WA. state proposed background check initiative question

[GunRightsCoalition]

Great chance to get started fighting this. As a side note to what Dave Workman mentioned above we will have voter registration forms there for anyone that is not registered to vote yet and will take care of getting them to your county elections office.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/april-5th-2nd-amend-rally-supporting-ct-gun-owners.165909/

 

[009]

It is crucial we all understand this, and not be confused. confusion is what the anti's depend on to spread the cr*p, their whole regime depends on it! we must do our home work! just think of this as our study group and stick together. we have to end the confusion and always be ready to combat it. they will never stop! we must accept that, and always be ready. remember; they keep coming back defeat after defeat becouse they think we will let our guard down eventually.

 

[Dave Workman]

Dueling Washington initiatives: Who is really trying to confuse voters?


Yesterday's Seattle Weekly on-line edition quoted the campaign manager for the Initiative 594 asserting that the competing measure, Initiative 591, is a "cynical attempt to confuse voters," but a look at how I-594 is being promoted and the measure's actual language leaves one wondering who is actually confusing the issue.


<broken link removed>

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Shared, following all of these close. I'll be spending the next week picking through I-594 to get prepared for the rally and all of these will help.

 

[GunnyG]

Dueling Washington initiatives: Who is really trying to confuse voters?


Yesterday's Seattle Weekly on-line edition quoted the campaign manager for the Initiative 594 asserting that the competing measure, Initiative 591, is a "cynical attempt to confuse voters," but a look at how I-594 is being promoted and the measure's actual language leaves one wondering who is actually confusing the issue.


<broken link removed>

I may have dropped an inconvenient truth® or two in the Seattle Weekly article ;-)

 

[SCARed]

It would make it illegal to swap guns at the range as that is a transfer.

Uh, no. It doesn't, and is not. The definition of "transfer" is not being changed for this bill.

 

[deen_ad]

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

Why ?

You don't see the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

 

[fd15k]

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


You don't see the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

Yeah, I didn't understand what you implied until you changed the signature. Then I tried to send you this, but your inbox is full :

Israeli law currently requires a guard in schools of 100 or more students. These guards are generally employed by private security companies, while the Israel Police (the country's civilian police force) have overall responsibility for guidance, oversight, and control for the entire security system of educational institutions, from kindergartens through universities.

The law permits the following people to carry firearms in schools:
1. the guards (provided they are the security company's property and not their own weapons),
2. authorized Education Ministry personnel using ministry firearms,
3. the police, and
4. the army.

5. Israeli-trained security guard traveling with each group on a daily basis,

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0119.htm

In other words there are no armed teachers in Israeli schools.

 

[GunnyG]

Uh, no. It doesn't, and is not. The definition of "transfer" is not being changed for this bill.

I'm not sure where you were going with that train of thought, but here is the excerpt from pg. 6 of I-594:

"... (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. "

And is defined separately from the definition of a sale, which is on pg.5:

"...
(((17))) (20) "Sale" and "sell" ((refers to)) mean the actual approval of the delivery of a firearm in consideration of payment or promise of payment ((of a certain price in money)). ..."


And the term "transfer", as it applies later on in the text of -594, supports his assertion:

(so, on the bright side, my wife can't even borrow (without doing a BC) my 90 year old Marlin 39 lever action .22 rifle, for a road trip to go plinking with her sister, at her family homestead in Oregon, anymore... )

"... (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;"

...(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance..." I-594, pg. 9

From pg 8 : "(4) This section (requiring a background check) does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;..."

(Okay, so I can outright gift a pistol, rifle, or shotgun to my 21 year old son without needing the whole UBC process, but if I am only letting him borrow something for a weekend, we will need to go down do a background check transferring it to him ($25+). When he gets home, and returns whatever he borrowed, we will have to go down and do another background check (and pay another $25+) to transfer it back to me.

... Despite us both having state issued CPLs, both being members of the armed forces, and since it isn't duty related, nor does him being a commissioned police officer with a local department suffice... )

"... acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;..."

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Uh, no. It doesn't, and is not. The definition of "transfer" is not being changed for this bill.

Wrong, read the initiative.

 

[Dave Workman]

Uh, no. It doesn't, and is not. The definition of "transfer" is not being changed for this bill.

Transfer is defined in the initiative and I included the language of that definition in my column.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

"... (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;"

From pg 8 : "(4) This section (requiring a background check) does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;..."

These two just show the absurdity and how poorly written this is. For a temporary transfer with a spouse it is very limited. I.E. Your at an established (whatever that means) shooting range and it is only there that the transfer occurs. Handing my wife one of my guns to carry on a trip to take my daughter to Eastern Washington would be illegal without a background check. Yet if I simply gifted it to them (as a bona fide gift, again whatever that means) instead of loaning it to them for the duration of the trip it would be legal. This is so poorly written that almost every gun owner will unknowingly be a criminal unless they keep their gun under lock and key at all times. The very comments above make that clear as they establish that there is even confusion about the very meaning of transfer even though that part is clearly defined in the initiative. This is so dangerous because of what is hidden within that is not obvious on the surface.

 

[Dave Workman]

These two just show the absurdity and how poorly written this is. For a temporary transfer with a spouse it is very limited. I.E. Your at an established (whatever that means) shooting range and it is only there that the transfer occurs. Handing my wife one of my guns to carry on a trip to take my daughter to Eastern Washington would be illegal without a background check. Yet if I simply gifted it to them (as a bona fide gift, again whatever that means) instead of loaning it to them for the duration of the trip it would be legal. This is so poorly written that almost every gun owner will unknowingly be a criminal unless they keep their gun under lock and key at all times. The very comments above make that clear as they establish that there is even confusion about the very meaning of transfer even though that part is clearly defined in the initiative. This is so dangerous because of what is hidden within that is not obvious on the surface.

Remember you wrote this and keep it somewhere.
Share it with everyone you know who votes.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Remember you wrote this and keep it somewhere.
Share it with everyone you know who votes.

I'll be including some form of it in the flyers we hand out April 5th. (and speaking about it) Plus any other glaring problems we can dig up on it. ("We" to include Jacob Kukuk, Phil Watson, and anyone else I can get my hands on over the next few days) I expect this to be a battle and the way to win it is to get the truth about this out there.

 

[pchewn]

OKAY..... Now boyz n grls.... (that's texting shorthand for all of you tech people)

Let's keep this straight.

We are talking here about INITIATIVE 594, the 18-page behemoth gun control measure.

We are NOT talking about the alternative measure, INITIATIVE 591, which requires that background checks be done in accordance with a uniform national standard.

This is where you could get easily confused and do the wrong thing.

Vote NO on I-594. Vote YES on 591. GOT IT?

I may have dropped an inconvenient truth® or two in the Seattle Weekly article ;-)

Vote NO on both. You don't have to choose between two bad initiatives.

 

[Nwcid]

Vote NO on both. You don't have to choose between two bad initiatives.

What is bad in 591?

 

[pchewn]

What is bad in 591?

1) Adds more background check than existing law.
2) Puts Federal (national) government in charge of Wa state background check laws for private transfer.
3) Adds ineffective, undefined, and useless new laws to the already-too-complex mix of laws
4) Adds to the notion that background checks should be necessary for gun purchases
5) Is "594 Lite" -- just a diversion tactic to draw people away from the more-evil 594
6) Basically, if 594 is EXTREMELY BAD, 591 is just plain bad

Do you really think that voting for a smaller cage is voting for freedom?

 

[Nwcid]

1) Adds more background check than existing law.
2) Puts Federal (national) government in charge of Wa state background check laws for private transfer.
3) Adds ineffective, undefined, and useless new laws to the already-too-complex mix of laws
4) Adds to the notion that background checks should be necessary for gun purchases
5) Is "594 Lite" -- just a diversion tactic to draw people away from the more-evil 594
6) Basically, if 594 is EXTREMELY BAD, 591 is just plain bad

Do you really think that voting for a smaller cage is voting for freedom?

I guess I am not that smart because I see none of that in 591. Are we talking about the same bill?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE 591.pdf

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act is known and may be cited as the "Protect Our Gun Rights Act."

 

[wichaka]

Dave, I really don't care if it passes. I won't follow or enforce it...and I work in the LE world.

Enough is enough. Either we all stand up together, or we all get slaughtered like sheep.

 

[pchewn]

I guess I am not that smart because I see none of that in 591. Are we talking about the same bill?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE 591.pdf

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act is known and may be cited as the "Protect Our Gun Rights Act."

1) Adds more background check than existing law. (Section 1-5)
2) Puts Federal (national) government in charge of Wa state background check laws for private transfer. (Section 2)
3) Adds ineffective, undefined, and useless new laws to the already-too-complex mix of laws (Section 2)
4) Adds to the notion that background checks should be necessary for gun purchases (Section 2)
5) Is "594 Lite" -- just a diversion tactic to draw people away from the more-evil 594 (A conclusion of mine)
6) Basically, if 594 is EXTREMELY BAD, 591 is just plain bad (A conclusion)


The way I591 should have been written:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens property without due process.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act is known and may be cited as the "Protect Our Gun Rights Act."

So I would ask :

Why do you think firearms are the only property that should not be confiscated without due process?
Why do you think that it would be OK to confiscate (anything) from non-citizens or from businesses without due process?
Why do you think additional background checks should be added to Wa State law? (Via some undefined future "national standard" which might include private sales and might include a registration process as part of the background check)?
Why do you think more "background check" should be added to Wa State law (at all).
Why would you want the federal government to dictate some "national standard" for Wa state law?
If there were some "national standard" (i.e. Federal law) requiring BG check for private sales, why would you want a duplicate of that law at the state level?