The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 23, 2014, 12:38 AM   #126
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,055
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 23, 2014, 01:49 AM   #127
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
How does this law apply for shooting ranges which rent firearms for customers to shoot at their range?
__________________
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
jimpeel is offline  
Old November 23, 2014, 01:51 AM   #128
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
Some good news on the museum front.

One of the driving factors of the museum I mentioned in post #121 is the cost of having to do background checks to return the property to the rightful owners. A gun shop has stepped up and will do the background checks for free.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/23...h-new-gun-law/
__________________
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
jimpeel is offline  
Old November 24, 2014, 09:51 AM   #129
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpeel
How does this law apply for shooting ranges which rent firearms for customers to shoot at their range?
Here's what the law says, with my emphasis in boldface:
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-594
(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...
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?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; November 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM.
carguychris is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 08:59 PM   #130
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 264
Quote:
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.
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?
TDL is offline  
Old November 27, 2014, 10:27 AM   #131
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,055
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 27, 2014, 11:17 AM   #132
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,270
Quote:
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.
The gunsmithing provision is problematic. Section 4(e) exempts,

Quote:
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
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?

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2014, 11:40 PM   #133
hartcreek
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,549
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.
hartcreek is offline  
Old December 14, 2014, 10:07 PM   #134
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
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.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old April 1, 2015, 01:01 PM   #135
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,719
Not sure if it's posted anywhere, but it's happening in oregon now.
rickyrick is offline  
Old October 14, 2015, 09:18 PM   #136
Finianmac
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Location: Deep South
Posts: 8
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.
Finianmac is offline  
Old October 15, 2015, 04:50 PM   #137
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,824
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!)
raimius is offline  
Old October 16, 2015, 03:43 PM   #138
Mosin-Marauder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
Get 'yer tin foil hats here, folks!
__________________
Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history!
K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS.
"You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..."
William Tecumseh Sherman
Mosin-Marauder is offline  
Old October 18, 2015, 06:57 PM   #139
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finianmac
All one has to do to understand 9/11 is understand the destruction of WTC7
Uh, it burned for 7 hours without being fought because there was no water to put it out and everyone was out of it?
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old February 7, 2016, 07:42 PM   #140
Doc Holliday 1950
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2014
Location: Bout as south as it gets
Posts: 1,090
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
Doc Holliday 1950 is offline  
Old April 18, 2016, 02:34 PM   #141
Shenna9220
Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2016
Location: Zephyrhills,Fl
Posts: 72
A lot of talk throughout this thread about gun registration but in reality anyone with a CCP has already volunteered into a user registration. I know that most of the States CCP laws has privacy built in, but there is nothing to keep the data from being mis-used by another State. Maryland can take your tag number, get your drivers license which is cross-indexed to your states CCP database. Then use that information as justification to stop you and search your car. Case in point, a Tampa, Fl CCP holder returning from Jersey on Jan. 1st 2015. There is no Federal Law that that I know of that protects this information. So what makes anyone think the Fed's would or already have done the same. Makes me wonder if I will renew mine when the time comes, but I won't be driving through or visiting Maryland ever!
Shenna9220 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10185 seconds with 8 queries