Specific question about Washington state initiative 594

C

cjwils

New member
There has been previous discussion on this forum about Washington State Initiative #594, which goes to Washington state voters this fall. Among other things, 594 would expand requirements for background checks on all gun sales in the state, including mail or internet transactions with one end in the state. Here is a link to the text:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE 594.pdf

I am not looking for broad discussion of 594. I have a very narrow concern regarding antique firearms. Initiative 594, Section 2(1) would create a definition of antique firearms that is much more restrictive than the federal definition. Basically, any gun capable of using readily available cartridge ammo would not be classified as an antique in Washington State, no matter how old it is. (By the way, I do know that Washington law already has a similar definition, but under present state law that definition does not apply to private sales, so it does not affect me.)

Reading further, 594 Section 3(1) says the following (with my underline):

"All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."

So here is my question: Does the treatment (or non-treatment) of antique firearms under federal law qualify as an exemption under Initiative 594 3(1), so that my antique pistols, which are capable of firing cartridge ammo, would not be subject to background checks under 594?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that was an oblique reference to people with C&R licenses - which may be a worthwhile pursuit for you.

As for me, I'm waiting for us to be more ridiculed than Florida, when we pass both 591 and 594, and the courts have to spend years unraveling what the hell we do now, and then deciding 594 infringes the right too much anyway. 594 is transfer, not sale. So even just handing another curio collector your relic could be enough to cause trouble.
 
Good luck getting the State Attorney General to issue an advisory that C&R holders or those transferring any pre-1898 firearm are exempt from the requirements of the law, should it be passed.

There is no exemption in the proposal except for the wording already cited.

The intent of the Initiative is to require background checks on all transfers. Period.

I have some antique rifles, and ammunition for all of them is available from specialty vendors. They're not going to be exempt when they use the 11.4mm Rimmed Rodney Dangerfield round from 1877-1881 Peruvian Navy Service Rifle trials since I can go online and order a box of just that for $75.00

Us Washingtonians would be well advised to vote NO on both the initiatives here.
 
I read the initiative, and did not sign it. On the ballot, I will vote against it.

Its a matter of principle, for me. I'm fine with a law requiring a dealer to do a background check. They are licensed by the govt. They are in business.

I particularly object to any requirement that threatens to make me a criminal if I fail to be an agent of the state.

Exemptions for family members are BS, in the sense that they are nothing more than a carrot to entice the unwary.

This measure is nothing more than the anti's desire for universal govt approval prior to buying a firearm, wrapped in deceptive language. The concept failed on the national level recently, and will hopefully also fail in Washington state.

I'll be doing what I can to see that it does, and so will my friends.
 
I'll be voting against it too. I have no interest in being a criminal because my brother I'm carpooling to a range with gets impatient and grabs one of my gun cases to load it in the car.
 
As I said, I am not interested in general discussion. I have a specific question about how the Washington state initiative would deal with antiques. Please see original post.
 
So here is my question: Does the treatment (or non-treatment) of antique firearms under federal law qualify as an exemption under Initiative 594 3(1), so that my antique pistols, which are capable of firing cartridge ammo, would not be subject to background checks under 594?
Click to expand...

Since you are only interested in the answer to this specific question, here's the best answer I can give you...

NO ONE can, at this point in time give you any answer that is anything other than pure speculation or opinion.

Its not a law (yet, and may never be one), and as such there can be no legal ruling. You can take the word of the folks who wrote it (if you can get it), but that is only their intent, and not what the fact might eventually be.

If it becomes law, and which ever agency given the authority for deciding the issue rules that the Fed exemption for antiques is good enough, then fine. Bearing in mind, of course that a regulatory agency can change its mind at a later date, about what is, and is not a valid exemption, absent a court ruling.

If, however the agency decides that the Fed "exemption" is not enough to satisfy the (proposed) WA law, then background checks will have to be performed to transfer these guns.

As I said, its not law, and the best thing for all of us is to not support it becoming law.

Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
 
And what 44AMP skipped over is the off chance currently suggested as highly likely by the polls in the state, where both the no-new-BG-checks AND BG-Checks-If-You-Hand-it-to-God-himself-while-you-pee-behind-a-tree initiatives both pass on the same ballot. That makes it even harder to know what the heck is going to happen. We don't know which initiative trumps the other. If either trumps anything. First the courts will have to decide which one is in control, THEN they'll have to answer the challenges to the initiative on its merits.

You know, I already made the reference once, but we could be in the same or worse position Florida was when they went to court to figure out which votes count, which votes don't. How hard the chad had to be hanging, and so on.
 
We've had dueling Initiatives pass in Washington, before. The State Supreme Court looks at both of them and 'combines' them into a single ruling that says this is what can be made to work from BOTH initiatives without contradiction.

Contradictions are tossed out. The Court decides which option to uphold, while keeping the option that allows the intent of the initiatives to come into law.

So, don't presume the least restrictive option is going to be favored. The Court will do that only if the two options have the same intent and purpose. So if I-594 passes, we will be checking backgrounds on each and every transfer in the state, regardless of firearm type or age, or what the competing Initiative may say.
 
The news report said it had almost but not actually happened yet. That we had duelling initiatives, but they didn't pass. I dunno myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top