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

[Koda94]

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......

[motorhead0922]

Gavin Seim is organizing a rally to protest the new law.

http://callmegav.com/ral

Date: 12/13/14
Time: 11am
Location: WA State Capital, Gateway Park. 416 Sid Snyder Ave SW Olympia, WA

On Dec 13th we will hold our first rally at the capital, openly exchange guns, unveil and plan to break apart the entire legislation and violate i594 in every possible way. Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!

[Tom Servo]

On Dec 13th we will hold our first rally at the capital, openly exchange guns, unveil and plan to break apart the entire legislation and violate i594 in every possible way. Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!

OK, there are a few problems here.

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.

[Koda94]

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.

[RampantAndroid]

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.

[Koda94]

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

[Tackleberry1]

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

[44 AMP]

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.

[carguychris]

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]:

Originally Posted by I-594

Sec. 2. RCW 9.41.010 and 2013 c 183 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in
this section apply throughout this chapter.

(13) "Licensed dealer" means a person who is federally licensed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a).

(17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.

(26) "Unlicensed person" means any person who is not a licensed dealer under this chapter.

[Other definitions omitted for brevity]

Note that the definition for "unlicensed person" clearly excludes a "licensed dealer", but the same is NOT true for the term "person" without the "unlicensed" qualifier.

Furthermore...

Originally Posted by I-594

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.

Sec. 3(2)(a) clearly implies that a "licensed dealer" is a "person".

Hence...

Originally Posted by I-594

[Sec. 3 continued]

(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:

[Subsection (a) omitted, already discussed]

(b) Except as provided in (a) of this subsection, the licensed dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law that would apply if the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, including but not limited to conducting a background check on the prospective purchaser or transferee in accordance with federal and state law requirements and fulfilling all federal and state recordkeeping requirements.

[Subsection (c) omitted, already discussed]

(d) If the results of the background check indicate that the purchaser or transferee is ineligible to possess a firearm, then the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor.

(e) The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm.

Sec. 3(3)(b) says that the "the licensed dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law... including... fulfilling all federal and state recordkeeping requirements."

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:

Originally Posted by I-594

Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended. In addition, the department of licensing shall report any violation of this chapter by a licensed dealer to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives within the United States department of justice and shall have the authority, after notice and a hearing, to revoke the license of any licensed dealer found to be in violation of this chapter.

The law gives the Dept. of Licensing the authority to take away the dealer's license, and does not clearly prescribe the number of violations that must occur before this can happen.

AND...

Originally Posted by I-594

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.

The dealer is a "person", and Sec. 3 imposes duties on licensed dealers, thus a dealer could potentially be charged with a gross misdemeanor AND have his license taken away for the FIRST paperwork violation related to a private transfer. Although the dealer is entitled to a hearing before her license is revoked, and can contest the misdemeanor charge in court, the court costs are likely to be burdensome even if the case is ultimately dismissed.

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!!

[2ndsojourn]

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?

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn

And again, how can they enforce this for guns made prior to the new law?

It's not necessarily unenforceable if the gun was made before the law takes effect, but only if its last transfer was before then. If the cops want to try and charge someone, they need to determine who actually owns the gun, and the only way to do that is to trace it back to the last dealer who sold it. If it's a handgun it's a little easier because the state gets involved and requires a separate handgun transfer form to be faxed to local law enforcement, so the state does have a record of each handgun sale by any dealer in the state.

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.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Theohazard

If [the transfer is for] a handgun it's a little easier because the state gets involved and requires a separate handgun transfer form to be faxed to local law enforcement, so the state does have a record of each handgun sale by any dealer in the state.

Theo, since you're in WA and you're presumably more familiar with the local laws than I am, what happens if someone brings a personal handgun from out-of-state?

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!

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by carguychris

Theo, since you're in WA and you're presumably more familiar with the local laws than I am, what happens if someone brings a personal handgun from out-of-state?

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!

Correct. When i moved to WA I brought my handguns and long guns and I didn't have to register them or anything; as soon as I arrived here they were legal.

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.

[TaildragginDave]

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.

[Tom Servo]

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.

It doesn't address them directly, but it doesn't exempt them either:

The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.

The problem is the requirement for a background check, which has to be done by a Type 1 or 2 FFL.

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.

[kilimanjaro]

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.

[Tom Servo]

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.

Upon further reading, that appears to be the case. According to the law,

Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques.

OK. So what's an antique?

(...) a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

That pretty much invalidates everything.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

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 addressed this issue in post #50, and unfortunately, I have to basically agree. As detailed in my prior post, a C&R licensee / 03 FFL / licensed collector is not permitted to "engage in... business" under federal law, and thus IMHO is not encompassed in the definition of "licensed dealer" under I-594.

However, I think there may be two minor caveats. To quote the first section of I-594 (my emphasis in boldface)...

Originally Posted by I-594

All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.

An interstate transfer of a C&R firearm to a licensed collector is not normally subject to a BC under federal law, although the recipient's state laws may require one. Furthermore, the quoted passage says that the law applies when the "...the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington...", and NOT necessarily if/when the relevant party RESIDES in WA.

This wording suggests that two specific types of transfer MAY be exempt from the UBC requirement:

1. A lawful interstate C&R transfer, involving a licensed WA collector, that physically occurs entirely outside the boundaries of the state of WA. The UBC requirement would clearly apply to a mail-order sale in which the collector takes delivery in WA, but would not necessarily apply when a licensed WA collector personally takes possession of a C&R firearm in another state that lacks a local UBC requirement.
2. A shipment from a licensed WA collector to a licensed collector in a state that does not impose a local UBC requirement; however, in this case, I believe that the I-594 requirement to "deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer" will still apply to the WA collector on the originating end, so this caveat arguably doesn't do the WA collector much good, but at least the out-of-state recipient would not break WA law by taking possession without a BC.

THAT SAID...

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. )

[militant]

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.

[carguychris]

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.

[Evan Robinson]

There is a specific exception for your spouse in all circumstances. Family members can be "bona-fide gift"ed but not otherwise transferred.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Evan Robinson

There is a specific exception for your spouse in all circumstances.

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.

[Evan Robinson]

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)

[jimpeel]

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

[militant]

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