Washington Washington purchases after July 1.

[Sporting Systems]

Washington subprime court will save this bill because they are so corrupt with the gun hating kool-aid!!!

Its in FEDERAL court, state court can't touch this part of the challenge.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Its in FEDERAL court, state court can't touch this part of the challenge.

I sure hope your right and it gets snuffed there. I for one am skeptical that the Wa AG will not follow a federal decision, look at what they did to thwart federal immigration laws here...

 

[Talos32]

Look on the bright side- the more broken this all is, the better chance the court will overturn it. Also it makes it less likely the severability clause will allow pieces of it to remain in effect.

Not having a mechanism to transfer a frame is huge, as is the inability to complete the checks in time to actually transfer the fireamr before the paperwork expires. I think the permanent HIPAA waiver might be a winner too.

The key thing with laws like this is how they work in practice, not legislative intent. This was the standard used to void the Texas voter ID law on the grounds that it was discriminatory "in practice" regardless of the text of the statute.

 

[bikemutt]

If you are around a fair amount of gun owners watch what happens when this latest law kicks in. People who work at stores where things like 22 rifles are sold will be able to tell you. There will be a HUGE stink raised. People coming in to buy one and finding out about this "new law". They will have never heard of it, then will be mad. That right there tells you what is wrong. That a huge swath of gun owners do not care enough to even know what is coming, until it hits them. Many of them probably "heard" some inkling of this, did not bother to look, figured it would not effect anything they own. We have a lot of that. Gun owners who want to constantly "compromise" until it slaps them. Then they always scream about the NRA, who they never joined. If you were of gun buying age when the Brady law went in you would have seen the same thing. Until then people were used to walking into a K-Mart or such at Christmas to buy someone a .22. They were used to walking in, filling out the paper and walking out. Well a TON of them walked in, found there was a "new law". The store had to have someone who could call in the background check. If the system was not working that day they were turned away. All of them were screaming about how the NRA "allowed" this. Come next election? A bunch of them will still vote for the people who pass these kind of laws on them, and then blame everyone else. Gun owners are getting exactly what they deserve. It's not there is more of them than us, its the number of "us" who could care less until something like this happens. Then a lot of "us" still support the people who want to take our rights away.

I have no doubt you are correct that apathy and ignorance played a big role in the landslide win for 1639. I overhear guys at the range who have no use for anything invented after the flintlock, many of have them seem to hold a particular animus towards black rifles. Maybe they don't vote for some abomination like 1639, maybe they just don't cast a vote.

The other thing I've observed is gun owners are not monolithic, maybe the only thing they have in common is they all own at least one gun. I think the proliferation of "free stuff" falling from the political sky has gone beyond pandering and is now nothing more than buying votes. As the baby boomers age other things in life become vastly more important than a gun, even less important is your neighbor's gun.

Last but not least if the influx of people to WA, many coming from states like CA where the restrictions on gun owners is the state pass time. They still think we have it good here, which isn't too far from the truth in the case of CA.

I know where your'e coming from, and I'm probably too cynical ascribing most of the defeat to politics and the NRA-ILA. That's why I think we are both right

 

[GWS]

I sure hope your right and it gets snuffed there. I for one am skeptical that the Wa AG will not follow a federal decision, look at what they did to thwart federal immigration laws here...

Oh, I'd love to see him try. That lawsuit would hit him so fast he'd
Dang.
I'll come back when I find a really great analogy

 

[FirearmCC]

Does this affect lower receivers or just fully built out rifles?

 

[gmerkt]

Can someone show me the math how there are enough gun owners in WA State to overcome Pugetopolis even if they voted as a unanimous block? I looked at the SOS rolls and I just dont see it. Not with a King County turn out at the level that I1639 saw.

It's a fact that the greater Puget Sound area carries statewide votes. We know how those turn out. Most gun fanciers that I know are fairly conservative in outlook; I usually know or assume they lean that way politically to some degree. It's only my opinion, but it makes me cringe when people here blame apathetic gun owners for how the vote goes in Washington. We're just outnumbered, plain and simple. If you somehow magically got all gun owners to vote against a certain proposal, they would not prevail. That's how we keep getting politicians in office that we don't like. Because the gun-haters happen to also be in the majority when it comes to other political points of view. So that's why gun owners keep losing the battle. Gun ownership and private use of firearms, mostly, is one component of a mind-set and lifestyle. A point of view that is often in the minority in Washington politics.

03 Collector's License. Yes, I've thought about this. I don't know how much utility I'd get out of it, as many of the guns I've bought were not fifty years old. Somebody previously mentioned that some FFL gun retailers don't recognize 03's. This is true, they can't imagine turning a firearm over to a customer without all the attendant paperwork. But it might be a function of risk avoidance. Meaning, they feel letting a gun go like that might lead to being held liable somehow. An 03 license is great when two collectors are dealing between themselves but "real" dealers, that's another story.

I don't want to invoke conspiracy theories. But all the confusion over background checks will slow down commerce in firearms. Certainly not a bad thing in the mind of gun-haters. What do they care of this is a mess and no guns get transferred? I don't see the state AG going hard after this one.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Does this affect lower receivers or just fully built out rifles?

Receivers are a problem after July 1, unless the state fixes it ASAP. There is no form to send to local law enforcement for approval.

 

[FirearmCC]

Receivers are a problem after July 1, unless the state fixes it ASAP. There is no form to send to local law enforcement for approval.

Wow. It seems like, regardless of the intention of a law, it should have to make some sort of legal and practical sense.

 

[bikemutt]

Receivers are a problem after July 1, unless the state fixes it ASAP. There is no form to send to local law enforcement for approval.

Not sure how they submitted the paperwork but, back in mid-2014 when I bought a Seekins stripped lower from West Coast Armory in Bellevue, they had me fill out the WA pistol transfer form, it was "company policy" at the time. They did state it was not legally required but that's how they chose to handle it.

 

[GWS]

Gee, could I-1639 be unconstitutionally vague?

 

[Sporting Systems]

Not sure how they submitted the paperwork but, back in mid-2014 when I bought a Seekins stripped lower from West Coast Armory in Bellevue, they had me fill out the WA pistol transfer form, it was "company policy" at the time. They did state it was not legally required but that's how they chose to handle it.

That would have been pointless. Expecting Senator Wilson's office to get this nailed down by Friday.

 

[old11bravo]

Receivers are a problem after July 1, unless the state fixes it ASAP. There is no form to send to local law enforcement for approval.

I take the meaning to be: No transfer process necessary for stripped receivers!!!! Woohoo!!! Finally some sensible gun legislation!!!

 

[GWS]

I take the meaning to be: No transfer process necessary for stripped receivers!!!! Woohoo!!! Finally some sensible gun legislation!!!

Eyeeaahh...
No.

 

[bikemutt]

Was at Safefire range in Camas today, they will be raising transfer fees come July 1 to cover the additional storage costs since there will be a guaranteed delay. And, the $18 State fee for semi-auto rifles must be paid in cash or add 5% if by credit card. My guess is they won't be the only dealer to be forced into doing something similar.

 

[Sporting Systems]

UPDATE ON LOWER SALES - Just spent an hour on the phone with DOL, because we want to provide accurate information and not spread fallacies. WE truly care about you rights and will continue to fight for them.

The lower panic can calm, for now, here's the skinny...lots of legal stuff being addressed by our 1639 legal team, and this wrinkle just adds to the craziness of July 1. We will have another legal update to publicly offer Monday'ish.

DOL, WSP and local agencies are finally hearing the song we've been singing since our November testimony in the Law and Justice hearings. Finally, at least they are discussing this. We appreciate the DOL folks that helped provide real and true information this afternoon.

Synopsis:

DOL has no legal authority to create a new form for "other" items (Lowers, frames, actions, shockwaves, etc). Only handguns and semi auto rifles.

WSP has no authority to create "other" forms to submit to local law enforcement for background check approval.

Local law enforcement agencies have no authority to create forms. Any forms should be legal and consistent state wide.

New PTA/SAR form (Pistol Transfer Application/ Semi Automatic Rifle Application) is not the correct form to mark up or modify for "others". It would be wrong to use the PTA/SAR application as it waives HIPPA confidentiality and is inaccurate. It requires swearing under penalty of law that the form is true and correct.

DOL is NOT revising the new PTA/SAR application form. That is the form going into effect July 1 for handgun and semi auto rifles.

Yesterday, DOL got local law enforcement agencies and WSP together to address this issue. The DOL is willing to advise on a form generation, but is not able to create the new form under current State law. All agencies agree someone has to do it…but who? As of today, no agency has volunteered to head the effort to revise this before July 1.

WSP CAN ask the FBI for an extension of NICS processing, however as of today, WSP has not asked for that extension. Washington is operating under an existing one year extension by the FBI.

The DOL indicated that another conference call is set up for all parties this Monday to try and find a resolution on this issue before July 1.

They are working to resolve this, but with multiple state agencies, a large quantity of law enforcement offices state wide, and the FBI that MUST agree, its going to take a while. Ever tried herding angry cats?

We have sent all of this data to our legal team (SAF, NRA and the co-plaintiffs suing on 1639) for further evaluation and action. The difficult part in asking for an injunction is, asking for a law or rule to be set aside while it's fixed. There is no law in existence, that is the root of the issue at this time. The state failed to fix this over the past few years. The FBI has told Washington its time to fix your system, and we know how Washington Legislatures feel about your gun rights.

 

[AMT]

Thank you for posting this.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

boy, this is really gonna make their heads explode once they realize its not gonna do a single bit of good to prevent criminals from committing crimes.

 

[titsonritz]

So does all that fall under the "shall" part, "not" part, "be" part or "infringed" part?

 

[titsonritz]

boy, this is really gonna make their heads explode once they realize its not gonna do a single bit of good to prevent criminals from committing crimes.

As if they give a crap.