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

Specific exceptions for spouse

There is a specific exception for your spouse in all circumstances. Family members can be "bona-fide gift"ed but not otherwise transferred.
 
Evan Robinson said:
There is a specific exception for your spouse in all circumstances.
Click to expand...
Where is that in the law? Spouses are mentioned in the list of immediate family where transfers are only allowed as a "bona fide gift". This seems to me that I can't hand a gun to my wife unless I'm gifting it to her.

I haven't seen spouses listed anywhere else in the law, but I'd love to be wrong; it would be nice if it was actually legal to hand a gun to my wife temporarily.
 
carguychris in post #120 asked about museums and the display of firearms. That shoe has now dropped.

It is sad that poorly written and enacted laws are able to have this type of effect on those who have no intention of doing anything wrong. Not a single criminal will be affected by this law.

SOURCE

Museum Will Remove World World II-Era Rifles Because Of New State Law

A museum in Lynden, Wash. has decided to return 11 World World II-era rifles to their owners because of a state law passed earlier this month that requires background checks on gun transfers.

The Lynden Pioneer Museum will comply with the law, Initiative 594, rather than fight it, The Bellingham Herald reports.

MORE
Click to expand...
 
The true answer is that the law is so poorly written that it will take some time for the state to decide what it is going to mean in practical terms.

It does provide an exception for hunting, and shooting on a "licensed range" but does not say what an approved range license is, for one example.

What they law could be applied to is absolutely everything NOT specifically excepted. It is possible that while you might be able to borrow a buddy's gun on the range, him handing it to you to check out in his living room, and you handing it back when you're done looking at it is two crimes, without background checks.

Essentially the state is going to have to interpret the law, and decide what parts are enforceable, and how.

Until they do this, it possible any loan of a gun outside of the listed exceptions is a crime, without a background check. And that apparently also applies to returning loaned guns to their owners.
 
jimpeel said:
How does this law apply for shooting ranges which rent firearms for customers to shoot at their range?
Click to expand...
Here's what the law says, with my emphasis in boldface:
I-594 said:
(4) This section does not apply to... (f) The temporary transfer of a firearm... (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located...
Click to expand...
There are two major unresolved issues regarding the interpretation of this section.
  • The meaning of the phrase "kept at all times". Does this indicate that the firearm must be literally kept at all times at the range- thus encompassing rental firearms but excluding privately-owned firearms brought from elsewhere- or does this merely indicate that the temporary transfer can only take place while the firearm is on the range premises?
  • What must a range do to be "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction"? Is a Certificate of Occupancy from the local building department adequate (hopefully yes!), or is some sort of special license required? Can a municipality or county lawfully impose a special licensing requirement, or effectively achieve the same thing by making the Certificate of Occupancy subject to periodic conditional renewal? (The latter is commonly done for sexually oriented businesses and nightclubs in my local area, but I'm totally unfamiliar with municipal law in WA.) OTOH if a rural shooting range is not required to have a Certificate of Occupancy, due to an absence of habitable structures (i.e. fully enclosed with plumbing and electricity) and/or a loophole in the local building regulations (e.g. the range was operating before formal regulations were imposed), what happens then?
 
Last edited:
It is possible that while you might be able to borrow a buddy's gun on the range, him handing it to you to check out in his living room, and you handing it back when you're done looking at it is two crimes, without background checks.
Click to expand...

I have asked this a couple of times, and I am sorry if I missed the answer, but does anyone have case law on gun issues on whether the latter is actually a change of possession?
 
Sorry, TDL, no, not right at the moment.

We don't have any case law to interpret 594 yet. Previous laws were either clear, or easily understood to mean that they applied to a change of ownership (possession), however, 594 is neither. There is precedent in law that a change of ownership is not required, merely a change in who is holding the gun.

Take your gun to a gunsmith, to get something fixed. If it takes overnight, or longer, the smith (FFL) has to log it in his records, AND when its fixed and he returns it to you , he has to run a background check on YOU, the legal owner, in order to return your property to you.

This is current law. Under 594, without any defining guidance (currently pending, we are told) ANY transfer of possession could be a crime, unless done through an FFL. BECAUSE 594 makes certain specific exceptions, that implies that all other instances are covered by the law. SO, me handing you my latest 1911A1 in my living room is a crime, and you handing it back is another crime, IF the law is going to be interpreted that way.

At this point, we don't know what the enforcement is going to be, or what degree of infraction is going to be an enforceable crime.
 
If it takes overnight, or longer, the smith (FFL) has to log it in his records, AND when its fixed and he returns it to you , he has to run a background check on YOU, the legal owner, in order to return your property to you.
Click to expand...

The gunsmithing provision is problematic. Section 4(e) exempts,

A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to
its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith
Click to expand...

That assumes the gunsmith has an FFL or works for one. What about the guy down the street who just does a few informal same-day adjustments? He'd have to meet me at a gunshop, get the gun transferred to him, then make a second trip to have it transferred back to me.

How many folks do we think will know that?

At this point, we don't know what the enforcement is going to be, or what degree of infraction is going to be an enforceable crime.
Click to expand...
That's part of the appeal for supporters. It doesn't have to be enforced consistently or often. It simply has to prosecuted a few times for it to have a chilling effect on gun ownership in general.
 
I was at my LGS today. He has no new papwerwork yest from the state of Washington. He has callet the State Attorney Generals Office and has been directed to do the same as he was doing before this mess passed. He is not planning on doing any personal transfers. He has a few customers that were not in possession of a CCW and has not heard back yet to see if there will be any difference with these transfers.
 
At the Olympia gun rights rally this weekend, quite a few folks were openly passing long guns between themselves, calling them an illegal transfer subject to misdemeanor and felony arrests. The WSP observed the event, and a WSP spokesman stated that such transfers 'did not rise to the level' of illegality, so we'll see what happens in the months ahead once a sitting judge is called on to interpret just what the law means and doesn't mean.
 
Understanding law

A challenge in the court depends on the judge. Having worked in a law office for years I have seen the importance in foundation law go by the wayside. The success of an argument no longer depends on the Constitution, previous cases, the facts or who's bringing the case...it depends on the ideology of the judge and who is pulling his strings.
After all, Oswald did not kill JFK, there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident and Osama (most likely) had little to do with 9/11. When those who pull the strings decide the American citizen will no longer be allowed to own a gun...it will happen.
All one has to do to understand 9/11 is understand the destruction of WTC7 and in the same sense to understand the court system all one has to do is understand Judge John Roberts and his two decisions on Obamacare.
 
Uh...ok...
While I agree that far to many people, including judges, are prone to confirmation bias and deciding based on their values rather than the facts at hand, I think we can and should leave out the Vast Right Wing, Vast Left Wing, JFK, Vietnam, and 9/11 conspiracy theories...(maybe UFO conspiracies, too!)
 
As I understand it, Va. has reversed its stand on not recognizing reciprocity with other states as of Jan 29, 2016.
Both GOP and DEM parties in the State of Virginia have agreed to this.

IMHO, we responsible gun holders will have to face the facts that there will be changes made to permit and carry laws eventually. Hopefully, they will all be good for all.
Doc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top