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

Touching a firearm at a dealer, post I-594

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by CarlMc, Nov 26, 2014.

  1. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    98
    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?
     
    mjbskwim likes this.
  2. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    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...:confused::confused::confused:
     
  3. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Should put quite a strain on training people on how to use a gun too...
     
    Monica Cowles likes this.
  4. John H

    John H Whatcom County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    489
    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.
     
    orygun, bnsaibum and CarlMc like this.
  5. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    98
    Going to the AG's web site
    http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=32433#.VHYgdLHp_JI

    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.
     
  6. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    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.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  7. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,654
    Likes Received:
    5,773
    I still camt beileive a cluster-F like I-594 passed.
    Just like the healthcare extortion.
     
    mjbskwim and Redcap like this.
  8. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    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.
     
  9. John H

    John H Whatcom County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    489

    seem 594 has a different meaning

     
  10. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    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.
     
    Monica Cowles likes this.
  11. ikemay

    ikemay WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    321
    So, is renting a gun at a gun shop/shooting range illegal now too?
     
  12. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Can't tell you how much I hope that is right in the case of the garble that is I-594....o_Oo_Oo_O
     
  13. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    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.
     
  14. CarlMc

    CarlMc Safely north of Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    98
    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.
     
  15. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    <- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
    Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

    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!"
     
  16. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Your local county prosecutor can as well....write to him! ;)
     
  17. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    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.
     
  18. Kid@Heart

    Kid@Heart Vancouver, USA Cynic Lifetime Supporter Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    839
    Does this mean the English Pit range in Clark County will have to stop renting firearms?