The Big Washington I-594 Thread: Direct all questions and concerns here
- Thread starter JimDandy
- Start date
carguychris
New member
IIRC this sort of data-gathering during a NICS check is specifically prohibited by federal law, although I'm feeling too lazy to look up the citation at the moment.ATN082268 said:
There are two prohibitions on registration. The first is in the 1986 FOPA:
The second is in the Brady Act, Section 103(i):
No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may (...) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) orof title 18,United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.
Considering that, despite laws against it there was fairly recently a flap about some govt agency (FBI?) keeping the data (that is supposed to be destroyed in 24hrs?) and arguing how they needed to keep it for 90 days (at least), I have my doubts about whether or not they could create a (technically illegal) registry.
Here's something to consider, about 594 creating a registry, It requires all transfers to go through an FFL dealer. 594 says the dealer transfers to the new possessor/owner as if he were selling the firearm.
That means its recorded in the dealer's books. Maybe on the 4473 as well. (Dealers, correct me if I'm wrong, please). I understand that the background check phone call requires an id# case# or something like that. I think the number of the 4473 is what's usually used.
And for a handgun, I think WA state has its own form as well. Regardless of the specific mechanism, the DEALER has some record of who, what, and where you live. While the dealers records don't give them a database for a registry TODAY, they do provide the base material (data) that could be used to build such a system in the future.
ALSO, since 594 requires ALL transfers to go through an FFL dealer, it means that huge numbers of guns that are NOT in any system today WILL be in the records once they change hands, and from then on, forever more.
That old Colt SAA or granddaddy's Winchester, or other guns that have been in private hands for generations, if not centuries before any record keeping requirements existed in law will be put in the system, along with their new owners.
We all know the government's record when it comes to following their own rules. IF 594 isn't a push for a MASSIVE increase in registration, what is?
Here's something to consider, about 594 creating a registry, It requires all transfers to go through an FFL dealer. 594 says the dealer transfers to the new possessor/owner as if he were selling the firearm.
That means its recorded in the dealer's books. Maybe on the 4473 as well. (Dealers, correct me if I'm wrong, please). I understand that the background check phone call requires an id# case# or something like that. I think the number of the 4473 is what's usually used.
And for a handgun, I think WA state has its own form as well. Regardless of the specific mechanism, the DEALER has some record of who, what, and where you live. While the dealers records don't give them a database for a registry TODAY, they do provide the base material (data) that could be used to build such a system in the future.
ALSO, since 594 requires ALL transfers to go through an FFL dealer, it means that huge numbers of guns that are NOT in any system today WILL be in the records once they change hands, and from then on, forever more.
That old Colt SAA or granddaddy's Winchester, or other guns that have been in private hands for generations, if not centuries before any record keeping requirements existed in law will be put in the system, along with their new owners.
We all know the government's record when it comes to following their own rules. IF 594 isn't a push for a MASSIVE increase in registration, what is?
The manufacturer/distributor keeps a record of where they send a gun. The dealer keeps a record of its receipt. Upon disposition, the dealer keeps the form and notes the disposition in his books. There's a chain of custody there.
The actual number given by the NICS call center is a NICS Transaction Number (NTN), which is simply a tracking number for the actual check. No information about the gun itself is reported beyond handgun/long gun/other.
In most states, that's the end of it. If the firearm needs to be traced, the BATFE can follow the chain of custody. Otherwise, there's no way for Sheriff Joebob to know what guns Mr. Smith owns.
However, Washington state already has a handgun registration scheme of sorts (see Section 9). So yes, if I want to transfer an older pistol, going through a dealer will generate a registration of that gun that didn't exist before.
2ndsojourn
New member
From the 1986 FOPA:
"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. "
Emphasis mine.
The law doesn't require certain records to be maintained, but nothing stops states like New Jersey from doing it. And they do for handguns.
"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. "
Emphasis mine.
The law doesn't require certain records to be maintained, but nothing stops states like New Jersey from doing it. And they do for handguns.
Well I think A) you're reading it wrong. It says nothing passed after FOPA MAY require transfering records to a Federal or State facility. So those records (i.e. 4473 forms) required by the whole gun purchase system we have now are required to be kept, but the government can't make anyone transfer those records to to government except as mandated BEFORE FOPA(i.e. possibly how closed down FFL's have to send their bound books in once they go out of business)
And B) That doesn't matter. The records in the handgun registry are most likely not part of the "this chapter" stuff. In Washington we also have (I believe) a handgun registry that's pretty under the radar. But that registry is not created using federal forms and the like, there's an additional state form that creates the registry entry as near as I can tell.
And B) That doesn't matter. The records in the handgun registry are most likely not part of the "this chapter" stuff. In Washington we also have (I believe) a handgun registry that's pretty under the radar. But that registry is not created using federal forms and the like, there's an additional state form that creates the registry entry as near as I can tell.
The results aren't all in, but it doesn't look good. 60/40% in favor of I-594, 45/55% against I-591.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And that is exactly how it's done in California. We fill out a state form in addition to the 4473 when we buy a gun.JimDandy said:
In any case, the latest I've seen is that I-594 did win, so the gun owners of Washington State lose. But this can also be something of a lesson for all of us about political reality. There might very well be significant public support for Universal Background Checks (UBC), and we need to understand that and find ways to deal with it.
We've all known for a while the support for universal background checks on sales. Pew and Gallup has had support for that at Amendment Passing level for quite some time. I don't personally mind them, but then I buy almost all my firearms new anyway for the warranty. The only time I buy used is when it's out of production and you can't buy new.
The real sad lesson is how little the voters read and research what they vote on. 594 went way beyond sales. I imagine the courts around here don't open until 9, but I truly hope the Second Amendment Foundation will be walking in the door at 9:01 to file. Extending them to temporary transfers is just ridiculous.
The real sad lesson is how little the voters read and research what they vote on. 594 went way beyond sales. I imagine the courts around here don't open until 9, but I truly hope the Second Amendment Foundation will be walking in the door at 9:01 to file. Extending them to temporary transfers is just ridiculous.
One way to challenge it might be this: lacking a registry, the law can't be enforced with consistency. Its application would be subject to whim and unfairness. Showing inequal enforcement might be an argument.
The problem is, the voters are easily and deliberately misinformed on what "universal background checks" entail, and I worry that a few people are going to be convicted before its problems come to light.
Not at all, as a number of people, but not enough, read enough to figure out that the background checks would be applied to more than just sales. So it could be theorized the 30% difference is the ones smart enough to understand the difference between a sales background check and a transfer background check.
I don't think so Tom. There's no registry for retail sales, and the current background check system isn't considered inconsistently enforced by most- especially most who get to make that Judge-ment.
I hope the easiest grounds is the biggest problem I have with it. Extending it o temporary transfers. If nothing else it fiddles with property rights. Possession is one of the little sticks. Telling me I can give my Dad/Brother/Mom/Immediate Family Member a gun, but he/she/they can't hold on to mine for a few minutes sounds like it fiddles with that property stick in a way that can't be supported.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Of course not, and I'm surprised that any of us are surprised by that. The public focused, predictably, on the simple goal of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. The initiative process is a very poor tool for dealing with subtleties and details. It's an all or nothing proposition. At least in the legislative process there are multiple opportunities for tweaks.JimDandy said:
I fear that as a legal argument that's a stretch; and as a political argument it invites registration.Tom Servo said:
Washington already has a form of state-level handgun registration at the point of sale. In fact, by requiring transfers to go through a dealer, they'll be pooling many more guns into that.
What they don't have is a total registry of all guns that would allow them to know whether a transfer took place before the law went into effect. To enforce the provisions of I-594, that would be a necessity.
(I'm not the first one to bring that up. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, who vehemently opposed this, have already made the same argument.)
To Joe Sixpack, "universal background checks" are one thing. Registration is something totally different and a lot harder to sell.
So, we're left with a conflict. Where the legal challenge may lie is in unequal treatment under law. As it stands, enforcement will be slapdash and subject to the whims of prosecutors.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Perhaps not. California has gotten along without it for 20+ years. The dealer transfer requirement was put in place around 1990 or 1991, but up until this years only handguns, not long guns, were registered on transfer. Although a few years ago new residents became required to register handguns they brought with them when they moved to California, and there's provision for voluntary registration of unregistered guns, God only knows how many unregistered guns are lawfully owned in California.Tom Servo said: