sitting for you. The fact that he's in your home with guns and you aren't there is again, sole control over the guns. Yes, that's how crazy 594 works if actually enforced.

Additionally, say you're going to the courthouse and the rent-a-cop directs you to the locker to store your gun. If he has a key to that locker, it's a transfer.

It COULD be construed even more tightly, but the definitions I've given could actually get a conviction past a jury or judge.

594 has put every gun owner in the state at the complete mercy of their local prosecutors and police. They "probably" won't enforce this in any way except against people in court for other reasons or for actual sales.

We hope. -Because it just takes a prosecutor who's mad at the world to wreck your life or cost you a fortune in legal bills defending a harmless act. That, by definition, is bad law.

 

[John H]

Technically, "transfer" (as in what you could charge say a prohibited person with) involves "material possession," according to a Deputy PA I spoke with.

seem 594 has a different meaning

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.

 

[Gunguy45]

seem 594 has a different meaning

The language in terms of established case law is different from how that language might appear in text. It's one of the things that makes simply reading the text of ANY law unproductive in grasping how that law actually works. A reading of RCW 9.4 would give you the impression that you can kill someone for simple trespass. That's not correct, but it reads that way.

 

[ikemay]

So, is renting a gun at a gun shop/shooting range illegal now too?

 

[Monica Cowles]

The language in terms of established case law is different from how that language might appear in text. It's one of the things that makes simply reading the text of ANY law unproductive in grasping how that law actually works. A reading of RCW 9.4 would give you the impression that you can kill someone for simple trespass. That's not correct, but it reads that way.

Can't tell you how much I hope that is right in the case of the garble that is I-594....

 

[Gunguy45]

No doubt in my mind that there will be some ridiculous prosecutions. But I think those will be the exception. But renting a gun? Yep, BG check required.

 

[CarlMc]

You bring up an interesting possibility, Gun Guy, but I suspect the provided interpretation (or even mind) has some holes in it.

If I, as the "legal" owner of a firearm, place it unloaded on a table, then my friend picks it up, then legally, a transfer has taken place, according to _my_ plain language interpretation of 594, regardless of it being loaded or not. However, if according to the interpretation you provided, then that's not yet a transfer, even though the firearm's serialized component is in my friend's hands. Now if my friend picks up the magazine (and regardless of my physical location at the moment) and inserts it into the receiver, then a transfer has taken place, according to that interpretation. I had no part in the secondary act, so I can't be part of the transfer, as I see it.

So, the question is then: Where in the eyes of the law, and according to the plain letter of the law, did the transfer actually take place? If I'm ten feet away, when did the transfer take place? If we're close but not holding hands, then when does the transfer take place? The legal decision then rests on our physical distance from each other (which would have to have a threshold for prosecution, I would assume) and when he inserts the magazine, which are two independent conditions, but 594 defines a transfer as a singular event/condition.

If loaded is the condition that determines possession, how does that apply to a serialized receiver, since most can't be "loaded?"

As to a rental, that's covered and I suspect the intent considers that situation acceptable.

I'm not calling you out on this; I just let my brain run with possible interpretations.

 

[deen_ad]

<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

Ok here is what we need to do.

EVERYONE need to send there questions to the AG one at a time, EVERYDAY.

Flood the email box so they can hardly see any other emails.

If it takes 50 emails per person per day so be it.

Problem is that only a legislator can ask for an AG's opinion on a legal matter. They won't answer your requests, nor consider it.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
Defender of Freedom Award
WAC Member
"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[Monica Cowles]

Problem is that only a legislator can ask for an AG's opinion on a legal matter. They won't answer your requests, nor consider it.

Your local county prosecutor can as well....write to him!

 

[Gunguy45]

You bring up an interesting possibility, Gun Guy, but I suspect the provided interpretation (or even mind) has some holes in it.

If I, as the "legal" owner of a firearm, place it unloaded on a table, then my friend picks it up, then legally, a transfer has taken place, according to _my_ plain language interpretation of 594, regardless of it being loaded or not. However, if according to the interpretation you provided, then that's not yet a transfer, even though the firearm's serialized component is in my friend's hands. Now if my friend picks up the magazine (and regardless of my physical location at the moment) and inserts it into the receiver, then a transfer has taken place, according to that interpretation. I had no part in the secondary act, so I can't be part of the transfer, as I see it.

So, the question is then: Where in the eyes of the law, and according to the plain letter of the law, did the transfer actually take place? .

I should clarify:
A loaded firearm is absolutely "material possession." Merely handling a gun, it can and will be argued, isn't material possession and if there is no material possession, there is no transfer.

I was trying to clarify what is legally not in doubt as to what is a transfer. Material Possession is absolutely a transfer. Simple handling of a gun would be the letter of the law, but I think that would have a hard time surviving an appeal. As much as I hate our state SC, they are smart enough to know what a Pandora's box would be opened if you prosecuted a gun store owner for letting prospective buyers handle merchandise.

THAT rigid an interpretation is the kind of thing they tend to throw out.

 

[Kid@Heart]

No doubt in my mind that there will be some ridiculous prosecutions. But I think those will be the exception. But renting a gun? Yep, BG check required.

Does this mean the English Pit range in Clark County will have to stop renting firearms?