Edited: Washington’s Ballot Initiative 1639 has passed. What now?

Just checked, and they're calling it a fee, to offset the cost of the new requirements on semiautomatic assault rifles.

Not to exceed $25 ( adjustable each biennium to levels not to exceed the Consumer price index)

how..generous of them...:rolleyes:

Oh, and it applies to each semiautomatic assault rifle purchased. SO, if you bought two ARs or an AR and a Ruger 10/22, you will fork over an extra $50 ($25 for each) to cover the increased cost of the paperwork.

and OH, dear, I nearly forgot the other thing, there is a 10 BUSINESS DAY WAIT required between filling out you application to purchase and allowed delivery.

get that clear in you head, too, forget the instant check Federal laws (which are still required to be done) the instant part is GONE.

STATE law now requires a 10 day wait. And, if I'm reading it right, if there are any questions about your eligibility to own a semiautomatic assault rifle, the state can put your application on "administrative hold" for up to 30 days.

there is a LOT more in the law, as well...
 
Another ONE of the things 1639 does is order state access to medical records.

Any Doctors out there?? What are you going to do when WA state demands you give them access to (literally) thousands of citizens medical records, so the state can determine if those people meet the legal requirements to be allowed to own a semiautomatic assault rifle?
Seriously, what are you going to do? And how do you feel about the government ordering you to do it? What ethics do you follow? HIPPA privacy laws, or state gun control laws?? Seems to me there might be a wee bit of conflict there...

and oh, by the way, its not a one time access, it is continued access, so the state can conduct "periodic" reviews. 1639 isn't talking about individuals who might be judged a danger to themselves or others, its talking about every person who fills out a 4473 form and buys a semiautomatic assault rifle after July 1 2019, on...apparently forever after.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting question, and I don't see where any doctors have answered it. I believe they could refuse the request because it violates HIPPA, which is a federal law and preempts the state law. Any hospital risk managers here? (actually I think there are one or two, but they might not be watching this thread)
 
...which is a federal law and preempts the state law.
Click to expand...

But... the west coast states will disregard federal law any time its suits their agenda. Some will argue, even in ‘gun friendly’ states that states’ rights trumps federal laws. They’ve already disregarded the constitution, in my opinion, when they allow the majority to vote away other’s constitutional rights. They don’t seem to like well regulated militias and I don’t see any protections for the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
 
OK, I got some clarification on the waiting period, for ALL FIREARMS, other than semiautomatic assault rifles, the wait is EITHER 10 business days, or when the background check comes through approved, which ever happens first.

ALL FIREARMS. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, repeaters or single shots, manually operated, and semi auto pistols and shotguns are all covered under this waiting period.

Semi automatic assault rifles (meaning all semi auto rifles, now) are slightly different, they require a 10 (business) day wait from the time of application to purchase before delivery.

SO, buy a pistol, wait 10 days, or until background check goes through approved, which ever comes first. Buy a Kar 98k Mauser, SAME THING.
Buy a Rem 870, OR an 1100, same thing.

Buy a Marlin model 60, or a Ruger 10/22 or an AR or AK or any semi rifle, wait 10 days, no matter if approval comes back before then, you still have to wait 10 days before the dealer can deliver your gun.

As to Doctors and the medical records thing, the law ORDERS them to make you medical records available. Period. And not just once when you purchase a semiautomatic assault rifle, but periodically there after with NO end date in sight, so, potentially, the rest of you life. They don't say it, but it seems like they're saying "HIPPA be damned, we don't care!"

PROBABLY the reason no Doctors are up in arms (so to speak) over this is that they don't know about it, YET. It's buried kind of deep in the law, and as far as I know, the state has not yet begun to ask for access to those records.

I expect a virulent reaction from the medical community when they DO learn about it, as I expect the first time they will hear about the law is when the state demands the records. They will, of course, (like the rest of us,) feel blindsided, and probably a bit resentful.

I think, depending on the timing of when the state begins demanding medical record access it could be the first part of the law to be challenged in court. Because someone will have "standing", a doctor, not just an ordinary joe.

Consider this possible scenario. State demands Joe Sixpack's medical records, so THEY can determine if he is fit to be allowed to purchase the semiautomatic assault rifle he has applied for permission to purchase.

Doc Brown, refuses, citing patient confidentiality, and privacy laws.
State gets a court to ORDER Doc Brown to supply the records.
Doc Brown's lawyers refuse. (cause he's got some by now...)

State arrests Doc Brown for violating the law and the court order.

headline (in pro gun press anyway)
Doctor arrested for violating gun control law!! No gun involved!!!

Let the courtroom fireworks begin!

and like I've said before, there's still MORE in the law, things that appear to me to violate other Constitutionally enumerated rights.

if it weren't so serious, it would be terribly amusing. :(
 
Either way, it really puts the doctor in a bind. He either gets sued by the patient for violating HIPPA, or he gets cuffed and stuffed like that nurse a couple of years ago who refused to draw an illegal blood sample (iirc, the patient was unconscious and so could not give consent, and the police did not have a court order)
 
Either way, it really puts the doctor in a bind.
Click to expand...

kinda does, doesn't it???

I wonder how Dr's who supported the initiative will feel when they learn that now, that law applies to them?

don't be overlooking the additional workload /cost the medical establishment will have to undertake to comply with this gun control law.

I'm sure that will make them happy, too! :rolleyes:
 
Given their prior support for anything gun control related, I suspect the AMA won't really have a problem with it. Individual doctors, maybe not so much.
 
Update, another thing the 1639 law is doing;

We used to have private party face to face sale allowed in WA, but that changed with the passage of I-639, the background check law, which was also passed by initiative, passing only in the I-5 corridor counties. That law requires all "transfers" , with a handful of noted exceptions, to go through an FFL dealer, and background checks run. Used to be the Fed instant check only, and was done of all firearms. So, You want to sell a pistol to a buddy of 20+ years, you took him, you, and the pistol to an FFL dealer to make the transfer.

The new law, doesn't change anything if the gun is a manually operated rifle or shotgun, but if it is a semiautomatic assault rifle or a pistol, then a ten day (10 days, and we assume its business days) wait is now required.

10 day wait on "private sale" of pistols and semiautomatic assault rifles.

I'm quite sure there's more to follow...
 
What if they passed a law and nobody obeyed it? (Everybody, even those not affected by it, loses respect for the law in general) Politicians really should think about that before they pass stupid stuff.
Since this took the initiative path, I'm not sure how much control they had over it.
 
The people who wrote it and promoted it ARE politicians.
And they had complete control over what they wrote, and what they said, which were two very different things....

They just aren't elected representatives...or public officials...
 
I have not tried to buy any firearm yet since the passage of 1639 but they may make the buyer sign a paper telling the doctor to release the records. No signature, no sale.

Found the form I was looking for:

https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652001a.pdf

As far as 1639, if you look at the voting it is the greater Seattle area, the County adjacent to Portand, OR (Clark), Spokane and the county with WSU, next the the university in Moscow, ID (Whitman), that voted for 1639. The balance of the state had just the opposite voting... 60/40% against instead of 60/40% for. Population centers and liberal areas really skew the vote.

https://results.vote.wa.gov/results...asure-No-1639-concerns-firearms_ByCounty.html
 
Last edited:
The balance of the state had just the opposite voting... 60/40% against instead of 60/40% for.
Click to expand...
This is why the Electoral College is so important at the national level. Without it, the only people being represented in presidential elections will be a few states with the largest populations. The majority of the country (both in terms of states and in terms of land area) will not have a voice.
 
Yep, let the population centers rule everything and sooner or later you get a rural-peasant revolt.

Any more words on the HIPPA conflict?
 
Any more words on the HIPPA conflict?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anything but not being in doctors social circles I'm afraid I don't hear much on that side. I don't think the state is asking for the records, YET.

This did get me thinking, a bit, about HIPPA, and possible arguments.

The law states that by signing the application to purchase, you are giving them permission to access those records.

If you give your permission, then what grounds does the DR have to object??

Doesn't HIPPA cover allowing your records to be seen/used IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION??

So, isn't the issue here that the state, via the new law is REQUIRING you to give permission in order to purchase certain (at this time) firearms??

From the voter's pamphlet:
Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.094 and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to read as follows:
A signed application to purchase a pistol or semi automatic assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semi automatic assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.

Sec. 8. RCW 9.41.097 and 2018 c 210 s 6005 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) The health care authority, mental health institutions and other health care facilities shall, upon request of a court, law enforcement agency or the state, supply such relevant information as is necessary to determine the eligibility of a person to possess a firearm or to be issued a concealed pistol license under RCW 9.41.070 or to purchase a pistol or semi automatic assault rifle under RCW 9.41.090
Click to expand...
there is more, but for now look at sec 7 and sec 8, and note no court order is required, only a request, and it can be a request from the police alone...AND note in Sec 8 that it is not only to purchase certain arms but to POSSESS ANY FIREARM...

am I being an alarmist, or do you think this is a problem, as well??
 
44 AMP said:
am I being an alarmist, or do you think this is a problem, as well??
Click to expand...
I don't think you are being an alarmist. This is obviously an end run around the concept of doctor-patient confidentiality. The notion that citizens must agree to waive doctor-patient confidentiality in order to be allowed to engage in a constitutionally guaranteed right is (to borrow a phrase I've heard a constitutional attorney use) "chilling."
 
I think it goes a bit beyond "chilling" and into the "illegal" category, but then, I'm not a lawyer or a gun control advocate.

Consider this, what is the legal required standard to suspend your firearms rights? And lets not get into the recent red flag crap at this point, ok?

Federal law requires "due process" a hearing, and you must be adjudicated incompetent. You (your attorneys) get to face your accuser (or at least, the court) and present your side of the case. Doctor notes, patient records, even Dr testimony can be part of the process but it requires a judge to make a ruling.
|
Seems to me that the state (in this case WA) using your medical records to determine if you are eligible to POSSESS a firearm (sec 8) AFTER the fact, and possibly at any/every future point in your life is deliberately evading established Federal law.

Doctors (especially in mental health fields) are not infallible. Their opinions are not Holy Writ. A bureaucrat looking at a Dr's notes and comparing them with statute requirements is not qualified to pass summary judgement on our rights, ANY of them.

We've already seen numerous mistakes and abuses and I think this law doesn't just open the floodgates, it removes the entire dam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top