Washington Video on transporting high-capacity magazines in/out of WA State on/after July 1, 2022

[Koda]

100% true. But since there is no mention of residency as a required portion of the definition of "import", it is pretty safe to say that the bill means what it says - bringing a mag into the state by anyone is importing it.

This is what ive been trying to say except there is no exception for importing grandfathered mags

 

[sobo]

i dont read where it says that anywhere in the law.

Read the definition of "import" in the law. It's pretty clear.

 

[RX-79G]

Unless that magazine had been inside WA before July 1st and brought back to WA after July 1st by the same owner.

Yes, but that's because when it was "inside WA before July 1st", it got there by importation.

 

[RX-79G]

This is what ive been trying to say except there is no exception for importing grandfathered mags

You're not importing them a second time. They are grandfathered by the first act of importation before the ban. Same reason my mags will remain legal for me. You can only import your property once, and the first time is the key. After that they are "previously imported".

 

[gopherbaroque]

Between the definitions of "import" (paragraph 38) and "distribution*" (paragraph 37), it seems ironclad that people not having been in Washington before July 1 are SOL.

Perhaps this discussion could turn to consideration of magazines that are owned by a trust?

*make available to any person, namely self

 

[Koda]

The visitor may be charged with importation, but as @RX-79G and I have discussed previously, the prosecutor would be hard-pressed to prove importation and that you didn't have the mag(s) in WA prior to the effective date of the law (absent any post-effective date stamp on the mag). In effect, the prosecution would be trying to prove a negative. As we have both said, one doesn't have to prove that one is acting within the law. The prosecution has to prove that you're not.

The prosecutor wont even care to bring it up, your the one who will bring it up in your defense, then you will have to provide the evidence. What evidence could you possibly produce?

 

[RX-79G]

Between the definitions of "import" (paragraph 38) and "distribution*" (paragraph 37), it seems ironclad that people not having been in Washington before July 1 are SOL.

Perhaps this discussion could turn to consideration of magazines that are owned by a trust?

*make available to any person, namely self

I don't know if the law really cares who owns something as much as it cares who has previously been in possession of mags at a previous date in the state. Trust or not.

If my son brought my mags in one June 30, left the state and returned them to me in OR, I doubt that he has made me the owner of mags grandfathered to me. They have been grandfathered to his possession, since he was the one who had them in WA. Not me.

The prosecutor wont even care to bring it up, your the one who will bring it up in your defense, then you will have to provide the evidence. What evidence could you possibly produce?

Defense of what? The prosecutor has to have evidence to charge you. Simple possession is not evidence.

 

[sobo]

The prosecutor wont even care to bring it up, your the one who will bring it up in your defense, then you will have to provide the evidence. What evidence could you possibly produce?

Well, of course the prosecutor would bring it up. That's the only reason I would be in court, isn't it (charged with illegal importation of "hi-cap" magazines)?

The mere fact that I possess the mag(s) does not make me guilty of anything. The prosecution is obliged to prove that I illegally imported the mag(s). I do not have to prove that I didn't. That's how our system of jurisprudence works.

 

[The Heretic]

Nothing in the law speaks to residency or non-residency.
People are arguing "what if" scenarios based off something that isn't even in the law.
That's not how "law" works...

True.

But also one of the scenarios the lawyer talked about, is where a mag is brought in and taken back out, as not counted as importing.

But if someone is immigrating to WA state, and they bring mags in and keep them there, that would count as importing - if it happens after the ban is in effect.

So, between those two, how does someone who wants to eventually immigrate into WA state after the ban is in effect, legally bring in mags > 10 rd capacity? They have to bring them in and keep them there, before the ban is in effect.

 

[sobo]

But also one of the scenarios the lawyer talked about, is where a mag is brought in and taken back out, as not counted as importing.

But if someone is immigrating to WA state, and they bring mags in and keep them there, that would count as importing - if it happens after the ban is in effect.

Both statements are correct.

So, between those two, how does someone who wants to eventually immigrate into WA state after the ban is in effect, legally bring in mags > 10 rd capacity?

The emigre-to-be (ETB) would need to bring those mags into WA state prior to the effective date of the ban (July 1, 2022), and then the ETB would take them back to the place of origin. The ETB has now established possession of the mags in WA state prior to July 1, 2022 (mind you, no proof of this possession prior to the effective date of the law is required by the law). The mags can then return to WA after July 1 with the same ETB, since they have been effectively grandfathered by their presence in WA prior to July 1, 2022.

They have to bring them in and keep them there, before the ban is in effect.

This would be illegal under the new law, since the ETB left the mags in WA state, presumably in the possession of "someone else". When the ETB eventually immigrates to WA State and goes to this person to retrieve the mag(s), the law will be broken because the "Distribution" portion of the law will be violated by the ETB reacquiring the mags from the person that held them for the ETB. An illegal transfer of the mags will have taken place.

 

[RX-79G]

But also one of the scenarios the lawyer talked about, is where a mag is brought in and taken back out, as not counted as importing.

I think he's completely wrong about that. The law was not designed to allow out of state residents day passes.


The problem is that this really isn't a situation where an object has been grandfathered. What is being grandfathered is a relationship:

You had this mag in WA before this date.

 

[Koda]

I think he's completely wrong about that. The law was not designed to allow out of state residents day passes.

Thats all ive been trying to say about this part of the law.

 

[Koda]

The problem is that this really isn't a situation where an object has been grandfathered. What is being grandfathered is a relationship:

You had this mag in WA before this date.

this is the part ive been trying to wrap my head around....
if this is what it comes down to its a really really weak defense that will be dependant on how the judge or jury interprets the letter of the law.... thats worded rather clearly defining importing.

 

[sobo]

I think he's completely wrong about that. The law was not designed to allow out of state residents day passes.

Thats all ive been trying to say about this part of the law.

From a strictly legal standpoint, I think he's right.
The law may not have been designed that way, but there's nothing illegal about doing what he's saying, the way the law is written.
As I've said before, it's a very poorly-written law. And I predict that it will prove to be difficult to enforce properly (as in, legally compliant).

 

[The Heretic]

Both statements are correct.

The emigre-to-be (ETB) would need to bring those mags into WA state prior to the effective date of the ban (July 1, 2022), and then the ETB would take them back to the place of origin. The ETB has now established possession of the mags in WA state prior to July 1, 2022 (mind you, no proof of this possession prior to the effective date of the law is required by the law). The mags can then return to WA after July 1 with the same ETB, since they have been effectively grandfathered by their presence in WA prior to July 1, 2022.

Taking them back out doesn't count as importing them - per the 2A lawyer, so temporary possession of the mags within the state doesn't count.

This would be illegal under the new law, since the ETB left the mags in WA state, presumably in the possession of "someone else". When the ETB eventually immigrates to WA State and goes to this person to retrieve the mag(s), the law will be broken because the "Distribution" portion of the law will be violated by the ETB reacquiring the mags from the person that held them for the ETB. An illegal transfer of the mags will have taken place.

Just like with guns, possession can be maintained without hands on immediate access. A person could leave the mags (or guns) somewhere/somehow that the items would not be in the possession of someone else - e.g., within a safe or storage unit where the owner is the only one who can access the items.

 

[sobo]

Taking them back out doesn't count as importing them - per the 2A lawyer, so temporary possession of the mags within the state doesn't count.

That's correct, the mags were not "imported" by the law, so no "import" law was broken. There is no language in the bill regarding temporary possession, so I don't even understand why that bears mentioning. All that is required is for the owner of the mags to possess them within the territorial limits of WA state before the effective date of the law. That single act effectively establishes the grandfather relationship. That's how the law reads as it is written. There's nothing in it that says anything otherwise about that aspect. Making interpretations based on absent language is not how our laws are supposed to work.

Just like with guns, possession can be maintained without hands on immediate access. A person could leave the mags (or guns) somewhere/somehow that the items would not be in the possession of someone else - e.g., within a safe or storage unit where the owner is the only one who can access the items.

That would certainly work. I just didn't think to include that at the time I replied.

 

[RX-79G]

this is the part ive been trying to wrap my head around....
if this is what it comes down to its a really really weak defense that will be dependant on how the judge or jury interprets the letter of the law.... thats worded rather clearly defining importing.

Weak defense to what crime? Illegially importing is a crime with evidence. No evidence no crime. No crime, no defense.

The law may not have been designed that way, but there's nothing illegal about doing what he's saying, the way the law is written.

This is the way the law is written:
"Import" does not mean situations where an individual possesses a 15 large capacity magazine when departing from, and returning to, 16 Washington state, so long as the individual is returning to 17 Washington in possession of the same large capacity magazine the 18 individual transported out of state.

There is nothing there about leaving and returning to some other state, just WA. There is nothing about residency. All it says is that an individual (not owner, not trust, not family) possesses the mag in state, leaves and comes back.

As there is only one way to legally possess a hi-cap in WA state, which is having it in the state before July 1 in your possession.

Can an out of state person bring a mag into WA that they had not possessed in WA prior to July 1. Of course not:
"Import" means to move, transport, or receive an item from a 12 place outside the territorial limits of the state of Washington to a 13 place inside the territorial limits of the state of Washington.

How can someone get a mag into WA without moving it? That lawyer is an idiot if he's saying you can bring a banned mag into WA after July 1 that you've never brought in before. Or we are misunderstanding the point he's making about people that have been coming here for years with their mags.

 

[sobo]

This is the way the law is written:
"Import" does not mean situations where an individual possesses a 15 large capacity magazine when departing from, and returning to, 16 Washington state, so long as the individual is returning to 17 Washington in possession of the same large capacity magazine the 18 individual transported out of state.

There is nothing there about leaving and returning to some other state, just WA. There is nothing about residency. All it says is that an individual (not owner, not trust, not family) possesses the mag in state, leaves and comes back.

I believe that we are in agreement with each other here. We've both been saying the same thing about no residency requirements, no trusts, etc.

As there is only one way to legally possess a hi-cap in WA state, which is having it in the state before July 1 in your possession.

And we agree here. We both agree that anyone can establish this possession prior to July 1.

Can an out of state person bring a mag into WA that they had not possessed in WA prior to July 1. Of course not:
"Import" means to move, transport, or receive an item from a 12 place outside the territorial limits of the state of Washington to a 13 place inside the territorial limits of the state of Washington.

And again, we agree here. One must have had the mags in WA state prior to July 1.

How can someone get a mag into WA without moving it? That lawyer is an idiot if he's saying you can bring a banned mag into WA after July 1 that you've never brought in before. Or we are misunderstanding the point he's making about people that have been coming here for years with their mags.

I don't think he ever said that. I heard him say that one could legally bring the mags in after July 1 only if the same person had had those same mags in WA before July 1. If I missed him saying that one could bring in mags after July 1 that had never been in WA state before, then I apologize for missing that.

 

[RX-79G]

I don't think he ever said that. I heard him say that one could legally bring the mags in after July 1 only if the same person had had those same mags in WA before July 1. If I missed him saying that one could bring in mags after July 1 that had never been in WA state before, then I apologize for missing that.

I think it is a little unclear what the lawyer said and how people are interpreting it. However, this whole thing has nothing to do with where you live, how long you're visiting for, whether you come back to stay or any other scenario. And that's getting obscured with the way some of the discussion is phrased.

Did you have this mag in WA prior to July 1? If so, welcome back.

 

[sobo]

I think it is a little unclear what the lawyer said and how people are interpreting it.

Agreed, especially the emphasized portion.

However, this whole thing has nothing to do with where you live, how long you're visiting for, whether you come back to stay or any other scenario. And that's getting obscured with the way some of the discussion is phrased.

Again, agreed.

Did you have this mag in WA prior to July 1? If so, welcome back.

Exactly right. By the law, that right there is all that matters.