|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 3, 2014, 02:00 PM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 3, 2014, 02:33 PM | #27 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
November 3, 2014, 06:40 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
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. |
November 4, 2014, 10:13 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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. |
November 4, 2014, 11:42 PM | #30 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
The results aren't all in, but it doesn't look good. 60/40% in favor of I-594, 45/55% against I-591.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 5, 2014, 08:13 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Yeah, I'm pretty much hoping The Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue already has whatever legal documents they need in their print queue this morning.
As for 591, I'm not too sad to see that fail. |
November 5, 2014, 10:31 AM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 5, 2014, 10:47 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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. |
November 5, 2014, 11:42 AM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 5, 2014, 11:43 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
60/40? That can't be right. I thought 90% of people were in favor of background checks?!?
Is there a way for the firearms community to beneficially use the results of I-594 to dispel that lie? Does it matter?
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
November 5, 2014, 12:02 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
November 5, 2014, 12:07 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 5, 2014, 12:16 PM | #38 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 5, 2014, 12:32 PM | #39 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 5, 2014, 12:44 PM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 5, 2014, 01:08 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Unequal prosecution indeed. [Maybe I'm just stating the obvious.]
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 5, 2014, 01:16 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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.
|
November 5, 2014, 01:38 PM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
If someone with more knowledge of WA law wants to correct me, please do, I've been wrong before.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 5, 2014 at 01:41 PM. Reason: minor reword |
||
November 5, 2014, 01:45 PM | #44 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
[Jim, I'm not trying to intentionally pick on you. ]
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
November 5, 2014, 04:04 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 5, 2014, 04:42 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2011
Posts: 231
|
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?
|
November 5, 2014, 05:01 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
It's got a range exemption. It doesn't have a classroom or shooting on your farm or in the woods exemption.
|
November 5, 2014, 05:04 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2011
Posts: 231
|
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. |
November 5, 2014, 05:13 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
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.
|
November 5, 2014, 05:42 PM | #50 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Another kicker: Quote:
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. ) 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? 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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 5, 2014 at 05:50 PM. |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|