Great Arguments Against I-594

[Fl0und3rz]

Got you.

I-594 Exempts sales tax.

NEW SECTION.
Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 82.08 RCW to read as follows:
The tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 does not apply to the sale or transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the unlicensed persons have complied with all background check requirements of chapter 9.41 RCW.

RCW 82.08.020 Tax imposed — Retail sales
RCW 82.12.020 Use tax imposed.

It's against the law to knowingly transfer or sell a firearm to someone precluded from gun possession. There's a big difference between transferring and knowingly transferring.

The margin between "knowing" and "not knowing" is really slim, where the touchstone is "does not know or have reasonable cause to believe."  Consider the conviction of a TX man who sold to a man with a TX drivers license, who turned out to be an illegal alien.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-340596.html

WA, as with the case in TX, issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens, who are prohibited purchasers.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/idproof.html#identity

Now consider the "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)" as a prohibited purchaser.

The point is that "knowingly transfer or sell" is a distinction without a functional difference.  It is, de facto, illegal under Federal law, to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it.  The historical lack of prosecution is the only reason why so many err on the side of lax checks on a buyer.

However, taking XD2005's implications further, I would favor some sort of of extension of liability to the transferor/seller of firearms, where the transferee/purchaser was a prohibited person at the time of the transfer/sale, over I-594, as an incentive to further verify your firearm's recipient, which liability could be extinguished by CPL verification or voluntary background check.  I like the below better.

I think it would be excellent if we were able to type someone's social or other personal information into a website and get a simple yes or no without divulging any other information about that person. It would then be a first line check that could be performed when participating in a private sale. If the person were kicked out of the system, they could certainly go through the process of determining why, while the seller would know they're being responsible without creating a mess of regulation like we're looking for with I-594.

I would like the above, too.  Until then, I use CPLs as a proxy. 

[Hi-Liter]

I really don't think that we should mess with the system that WA has now. If you are really going to sell a rifle/shotgun/pistol to a complete stranger I would go to a FFL dealer and transfer it, just my opinion. I don't want to be responsible to sell a gun to someone who saw an ad and wants to purchase it. There are so many FFL dealers around that will do it.   I really don't like all the crap in 594 about transfer and that Hunter Ed classes can't supply guns to properly train their students etc. However, if this deceitful 594 passes I really can't believe it would pass thru WA courts. There is just way too much language in this bill that interfere's with a persons private affairs, search and seizure, right to bear arms, legitimate government purpose etc.  WA right to bear arms is stronger than the federal floor and that is a good thing. Our state actually has pretty good gun laws and support gun owners. But, if this thing passes it will be a legal nightmare.

VOTE NO 594

[Hi-Liter]

Corrections to my last post not "bill" should have stated "Initiative"

[pianoman9701]

Got you.

I-594 Exempts sales tax.

NEW SECTION.
Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 82.08 RCW to read as follows:
The tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 does not apply to the sale or transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the unlicensed persons have complied with all background check requirements of chapter 9.41 RCW.

RCW 82.08.020 Tax imposed — Retail sales
RCW 82.12.020 Use tax imposed.

It's against the law to knowingly transfer or sell a firearm to someone precluded from gun possession. There's a big difference between transferring and knowingly transferring.

The margin between "knowing" and "not knowing" is really slim, where the touchstone is "does not know or have reasonable cause to believe."  Consider the conviction of a TX man who sold to a man with a TX drivers license, who turned out to be an illegal alien.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-340596.html

WA, as with the case in TX, issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens, who are prohibited purchasers.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/idproof.html#identity

Now consider the "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)" as a prohibited purchaser.

The point is that "knowingly transfer or sell" is a distinction without a functional difference.  It is, de facto, illegal under Federal law, to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it.  The historical lack of prosecution is the only reason why so many err on the side of lax checks on a buyer.

However, taking XD2005's implications further, I would favor some sort of of extension of liability to the transferor/seller of firearms, where the transferee/purchaser was a prohibited person at the time of the transfer/sale, over I-594, as an incentive to further verify your firearm's recipient, which liability could be extinguished by CPL verification or voluntary background check.  I like the below better.

I think it would be excellent if we were able to type someone's social or other personal information into a website and get a simple yes or no without divulging any other information about that person. It would then be a first line check that could be performed when participating in a private sale. If the person were kicked out of the system, they could certainly go through the process of determining why, while the seller would know they're being responsible without creating a mess of regulation like we're looking for with I-594.

I would like the above, too.  Until then, I use CPLs as a proxy.

There's a huge difference.
When the rule is "knowingly", you can easily say that you were unaware someone was precluded from buying a firearm if you didn't know.  But there's no defense if the rule is that it is illegal to sell to someone who is precluded. That would mean that you'd have to check to make sure they're not, probably through a background check.

[npaull]

You're making lots of good points xd2005.

[Fl0und3rz]

There's a huge difference.

When the rule is "knowingly", you can easily say that you were unaware someone was precluded from buying a firearm if you didn't know.  But there's no defense if the rule is that it is illegal to sell to someone who is precluded. That would mean that you'd have to check to make sure they're not, probably through a background check.

Without a huge distinction.  Having "reasonable cause to believe" = knowing under Federal law. 

In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing.

That is, in effect, a de facto presumption of "knowing" based on almost any reason the feds want to cite as reasonable cause, which has the functionally equivalent consequences as if the purchaser "knowingly" sold.  How you defend yourself in the face of that presumption is by universally performing a background check, which, incidentally, is where we are today.

It is not difficult.  It's semantic, but not difficult.

[Stickerbush]

Tag

[RIVERRAT]

As the president of an association apposing I594, a hunter, gun owner and outdoorsman, I felt like I should speak up, hopefully for everyone's benefit before voting.  I have gone through this initiative at great length and these are my thoughts as presented to our membership.....

Initiative 591  preserves existing constitutional and legal protections for citizen firearm ownership. Furthermore, 591 provides for background check uniformity and compliance with current and future Federal firearm background check laws, while allowing Washington laws to change if, or when, Federal standards change. 591 does not reverse any existing background check laws. Initiative 594 is poorly written, does not comply with the Federal laws governing Federal Firearms Licensees, places an unwarranted, unreasonable and unenforceable burden upon only law abiding citizens, will result in the inadvertent criminalization of both citizens and law enforcement officers. Furthermore 594 will: • Not improve public safety because it fails to address criminal possession and use of firearms, or the access to firearms by the mentally ill, • Engender disrespect for the law by re-defining ordinary, safe recreational and shooting behaviors as crimes; the predictable result will be massive non-compliance, • Divert scarce law enforcement resources to the tracking, policing, prosecution and incarceration of ordinary good citizens who merely engage in the sharing, trading or private sale of firearms, • Damage existing firearm safety and hunting safety training programs by preventing the temporary transfer of firearms among trainers and students,  • Create criminal penalties, up to Class C felonies, for recreational sharing of firearms, temporary loan of firearms and many other ordinary non-criminal activities,  • Register all firearms which are temporarily transferred, not just those sold, thus creating a vast firearm registry in the State Department of Licensing which largely duplicates existing federally required record keeping. This registry must accommodate millions of temporary transfers each year at huge expense to the State in computer systems, employees and facilities; the multi-million dollar cost of this registry will be borne by the taxpayers with no public safety benefit.

[xd2005]

Instead of going into much detail on what my "proposal" was/is, the link where I outlined in in March 2013 can be found here. Interestingly, a few of us mentioned in the thread the possibility of a statewide initiative that would create strict background check rules...

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,120630.0.html

[pianoman9701]

That proposal looks good, at least at first glance.

[xd2005]

That proposal looks good, at least at first glance.

If I had someone other than Moeller to pitch it to, it may have actually been given a first glance. 

[lamrith]

Fireworks will now require background check.

Section 2
"(9) "Firearm" - means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder."

[Stein]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

[Fl0und3rz]

Excellent post, Riverrat.

[xd2005]

So, If I sell my car to a guy on Craigslist, should I run a background check on him to make sure he isn't a habitual drunk driver and also check to make sure he has proper liability insurance?

If he shows up and asks to take it for a test drive, do you ask to see his Drivers License and insurance or just hand him the keys?

IMHO, it's that kind of attitude, where gun owners don't seem to want to take any responsibility, claiming willful ignorance in the name of freedom and rights, that results in those rights being taken away. With rights comes responsibility, and when that responsibility is lacking, society/the government comes in and tries to legislate it, which is a very messy solution.