|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 8, 2014, 04:21 PM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
Make no mistake Oregon is going to face this soon. Our election voted in every single anti gun senator except 1. We already voted down UBChecks prior election.... And every senator that supported that was voted back in this election..... Oregon gun owners failed as bad as Washington did......
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
November 9, 2014, 10:41 PM | #102 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Gavin Seim is organizing a rally to protest the new law.
http://callmegav.com/ral Quote:
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
||
November 9, 2014, 10:50 PM | #103 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
First, how does this "break apart the entire legislation?" The law's still going into effect. More to the point, it won't be effective at the time of the demonstration, so the actions of this group aren't really civil disobedience. Second, how likely is it that onlookers are going to understand the point of the demonstration? They're just going to see a bunch of folks shuffling guns among themselves. Third, the "no gun laws are constitutional" tack may be philosophically correct, but it runs counter to modern jurisprudence and public perception. Washington voters elected to pass I-594. That means they're not likely to be persuaded by unilateral, absolutist arguments. The SAF and NRA are already drafting legal challenges. Let's leave this to folks who know what they're doing.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 9, 2014, 11:03 PM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
i594 non resident implications
I have a non resident Wa. CHL and travel them occasionally...
What I am wondering is what are, or are possible, implications for non residents lawfully traveling with guns in Wa. once the law takes effect? One scenario is if while visiting the group decides to go someplace where guns are illegal, such as all bars in Washington regardless of CHL. So If I "leave" my gun at someones home, will that be an illegal transfer? Another possible scenario is if while traveling say I get into an accident and must go to the hospital.... who takes the gun lawfully? Im assuming that as a non resident I'm still subject to transfers under state laws so I cant just unload it lock it for proper interstate travel and let my wife take it home, that would be a transfer.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
November 10, 2014, 10:30 PM | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2011
Posts: 231
|
Koda, for scenario 1, leaving it another's house would likely be a transfer...and as such, illegal. It's one of the SERIOUS problems I have with this legislation. But what about another scenario: I'm carrying and need to enter an establishment where I cannot be armed (school, open carrying in a bank, courthouse, bar) and a friend is driving. If I leave the gun in his car, is THAT a transfer?
For the hospital issue - it's one I already posted a few pages back. There is no answer I know of yet. The rent-a-cops at hopsitals, as I understand things in the RCW, have no force of law, beyond things like being able to carry a folding baton otherwise illegal. 594 exempts law enforcement officers and corrections agencies. Neither of those two categories include private security people. So disarming at a hospital to receive care might well be a misdemeanor/felony. But what about shipping a gun? Can I drop off my gun in a package to otherwise LEGALLY ship it using fedex 2nd day air? Or is that a transfer too? If I can't ship the firearm, am I able to sue the state for infringing on my 2A rights? It's the only way I've been able to figure out to get standing without ACTUALLY violating 594. |
November 11, 2014, 12:53 AM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
RampantAndroid, thanks for the help. I'm still scratching my head trying to understand it all.
Heres an interesting flow chart I came upon regarding 594. it includes citations to the relevant parts of the law. https://i.imgur.com/QLMj1Em.png
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
November 11, 2014, 07:35 PM | #107 |
Member
Join Date: October 15, 2014
Posts: 15
|
I am a WA resident and I will not comply with this new law.
I will continue to enjoy my guns AND my friends guns as I see fit... and I can not imagine any LE's in my state raising a finger to enforce this farce. I will also put that to the test the next time I serve RSO duty at my gun club by making sure I fondle another members handgun in plain sight of one our many LEO members... Should be interesting. Tack |
November 11, 2014, 09:56 PM | #108 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Good Luck Tackleberry1 and thanks for volunteering to be a test case!
Just be sure to wait until the law is in effect. And please, just handle, don't fondle.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 13, 2014, 10:52 AM | #109 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Dealers in jeopardy...?
Another thing has been bugging me about the law, and I feel it deserves its own write-up.
My emphasis in boldface and notes in [brackets]: Quote:
Furthermore... Quote:
Hence... Quote:
Sec. 3(3)(d) says that the licensed dealer "...shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor", although it does NOT clearly address situations where this cannot be done because the seller or transferor failed the background check himself. A Form 4473 and NICS check are required under federal law before a firearm may be returned, as presumably known to anyone who has changed their mind about a consignment firearm and/or gotten a firearm out of hock. However, this puts Sec. 3(3)(d) in conflict with both federal law AND Sec. 3(3)(b), so this provision may be unenforceable. Only Sec. 3(3)(e) is clearly discretionary, as it says that the dealer "may" charge a fee. Here's the kicker: Quote:
AND... Quote:
If the dealer manages to keep his license after the misdemeanor conviction, the dealer potentially faces a FELONY charge for the SECOND paperwork violation. Not sure I'd want to process these transactions if I were a WA FFL!!
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 13, 2014 at 06:26 PM. Reason: reword, stuff added |
|||||
November 13, 2014, 01:21 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
From carguy:
"Not sure I'd want to process these transactions if I were a WA FFL!! " That's an unintended consequence to the anti's benefit and agenda. Less, or no more, transfers. Legally anyway. And again, how can they enforce this for guns made prior to the new law? |
November 13, 2014, 01:38 PM | #111 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
But if the last time the gun was officially transferred was before the law went into effect, then it's pretty hard to prove that the gun wasn't sold before I-594 required a background check and record of sale.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
November 13, 2014, 02:07 PM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
My understanding is that the state maintains a handgun PURCHASE database, but it's not a comprehensive and compulsive registry; please correct me if I'm wrong!
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 13, 2014, 03:13 PM | #113 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
When buying a long gun from a dealer there's no paperwork or records beyond the federal requirements (the 4473 and the FBI NICS check), but when buying a handgun from a dealer you also fill out a WA pistol form with all the information regarding that specific gun and the buyer's personal information, and that form is faxed to the buyer's local law enforcement agency (there's also a waiting period for a handgun if the buyer doesn't have a CPL, and during that waiting period the local law enforcement agency does the background check instead of the dealer doing it). These state handgun transfer records aren't supposed to be used as a handgun registry, but I've talked to more than one LEO who said they do have access to a list of what handguns someone has bought in this state. However, since -- until now -- private sales were legal and simply had to conform with federal law, there was no way to track guns that were privately sold, and there was no requirement for anyone to ever document information pertaining to a private sale.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
November 14, 2014, 05:13 PM | #114 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2014
Posts: 1
|
FFL 03?
As a Washington State resident, one question I have not been able to determine is: Do my C&R eligible purchases now have to go through an FFL 01 for a "background check"? I didn't see where I594 specifically addresses these types of transactions. As an aside, this election absolutely proved that when a group of the richest people on the planet want something, truth becomes meaningless.
|
November 14, 2014, 05:31 PM | #115 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
The question hadn't occurred to me until you raised it, but this does look like something that would invalidate the advantage of a C&R license in Washington.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
November 15, 2014, 07:49 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
TDDave, I've been questioning C&R issues with this new law for some weeks. As far as I can tell, our FFL03s are now null and void, except for the requirements to log items in and out.
I don't recall seeing an exemption for antiques, either. I would not want to be the FFL01 or 03 who ships a C&R to a 03 licensee and is found out to have done so. |
November 15, 2014, 10:09 PM | #117 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
November 17, 2014, 12:07 PM | #118 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Re: C&R licensees...
Quote:
However, I think there may be two minor caveats. To quote the first section of I-594 (my emphasis in boldface)... Quote:
This wording suggests that two specific types of transfer MAY be exempt from the UBC requirement:
I personally wouldn't engage in these types of transactions until the State of WA clarifies the status of an 03 FFL under I-594. More specifically, the viability of caveat #1 likely hinges on whether the WA AG and courts manage to apply the "in part" clause to a WA collector based simply on his state of residence and/or his physical location when the transaction is initiated, e.g. using his home computer to bid on GB. (I wouldn't want to be the test case. )
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM. Reason: minor reword, info added |
||
November 17, 2014, 02:30 PM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 519
|
What really upset me about this law is I used to do most of my shooting in Washington. Now that it is illegal to hand a firearm to a friend, family member or my wife, I don't even want to go. How can people not see how ridiculous that is? How do you even get by that? You have to go to the range with guns you bought and only you can shoot them? Complete control over YOUR property.
__________________
A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 |
November 17, 2014, 03:57 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Museums...
Another thing that's been bugging me... this law potentially makes it VERY cumbersome for a museum to display firearms, unless the organization uses impregnable display cases, they obtain an 01, 02, or 07 FFL, and they dutifully list every staffer with access to the keys as a "Responsible Person"- steps I can't imagine many museums taking, particularly on the small-scale community level.
Take note that the law's definition of "Antique"- discussed by Tom in post #117 and myself in post #50- is essentially the narrower NFA definition rather than the broader 68 GCA definition, and thus does NOT encompass pre-1899 fixed-cartridge firearms that accept commercially available ammunition.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM. Reason: reword |
November 17, 2014, 11:31 PM | #121 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2014
Posts: 2
|
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.
|
November 18, 2014, 01:31 AM | #122 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
November 18, 2014, 01:39 AM | #123 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2014
Posts: 2
|
Section (4) is the list of exceptions. (4)(f) is the list of temporary transfer exceptions. The first one listed (i) is "between spouses or domestic partners"
(4) This section does not apply to: (a) ... (f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (from http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/...alText_483.pdf) |
November 20, 2014, 12:21 PM | #124 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
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 Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
November 22, 2014, 11:07 PM | #125 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 519
|
One of my main concerns with this law is my inability to go to a shooting range in Washington and shoot my friends guns. I have a link here that says his is false. Can you shed some light on the true answer.
http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/Was....html?mobile=y
__________________
A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 |
|
|