Michael Bloomberg Is Twisting The Gun Control Debate In The Evergreen State W

C

Cnon

New member
This is a terrible proposal.


According to the article:


Consequently, I-594 would radically undermine gun safety training. NRA-certified instructors often teach the first part of their classes at an office building, church, school or home. No ammunition is allowed in the room. During the first phase, students learn to handle guns safely—e.g., always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction; keep your finger off the trigger; make sure the slide or bolt is locked open when handing a gun to someone else.

Students may practice dry firing (i.e., operating a firearm without live ammunition and with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction with a variety of different types of firearms to gain exposure to the way they handle and function). During the course of instruction, the instructors and students may “transfer” multiple firearms dozens of times, with each transfer lasting only a few minutes or less.

Under I-594, every one of these “transfers” would be a separate crime. The first transfer would be a gross misdemeanor, and every subsequent transfer would be a felony.
Click to expand...


More here: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/a...un-control-debate-in-the-evergreen-state.aspx


For discussion, is the NRA right to be concerned?


Cnon
 
Last edited:
What is the case law on "transfers"? Is there case law defining as a "transfer" allowing someone else to handle a firearm in your presence?

I don't fault NRA-ILA for raising concern about regs that might be abused by law enforcement, prosecutors or bad ruling by lower courts, and cause a chilling effect, but I was under the impression that allowing someone to handle a firearm in your presence was not a "transfer."
 
What is the case law on "transfers"? Is there case law defining as a "transfer" allowing someone else to handle a firearm in your presence?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much case law on "transfers". Most laws focus on "possession". There is some law on how a firearm must be transferred, but all of these that I know of are in the context of transfer of ownership, generally.

There are specifics in some laws about loaning a gun for hunting, or at the range. Other than that, its pretty slim.

The main reason for that is that until this proposed law, transfers between private parties were not covered under the law, other than the general "cannot knowingly transfer to a prohibited person" wording.

There is plenty of case law where a prohibited person was convicted for possessing a gun, even if the possession was temporary (such as while a picture was being taken). I recall one case of a model, who was convicted on such a case. She was a prohibited person, but held a (real) gun in a photo shoot, and later, when the photos were published, was arrested and charged, etc.

States that require a FOID require you to have one, before you can even handle a gun in a dealers shop, otherwise you are breaking the law. And while this does happen daily, and is rarely prosecuted, it is still a crime.

The problem with the proposed law is that it specifically lists situations where a "transfer" without a background check is allowed, (a very few instances) so ALL other situations that could be considered a transfer (no matter the duration, or who else is present) are illegal, without physically going to a dealer and having the background check done.

If this becomes law, a friend handing you one of his guns to look at, at his home, becomes a crime, without a background check that meets the requirements of the law. This is just flat WRONG.

How is a law that makes me (and him) a criminal in this situation a just, valid, or useful thing? The exact same situation, if he was an immediate family member, would be legal, under the proposed law.

The law(as proposed) allows you to transfer a gun at a licensed shooting range (temp loan, to let him shoot it) without a background check, but doing the exact same thing on private property is a crime.

The wording of the law states that both parties, AND the gun must go to a licensed dealer, the owner transfers the gun to the dealer, and the dealer, after the check, transfers it to the other party, as if it was being sold to them.
And, while I'm not certain, I think the same applies, when you buddy is ready to give it back to you.

TO me, its not just an inconvenience, and an added cost, its an insult.
 
To the unengaged general public these proposals may sound good when the proponents speak of keeping guns out of the wrong hands. However, these initiatives are nothing but stealth gun control. They seek to make owning a gun more burdensome and hopefully dissuade new individuals from exercising their rights. These new laws would do nothing to keep guns away from criminals who have a funny habit of not following the law to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the NRA is right to be concerned. I-594 exempts only family members from the definition of a transfer. All others must comply.
 
yes the NRA should be concerned about any legislation

But again, where is the (ANY?) case law suggesting that allowing a second person to handle a firearm in the presence of the owner constitutes a "transfer."
 
It's my understanding that the initiative exempts only loans made during hunting season, when both parties are present together at the same time, and spouses and partners. No other exemptions.

When confronted with the list of 'transfers' that should make the initiative verboten, the antis say "Yes, that's what the law will say, but it won't be enforced".

Smoke and mirrors. There is no way the gun control people won't let there be a 'loophole' in the law, they intend it to mean exactly what the words mean.

Letting someone shoot your milsurp at the range will become a felony.

There will be quite a bit of case law in short order on this. Oregon is next.
 
So typical of Bloomberg., using his billions to sneakily impose gun control with legislation like this. Legislation that many will not read. In a state that has become as liberal as Washington passage is not unthinkable.

The idea of not being to borrow or lend a firearm, even for a very limited time at the range is ridiculous. Policing such a law would be very onerous, if not impossible. It could put gun ranges out of business if they could not rent guns to customers without an inordinate amount of paperwork.
 
The bottom line is that this would be a horrendous law.

44 AMP said:
What is the case law on "transfers"? Is there case law defining as a "transfer" allowing someone else to handle a firearm in your presence?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much case law on "transfers". Most laws focus on "possession". There is some law on how a firearm must be transferred, but all of these that I know of are in the context of transfer of ownership, generally.
Click to expand...
Actually, the word "transfer" includes any change of possession.

  1. Courts will look at the meaning of the exact words use in the statute, and to understand that meaning, they will often look a the dictionary. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
    ...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...
    Click to expand...

  2. A "transfer" is a change of possession -- not ownership.


In this post I discussed all of that in the context of federal interstate gun transfer laws.

=44 AMP said:
...There is plenty of case law where a prohibited person was convicted for possessing a gun, even if the possession was temporary (such as while a picture was being taken). I recall one case of a model, who was convicted on such a case. She was a prohibited person, but held a (real) gun in a photo shoot, and later, when the photos were published, was arrested and charged, etc....
Click to expand...
One may be a prohibited person unlawfully possessing a gun even without having it in his hands.

The Third Circuit (Pennsylvania) let stand an indictment for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a gun by a prohibited persons in a situation in which a gun owner had a cohabitant who was a prohibited person. In that case, United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), was that the gun the prohibited person was charged with possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):
...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.

Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....
Click to expand...
 
Thanks again, Frank, for the legalese backing up the general subject.

Transfer is possession. Or control. And access equals control. Different places make minor distinctions but generally all follow the same framework.

Some places, if you have a gun, and its ammo in the same place as you are, your are considered to have a loaded gun (passenger compartment of a vehicle, for instance).

Many people have family members who are prohibited persons. (on parole, probation, etc.) Guns in those households have to be secured (locked up) and the prohibited person cannot have access to the key, or combination. If the key to your safe is on your keyring, and you hang your keys on a rack, they are not "secure" from the prohibited person in the eyes of the law.

If this law "only" required all sales to have a background check run (go through a dealer) it would be a bad law, but it goes much, much further, making a criminal matter out of common, ordinary everyday practices.

AND, even if passed, I doubt the details of that part will be widely known. Someone mentioned how difficult that part would be to police, and it would be, BUT that's not the point. The point is that as a law, it can be applied, and you might become a criminal simply by doing what you have always done, and not realizing it is now a crime.

Here's a question, how about when a police officer "secures" a weapon? Say, during a traffic stop. (ok, the police are probably exempted in the course of their duties, like they are from speed limits, etc.) some other law must cover that. Under the proposed law, without an exemption, wouldn't the cop who stops you need to have you both go to a dealer, and have the check run, so he can take possession?

yes, that's probably a ridiculous extreme,, but the (proposed) law is as it is written. The thing has more holes in it than good swiss cheese, and each hole is a criminal offense as written.

Bad law. No signature on petition, and a "NO" vote if it gets on the ballot.
 
I've gotten a couple of folks to consider the cost vs. benefit, given Colorado and their wastage of tax monies for nothing. They funded an entire state program, from desks to lifetime pensions, for running about 50 checks a day, divided among a dozen employees.
 
All Us citizens should be fighting this law, as it appears to be a backdoor
way, not only for gun control but also for people control.
Remember Australia.
 
We have only to look at New York State for an example of this. I have carry licenses/permits from four states, allowing me to carry a concealed handgun in something like 32 states. If I visit my friend's father in New York, I am not (legally) allowed to touch any of his firearms. Not even unloaded, in the living room or man cave.

It's silly, and it serves no legitimate purpose related to the stated intent, that being to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This isn't on the radar (yet) in my state, but perhaps I'm ahead of the curve in accumulating a motley collection of blue guns and non-firing replicas to use in my NRA Basic Pistol classes. Why have I done that, when the rule is that there's no ammunition in the classroom? Because people are idiots, and there is almost always some joker who thinks that rule doesn't apply to him. (It's always a him, too.) I don't need to deal with idiots trying to see if the "bullet" in their pocket will fit in the gun that's being passed around, so the more dummy guns I can use in the classroom, the better off everyone is.

And, if a law such as this were to be enacted, it would be all the more important to have "non-guns" as training aids. But ... I don't know how you could satisfy the NRA's live fire requirements if the students can't touch a gun. The NRA has explicitly said that airsofts or even real guns with rubber bulelts are not allowed to be used in the live fire exercise.
 
Last edited:
Breaking News..... I-594

Seems, according to local news. Mr Bill Gates has pledged 1 million dollars
to the I-594 campaign. I was aware that his political stance was to the left, but
I was not ready to see him step in to this quagmire. I always thought he was
smarter than that.
I guess having massive resources and common sense don't have much
bearing on each other. I should have known this was coming down after
Ballmer put up his 1/2 million a week or so ago.

.......................Jack
 
Obviously Gates is a smart guy, so if he’s taken even a cursory look at the proposal he understands the potential impact. I suspect he either a) Didn’t really look at the details or b) As one of the ruling elites feels free to dictate what is best for the masses. Either way he’ll still be rich and still have private security, so he doesn’t really care.
 
Did anybody say "Linux?" Yep, I have a couple of computers with the option to boot into Linux. Sadly, all my real work is done on Windows.
 
TDL, you asked about case law. Bloomberg could not care less about law, case or otherwise. If the truth be told he should have spent time in a federal prison for his stunt while Mayor of New York. What did he do? He sent some of his minions to Virginia with New York government made fake Virginia drivers licenses. They were also suplied with fake utility bills to help prove residency. They came to Virginia and purchased several firearms using the fake IDs and bills. They naturally passed all background chcks done by the dealers as required by law. The backgrounds here are called into the Virginia State Police. Once the Governor of Virginia found out he filed a federal complaint but the feds never did anything about it. In my personal opinion Bloomberg and the men he sent here should be rotting in a prison cell right now.
 
44Amp, Frank, thanks.

here is a question, is there case law on allowing a spouse to dry fire or clean a firearm in the home?

For example in DC, a firearm, any firearm, can only be owned and registered by a single individual. Now there are no ranges in DC. And it is clear that a spouse driving to a range in Virginia would be committing a gun crime transporting, containerized, locked, and unloaded a legally owned firearm for the duration of the trip in Virginia.

DC does make exception for third party use in presence of a thread. But would a gun owning spouse supervising a the non gun owning spouse cleaning/field stripping a firearm or dry firing a firearm already be in violation of the law?

Is that a transfer?

What I am getting at is this language already seems present in DC.

Again, I am not 100% incredulous but I would really like to see the case law. For sure the chilling affect is there, but are there truly any clean cases upholding this?
 
I can't speak to any DC law or case, nor on actual legal interpretations, sorry. But, that being said, I think that one of the key issues with this is the term "transfer".

It has been clearly stated that a "transfer" is a change of possession of the gun, NOT ownership. And, not necessarily physical possession, but also inclusive of the ability to physically possess it.

And, while I admit, it would be extreme, under the (proposed) law, simply handing, or allowing someone else to handle your gun would be a prosecutable transfer, unless the specifics (going to a dealer, having the check run, etc. were followed.

And, since there are listed exceptions (family members, at a licensed range, etc.,) anything NOT listed could be prosecuted.

Now, this is just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it, but, as written, the law allows for prosecution, and it would be entirely up to the prosecuting agency to proceed, or not.

I would think most reasonable people would never expect to be prosecuted for what is a harmless "check out my new toy" kind of showing off, but under the law (as proposed) it could happen, if the prosecutor decided it was worthwhile.

As to Bill Gates dropping $1 million on the campaign? With his money, I think that if he was a "true believer" he would have given more. Most likely, like a lot of people, he skimmed the petition, and hey, background checks that keep guns from bad people are a good thing, right?" and so, without digging deeper, and seeing the actual bad things (or at least the potential for bad things), he donated what is to him, small change.

I could be wrong about that, too, but I think its likely...

The petition claims a noble purpose (what proposed law doesn't?), but the devil is in the details. And the details of this one, frankly, suck...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top