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

[RampantAndroid]

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"?

[JimDandy]

(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;

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.

[RampantAndroid]

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.

[Bart Noir]

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.

[Tom Servo]

Obviously, the woods is going to be a "no one is looking" type thing for many people.

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.

[44 AMP]

"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 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...

[Koda94]

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/politi...ws-in-olympia/

[Gearmoe]

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.

[steve4102]

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)

http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governin..._in_Washington

[JimDandy]

How do you think it covers more than the subject of firearms transfers?

[Tom Servo]

I-594 isn't the end of it, either. Sandy Brown, President of the Center for Gun Responsibility, had this to say:

We are here this morning to announce that we are not packing up our tents, claiming victory and going home. Yesterday’s victory is just the beginning.

From Rep. Ruth Kagi:

I really do think the vote last night will make people more comfortable with the reasonable need for more gun-safety laws.

[44 AMP]

I was at the Spokane gun show last weekend, and there was a PA announcement about 594, and how,if it passed, they would be working with the Spokane Sheriff for guidance (once the Sheriff gets his marching orders), and they would then tell us how things would work.

Promised the rest of the shows this year would be held as usual.

Now I'm wondering how long we have to wait before the law here says we cannot buy a Big Gulp....

[2ndsojourn]

"...more gun-safety laws."


Don't you love it when they advance their agenda with the safety smokescreen when it has nothing to do with safety.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

How do you think it covers more than the subject of firearms transfers?

Duno, It covers Purchases, but it also covers Non-purchase transfers, such as loans, repairs, hunting and redefines the term Transfer.

That's why I asked the question, is this enough to violate the single subject rule.

[JimDandy]

I doubt it, as the subject is firearms transfers, not purchases, and loans, and this and that. Transfers is probably a single subject.

[cjwils]

I am no expert, but in order to take legal action to attempt to invalidate a law, don't you have to show a court that the law has harmed you? If so, how would you do that other than getting yourself arrested for something like a transfer to a friend without going through an FFL? Could you claim that the expense and delay of going through an FFL is itself harmful? That would be a stretch, since we already go through an FFL for plenty of transactions.

[JimDandy]

What you're talking about sounds like "standing"

Let's say there's a 51'st state admitted to the Union called Rainbows and Unicorn Land. They require a FOID style permit to even touch a firearm. They won't issue these cards to non-residents. Any non-resident who plans to go there - and I'm not sure but I think that's an important part of it but not sure - is harmed by the prohibition on 2A rights before they even get on the plane. They have at least two rights involved here-

They want to travel to another State in the Union (How they travel may not be a right, but traveling there however they do is a right)

They want to exercise their second amendment rights while there.

I'm no legal expert either, but as I understand it you generally can't be forced to trade one right (2A) for another (Travel). Being forced to choose between them is the harm., whether you are arrested or not.

I think that's the basics, or at least close to them, but if not I suspect Frank, Spats, or another of the real lawyers will come in and correct/expand on that.

[Spats McGee]

If you want to know more about standing, go find Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. (Not sure about the second half of the name, but "Lujan" should be right.)

[JimDandy]

First, now that it's passed, does anyone know when it actually goes live?
Edit Nevermind, looks like all initiatives take effect 30 days after the election, unless they state otherwise.

What do the lawyers in here think of this exemption:

(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents,
children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,
first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;

Specifically, limiting it to bona fide gift. For me, that's one of the biggest individual problems with the initiative. The fact that Grandpa can give little Johnny a rifle (almost anywhere), but can't let him JUST handle it(almost anywhere)?

I can't come up with any scenario where the government's interests are served by banning a temporary transfer, but not a permanent one between the same two people. Is there a scenario I'm failing to consider? How would they defend/explain why they're worried about Grandpa showing Johnny how to hold it, but not Grandpa giving it to him for his birthday.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

I can't come up with any scenario where the government's interests are served by banning a temporary transfer, but not a permanent one between the same two people... How would they defend/explain why they're worried about Grandpa showing Johnny how to hold it, but not Grandpa giving it to him for his birthday.

I think that the same logic applies to the exemption for temporary transfers that applies "while hunting" but NOT at the lodge. What government interest is possibly served by allowing John to handle Kate's new rifle while afield, but not while they're relaxing after dinner?

[Tom Servo]

What government interest is possibly served by allowing John to handle Kate's new rifle while afield, but not while they're relaxing after dinner?

There will be claims that the interest is public safety. That'll be the argument they'll use to defend against a court challenge.

In reality, the only interest is in curtailing gun ownership.

Bloomberg's spokespeople are claiming that state ballot referendums are the way to go. I'm hearing rumors that Nevada is the next target state for this.

[Kimio]

This is just positively disgusting. I don't even live in WA, and this whole ordeal makes me want to just vomit.

I really hope this "law" can be challenged and modified at the very least. A few friends of mine said the NRA was virtually silent the entire time Bloomberg and crew were dumping funds into the advertising propaganda campaign.

Makes me wonder what in the world they were doing, since this as such a high profile law, it should have been right up their on the radar.

[steve4102]

The NRA dumped almost a half a million into this cause and nobody gave a crap.

Voter turn out was about 36%. Don't blame the NRA because the Gun Owners of WA stayed home on election day. The gun owners in WA are to blame and nobody else.

[RampantAndroid]

While I agree this is in part due to gun owners, it's also the fact that the 594 people had ads plastered on TV 24/7.

Someone over on AR15.com contacted the NRA-ILA and was told they didn't want to compete with the 10mil dumped into 594 and would rather challenge it in court.

[Tom Servo]

While I agree this is in part due to gun owners, it's also the fact that the 594 people had ads plastered on TV 24/7.

Yep, and most of those ads promised a bill that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and stop school shootings, all with minimal imposition on the RKBA.

The reality is far worse. Washington Arms Collectors has a rundown on the bill here. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people are going to find themselves in serious legal trouble in the first year.

Someone over on AR15.com contacted the NRA-ILA and was told they didn't want to compete with the 10mil dumped into 594 and would rather challenge it in court.

Hopefully that's the case. If so, they'll be able to make a big impact with less expenditure. I'd like to know what grounds they'll be suing on.