Initiatives 594 and 591

[turkeyfeather]

  A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill.  Makes a pair of felons at a time.

See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.

Here is the text from the bill...

Definitions:
"Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment

including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.   

the Act provides:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 3.  A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW

to read as follows:

(1) 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.   
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.         

(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.

(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:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the  firearm  from  the  business  premises  of  the  licensed  dealer  while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.  Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete


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;

<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.

(f)   The temporary transfer of a firearm
 
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;

(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;

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or

(v) while  hunting  if  the  hunting  is  legal  in  all  places  where  the
person  to  whom  the  firearm  is  transferred  possesses  the  firearm  and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)).  If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG.  the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)

Maybe you want to be the test case?  I dont.

Your wrong because a transfer by definition is a change of ownership. What you are referring to is borrowing, not a transfer. Secondly, even if you were right a first offense does not make you a felon. Again, inform people of the truths and problems with the bill. There is no need to exaggerate to make it sound worse, it's already bad enough.

[ghosthunter]

  A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill.  Makes a pair of felons at a time.

See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.

Here is the text from the bill...

Definitions:
"Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment

including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.   

the Act provides:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 3.  A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW

to read as follows:

(1) 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.   
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.         

(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.

(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:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the  firearm  from  the  business  premises  of  the  licensed  dealer  while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.  Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete


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;

<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.

(f)   The temporary transfer of a firearm
 
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;

(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;

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or

(v) while  hunting  if  the  hunting  is  legal  in  all  places  where  the
person  to  whom  the  firearm  is  transferred  possesses  the  firearm  and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)).  If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG.  the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)

Maybe you want to be the test case?  I dont.

Your wrong because a transfer by definition is a change of ownership. What you are referring to is borrowing, not a transfer. Secondly, even if you were right a first offense does not make you a felon. Again, inform people of the truths and problems with the bill. There is no need to exaggerate to make it sound worse, it's already bad enough.

Soooo in your opinion,

If my buddy stops by work and picks up my shotgun for two days from me.
Am I guilty.

Or

If I am in a gravel pit shooting and hand my buddy my gun to shoot.
Am I guilty ?

[turkeyfeather]

  A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill.  Makes a pair of felons at a time.

See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.

Here is the text from the bill...

Definitions:
"Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment

including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.   

the Act provides:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 3.  A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW

to read as follows:

(1) 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.   
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.         

(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.

(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:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the  firearm  from  the  business  premises  of  the  licensed  dealer  while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.  Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete


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;

<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.

(f)   The temporary transfer of a firearm
 
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;

(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;

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or

(v) while  hunting  if  the  hunting  is  legal  in  all  places  where  the
person  to  whom  the  firearm  is  transferred  possesses  the  firearm  and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)).  If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG.  the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)

Maybe you want to be the test case?  I dont.

Your wrong because a transfer by definition is a change of ownership. What you are referring to is borrowing, not a transfer. Secondly, even if you were right a first offense does not make you a felon. Again, inform people of the truths and problems with the bill. There is no need to exaggerate to make it sound worse, it's already bad enough.

Soooo in your opinion,

If my buddy stops by work and picks up my shotgun for two days from me.
Am I guilty.

Or

If I am in a gravel pit shooting and hand my buddy my gun to shoot.
Am I guilty ?

No idea, I was addressing a different issue. The whole problem with this whole initative is that it is open to way to much gray area interpretation. Even if it passes it will be held up in the courts for clarification for years probably.

[hughjorgan]

I bet you would be guilty on both. There is an exception if you are at an ESTABLISHED SHOOTING RANGE, which a gravel pit is not. And as far as loaning a gun to a friend their is no exemption listed for that. Guilty on both incidents.

[ghosthunter]

Yep that's what I thought.

[turkeyfeather]

That was my first inclination as well. But without a definition of what is an established gun range is who knows. Could it be a gravel pit if it has been well established over the years to be a shooting area.    That's why I said there is way to many unknowns. I honestly don't think prosecutors are going to wanna touch this without a lot of clearing up. The last thing they want is to have a case appealled to and overturned by the supreme court. That could be a career killer for them.

[snowpack]

I got the impression it was for the indoor ranges or the outdoor ones that have staff members.

[hughjorgan]

I got the impression it was for the indoor ranges or the outdoor ones that have staff members.

  what comes to my mind is brick and mortar. They probably didn't even consider people shooting in the woods.

[Jacque]

The biggest issue with this bill (I-594) is it's trying tie every background checked ower with a registered gun.  Not at all what the tile implies.  Again look at NY and see where that leads.  Next thing you know you get a map of all gun owners posted on the local news.

[woodswalker]

I bet you would be guilty on both. There is an exception if you are at an ESTABLISHED SHOOTING RANGE, which a gravel pit is not. And as far as loaning a gun to a friend their is no exemption listed for that. Guilty on both incidents.

Hughjorgan, Turkeyfeather, Bradslam et al

That is EXACTLY what I am getting at.  I'm CERTAIN that in King Co. with a VERY anti-gun prosecutorial staff, you would be at the very least CHARGED with. Do a VERY cold and calculating reading with an eye to WHAT YOU CAN, again CAN charge someone with.  Turkeyfeather...if you think for one cold second that certain prosecutors wouldnt charge you in the scenarios listed above, you have NOT been paying attention.  Seattle has more than once bucked ESTABLISHED law in trying to override both the state and national Constitution.  You want to take the ride on that bronco?

As i mentioned earlier...I sure as heck do not want to be the test case, as i think it will be LONG and UGLY...and what guns you DO have at the outset...will be LONG gone by the time its settled, along with your career, income and retirement.  THEN you can sue TPTB to try to have a life again.  No thank you.  I'd rather make you all a bit uncomfortable NOW when there is a ghost of a chance to NOT have to do it thorugh the courts. 

As an aside...looking at the Supreme Courts does not give me a warm fuzzy either.  In sum, the recent rulings seem to go the way that "if its NOT an EGREGIOUS 2nd A violation, but a paperwork/process violation, we will not step in or overturn.  2A is NOT on solid ground with this court and I'm not willing to bet my career, family heirlooms and the possibility of not being able to hunt/shoot/defend myself with a firearm to prove that some rich liberal are wrong.

Turkeyfeather...go back and re-read what i posted and find the the places where it is WRITTEN that the described scenarios are LEGAL or EXEMPTED.  If its not WRITTEN its not THERE.  Look again at the revised  definition of transfer and then look from a cold, legal standpoint...not the "they REALLY DONT MEAN THAT" standpoint, because I assure you that the deep pockets sponsors REALLY DO MEAN THAT.  Do your research.  See what Hanauer et all have supported in the past....read between the fine and high-minded lines and see what they really mean.  READ the regislation with a jaundiced and skeptical eye.

[woodswalker]

The biggest issue with this bill (I-594) is it's trying tie every background checked ower with a registered gun.  Not at all what the tile implies.  Again look at NY and see where that leads.  Next thing you know you get a map of all gun owners posted on the local news.

Exactly what i posted earlier about lists, social networks and finding WHO has the guns.

[turkeyfeather]

I would invite you to do the same Wood. You go back and show me where it says that if you hand a gun over to a buddy (while in your garage or whatever) to look at that that is breaking the law and an arrestable offense. To your other point about the prosecutors. I honestly cannot attest to King county as I have no experience with them. I can say that on this side of the state I don't believe there are many if any that would touch it unless it was a clear violation as described in the initiative. Don't get me wrong, I in no way support this. I just don't see it being so black and white as you do. 

[snowpack]

So in the intro text for 594 it says the goal is to prevent certain people from obtaining firearms---felons, domestic abusers and dangerously mentally ill.  For felons and domestic abusers there are records available.  But for dangerously mentally ill, what is going to be used to filter them out?  I thought doctor-patient confidentiality and 5th amendment protected the mental ill from having to reveal their status.  I think it was even reinforced by some of the language in Obamacare, that doctors/healthcare providers couldn't provide info specifically when it applied to guns/gunowners.  So will 594 advocates claim state's rights under the 10th amendment?  Or just exempt the mentally ill?  Will they have to give every potential buyer a mental screening or just have a questionnaire with a list of illnesses with some being labeled as dangerous? 

[pianoman9701]

The Ouzi incident in AZ isn't helping us at all. Although it has literally nothing to do with universal background checks, it's helping to drive the debate in that direction. Sorry for that kid. That RSO died an idiot. 

[bradslam]

I bet you would be guilty on both. There is an exception if you are at an ESTABLISHED SHOOTING RANGE, which a gravel pit is not. And as far as loaning a gun to a friend their is no exemption listed for that. Guilty on both incidents.

Hughjorgan, Turkeyfeather, Bradslam et al

That is EXACTLY what I am getting at.  I'm CERTAIN that in King Co. with a VERY anti-gun prosecutorial staff, you would be at the very least CHARGED with. Do a VERY cold and calculating reading with an eye to WHAT YOU CAN, again CAN charge someone with.  Turkeyfeather...if you think for one cold second that certain prosecutors wouldnt charge you in the scenarios listed above, you have NOT been paying attention.  Seattle has more than once bucked ESTABLISHED law in trying to override both the state and national Constitution.  You want to take the ride on that bronco?

As i mentioned earlier...I sure as heck do not want to be the test case, as i think it will be LONG and UGLY...and what guns you DO have at the outset...will be LONG gone by the time its settled, along with your career, income and retirement.  THEN you can sue TPTB to try to have a life again.  No thank you.  I'd rather make you all a bit uncomfortable NOW when there is a ghost of a chance to NOT have to do it thorugh the courts. 

As an aside...looking at the Supreme Courts does not give me a warm fuzzy either.  In sum, the recent rulings seem to go the way that "if its NOT an EGREGIOUS 2nd A violation, but a paperwork/process violation, we will not step in or overturn.  2A is NOT on solid ground with this court and I'm not willing to bet my career, family heirlooms and the possibility of not being able to hunt/shoot/defend myself with a firearm to prove that some rich liberal are wrong.

Turkeyfeather...go back and re-read what i posted and find the the places where it is WRITTEN that the described scenarios are LEGAL or EXEMPTED.  If its not WRITTEN its not THERE.  Look again at the revised  definition of transfer and then look from a cold, legal standpoint...not the "they REALLY DONT MEAN THAT" standpoint, because I assure you that the deep pockets sponsors REALLY DO MEAN THAT.  Do your research.  See what Hanauer et all have supported in the past....read between the fine and high-minded lines and see what they really mean.  READ the regislation with a jaundiced and skeptical eye.

Since you mentioned my name, I thought I would respond.  All over this thread, I see people complaining how poorly written and full of flaws this initiative is.  That is exactly what I am talking about.  If you are not part of the process, this is what you will end up with.  I guess I'm a realist, but we are in the minority and as more and more of these shooting incidents happen, the public will want some kind of change.  I will say it again: I would rather be at the table and have some input on the changes that are inevitable, than have poorly written laws that are crammed down our throat and cause a greater inconvenience for gun owners.