The Big Washington I-594 Thread: Direct all questions and concerns here

Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...
On that note... given that I-594 criminalizes both parties engaging in an unlawful informal transfer, if the gun doesn't show up in the WA ad hoc registry, it seems to me that there's a serious and quite obvious 5A issue with successfully prosecuting these crimes, unless there are eyewitnesses and/or one of the parties turns state's evidence- most likely in exchange for immunity.

Unequal prosecution indeed. :(

[Maybe I'm just stating the obvious.]
 
I wasn't aware it criminalized both sides. I only saw the same illegal to transfer, nothing about illegal to receive. But I may have missed that in everything else that was wrong with it.
 
JimDandy said:
I wasn't aware it criminalized both sides. I only saw the same illegal to transfer, nothing about illegal to receive.
Click to expand...
Here's my interpretation, with my emphasis in boldface and notes in [brackets]:
Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:...

[Subsection (1) omitted]

(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.

(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:

(a) The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser... [remainder of section omitted]

[Subsection (b) re: dealer obligations omitted]

(c) The purchaser or transferee must complete, sign, and submit all federal, state, and local forms necessary to process the required background check to the licensed dealer conducting the background check.

[Subsections (d) & (e) omitted]

...

Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person knowingly violating section 3 of this act is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of section 3 of this act.
Click to expand...
Sec. 9 specifies that "any person" violating the chapter can be found guilty. In an unlawful informal transfer, the seller or transferor violates 3(3)(a), while the purchaser or transferee violates 3(3)(c). [As an aside, the dealer can also violate (3)(b) and (3)(d); only (3)(e) is clearly discretionary ("The licensed dealer may charge a fee...")]

If someone with more knowledge of WA law wants to correct me, please do, I've been wrong before. :)
 
Last edited:
JimDandy said:
[Transfer] is specifically defined.

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
Click to expand...
Everything from "Hold this while I tie my shoes" to "Here you go, keep it"
Click to expand...
Actually, after rereading this law, I'm curious if the phrase "intended delivery" will be the major item of contention. In my mind, "Hold this while I tie my shoes" is NOT intended delivery, as "I" am still present, and "I" clearly intend to get my gun back. It is not "my" intent for the person holding the gun to use it or leave with it.

[Jim, I'm not trying to intentionally pick on you. ;)]
 
[Jim, I'm not trying to intentionally pick on you. ]
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were. Living in WA, I've seen a lot of people try and claim a temporary transfer like that is allowed. I have zero faith they're right. Handing someone something on purpose, even temporarily, is a intended delivery.

You can ask the lawyers in here, but I haven't seen one in here yet ever talk about a law that uses the word "transfer" and not point out transfer is possession not title (if it came up).

Even if you could find a judge willing to play the semantics game over "intentional deliver" as it's not defined in the initiative, you'd default to the common definition of the time.

Now you just have to figure out how to get the judge to believe you didn't have to take your firearm to the guy who's going to hold it while you tie your shoes at the place they're going to hold it, when he held it while you tied your shoes at the place they held it.
 
I guess my question here is, if transfer doesn't exempt temporary transfers such as at a range during a class, how then can this not be viewed as infringing on 2A rights by putting undue hardship on citizens owning guns? Isn't that enough for a challenge?
 
But the wording makes that sound like it is only for guns STORED at the range, no? So only rental guns would be exempted. And only established ranges, at that. What about in the woods?

Frankly, I have no issue with universal checks (though I voted against 594) - I have a problem with the broad definition of transfers, and the lack of a loan period.
 
If 'Possession ' under federal case and statute law means you have committed a felony by allowing a felon in a home where he might be able to handle a firearm, 'Transfer' is not going to mean only sales or gifts, it's going to mean 'look at this new shotgun', until the Legislature changes it, in two years. Until then, be wary of strangers at the range.
 
JimDandy said:
Even if you could find a judge willing to play the semantics game over "intentional deliver" as it's not defined in the initiative, you'd default to the common definition of the time.
Click to expand...
True, and let me clarify one thing in particular: I would NOT want to be the test case. :eek:
RampantAndroid said:
So only rental guns would be exempted. And only established ranges, at that. What about in the woods?
Click to expand...
(1) Yes, I think. (2) Yes, clearly. (3) Verboten.

Another kicker:
RampantAndroid said:
I have a problem with the broad definition of transfers, and the lack of a loan period.
Click to expand...
Other issues upon reading the law more closely...

The law defines a "dealer" as a "...a person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail who has, or is required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a)." (Emphasis mine.) An 03 Collector or C&R FFL is licensed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a) but, by definition, is NOT authorized under federal law to engage in the business of buying or selling firearms; his or her license can ONLY be used to enhance a personal collection. Thus, as I read it, C&R FFL's are potentially subject to the same regulations as non-licensees for transactions that occur wholly or partially in-state. (At least they can still get discounts at Midway and Brownell's, or transfer firearms out-of-state. :rolleyes:)

The law uses the NFA definition of "antique" and NOT the 68 GCA definition. Thus, modern-style muzzle-loaders (as opposed to replicas of pre-1899 firearms) and pre-1899 fixed-cartridge firearms are apparently NOT exempted from the BG check requirements.

This one's partially a legal question. Do counties in WA have the statutory authority to formally authorize shooting ranges outside of a municipality, and if so, are they required to do so? How does a shooting range outside of a municipality assure patrons that the temporary transfer exemption for a range "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located" is in force? Can a WA county effectively outlaw temporary range transfers by simple inaction- by not enacting a formal process to authorize shooting ranges? :eek:

FWIW I think one of the primary potential weaknesses of this law, in terms of overturning it in court, is that it does NOT exempt off-duty LEO's, CPL holders, or (potentially) C&R licensees- persons who can be reasonably presumed to have the lawful right to possess firearms. Applying the BG check requirement to these persons is absurd.
 
Last edited:
That's more or less what I expected. Obviously, the woods is going to be a "no one is looking" type thing for many people.

As for the votes, from the WA website, it looks like nearly 375,000 votes are still not counted; I'd like to say I'm hopeful those votes will at least swing 591 to pass...but I'm not going to hold my breath (591 is slowly moving towards a more favorable result, but I think it's only moved .02% since last night's results.

Edit: Additional thought. I was recently in the ER for an arm injury; they asked if I was armed, and I had my pocket knife on me. They took it and put it in a side room. With 594 passing, won't relinquishing a gun to hospital security be a "transfer"?
 
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent
the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her
employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections
officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the
United States or the national guard, or federal official;
Click to expand...

I don't see private security in that list. If the security guard isn't a cop, then yeah you're breaking the law if you surrender your firearm while getting treatment. On the bright side if s/he takes it while you're unconscious you may be safe.
 
That isn't much of a bright side ;) In the case where I am conscious, I'm confronted with the decision of bleed out in the lobby or commit a misdemeanor or felony.
 
I am glum, but do appreciate the well-informed discussion by you forum-ites who do not even live in WA state.

We should have had this handled by the legislature, which has had the good judgement in the last few years to legalize suppressors and (separately) short-barreled rifles. But, since the legislature voted down basically this same law, Bloomberg opened the wallet and paid for the work on a citizens initiative.

As pointed out earlier, for handgun sales only, the state requires a WA form to be filled out and sent somewhere into the maw of xyz.wa.gov. That has not been extended to all firearms by this initiative. But the effects of the initiative will be to eventually include all handguns in that pile of forms.

That is, if all handguns are transferred following the new law. I speak no more about that aspect.

The Washington Arms Collectors is actively preparing to follow the law with minimum hassle for members at the WAC gun shows. Our WAC president is in fact an attorney and I'm sure the officers and staff will do the best job possible in having FFL coverage for personal sales.

The other gunshows (meaning non-WAC) will have to adapt also.

Bart Noir
Who anticipates a flurry of private sales prior to the legal changes going into effect.
 
Obviously, the woods is going to be a "no one is looking" type thing for many people.
Click to expand...
It won't just be in the woods.

Let's take two scenarios. In the first, Harry knows the law but chooses not to follow it. He buys a gun privately from Dick with the understanding that mum's the word. Harry comes into contact with law enforcement.

"Hi there! Nice gun. Where'd you get it?"

"From my friend."

"Didya get a background check?"

"I, uh, got it before the law passed."

"Can you prove you did?"

"Nope. Can you prove I didn't?"

"Well, huh. You got me there. Um...have a nice day, I guess."

In the second scenario, Tom's uncle passes away and leaves a rifle behind. Tom doesn't care for guns, so he asks Bob if he wants it. Bob says sure. After all, it's not a sale, right? Bob didn't read the whole law. How many people do?

One day, Bob comes into contact with law enforcement. When asked, Bob unwittingly admits to a gross misdemeanor, gets charged, and gets convicted.

In short, this law will punish the honest and well-meaning, and it will encourage dishonesty.
 
"Hi there! Nice gun. Where'd you get it?"

"From my friend."

"Didya get a background check?"

"I, uh, got it before the law passed."

"Can you prove you did?"

"Nope. Can you prove I didn't?"
Click to expand...

"well you can argue that with a judge!" (alternate scenario)

Sadly, I see the alternate scenario as entirely too possible.

Of course my mind travels to the absurd limits, like the cops waiting until you go to work, then raiding your home, and busting your wife and kids for illegal possession without a background check, then going and pulling you out of work....

I know its beyond the pale, but I don't see anything in the law that prevents this...
 
its worth noting that only 36% of Washington voters voted, despite their vote by mail system most Wa. gun owners sat on their rear. Pretty Sad.
And while we discuss the slim possibility of legally challenging I-594, the supporters of the measure have declared they are moving forward with MORE gun control legislation for Wa. state. Clearly this is a huge victory for gun control at the hands of voting gun owners....

sources:
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2014/11/05/i-594-supporters-to-push-for-more-gun-laws-in-olympia/
 
A different perspective

Three things I now know from I-594.

1) Criminals now know more accurately than ever how and where not to acquire a firearm.

2) The billionaires involved now know they have a proven strategy to manipulate the public for whatever it is they believe is right.

3) I now know I live in a County (and State) comprised of sheeple.

I did receive an email reply fro Alan Gottlieb today whereas he indicated they do intent to set in place a lobby and are looking over 594 closely. Clearly the hope is to find a way to have it repealed or modified.

Unless 594 is enforced it will do nothing, and enforcement will be difficult at best. If I turn myself in for feeling guilty or confused I may or may not be adhering to the law, then I'm in it (the transfer mess, and a mess it will be!). For the few non-membership gun-shows in WA, okay, we now have a membership and all sales fall to a background check, next. And now I don't sell a gun direct online or in the newspaper unless it goes through an FFL, like most sales already do. e.g. if a sale comes up online you'll get a call and a likely visit from an Officer to remind you you're doing something stupid.
 
Single Subject Rule

Washington State has a Single Subject Rule for ballot initiatives.

Would 594 violate this rule as it appears to cover much more than one single subject?

Washington has a single-subject rule for ballot measures. The relevant law restricts bills in the legislature. However, this restriction has been found to apply to initiatives as well. Key legal decisions to this effect are listed below.

DocumentIcon.jpg See law: Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 19 ; Fritz v. Gorton (1974) ; Washington Fed. of State Emp. v. State (1995) & Amalgamated Transit v. State (2000)
Click to expand...

http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top