I-594 known & unknowns

[Windwalker]

A working list of I-594 questions and answers in one place-

 Feel free to add, sort, catalog, correct or clarify what is here so far.
Some of the unknown questions gleaned cast sufficient doubt to be included- warranting clarification 
 Hope to lay this out in a more coherent format once time allows.

Known

Regarding the purchase of firearms in another state-

Federal law § 922 TITLE 18 (b) (3)  allows you to purchase long guns in person (handguns are different, FFL-FFL) in any state, you cannot mail across state lines without utilizing a FFL licensee.

I-594 only addresses a transaction or transfer that takes place in Washington

The gist of I-594 - every transfer under goes a more extensive background check - one crux is the definition of transfer

 Hunter Education Instructors are exempt from the background check/transfer requirements for purposes of the Hunter Education Program.

 Transfers of firearms between Hunter Education Instructors and students are exempt, regardless of the age of the student, and regardless of whether the firearm is removed from a shooting range.
Students to student transfers eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption.

Regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range.

Another misconception - Loans between Family members are okay
Only applies to Gifts...not loans
(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;

LE officers are not exempt from I594 when they trade, loan, purchase or transfer firearms that are not owned by the department. 

/////Text below is still in-work for clarification///// More Knowns

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3.
Transfer - does not apply to
- spouses or domestic partners
-Immediate family members ("that is a bona fide gift")
-antique firearm
-preventing imminent death situations (temporary transfer)
-Any LEO, Corrections, U.S.Marshal, Military, National Guard or Fed. official
(acting within the course and scope of employment or official duties)
-licensed gunsmith
-at a lawful organized competition
-while participating/practicing for a performance by an organized group
-under eighteen, lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes under direct supervision
-while hunting (must have licenses)
-acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law(*) upon the death of the former owner
-acquired a pistol by operation of law(*) upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days

Unknown

There is a doubt about student-to-student transfers with a firearm not kept at the range.

There is a doubt whether WDFW is extending the LE exemption beyond statutory authority.

Definition of an ‘established, authorized shooting range’

Definition of 'established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction'

“Tax Implications of Firearms transfers” have raised more questions (use tax)

60 days from time of death must do a transfer- and pay use tax on each firearm-
Where does that information go- a registry?

Are flare guns exempt?

Definitions:
I-594
(25) "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.

ATF Rul. 2010-1

Neither the GCA nor its implementing regulations define the term “transfer.” The common legal definition of “transfer” broadly encompasses any method of disposing of an asset. A “transfer” includes any change in dominion or control of a firearm, whether temporary or permanent, commercial or noncommercial. A change in dominion or control may occur even when such change does not convey title to the firearm.

(*)OPERATION OF LAW

This term is applied to those rights which are cast upon a party by the law, without any act of his own; as the right to an estate of one who dies intestate is cast upon the heir at law by operation of law; when a lessee for life enfeoffs him in reversion, or when the lessee and lessor join in a feoffment, or when a lessee for life or years accepts a new lease or demise from the lessor there is a surrender of the first lease by operation of law.

References:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

[Russ McDonald]

He is also something to think about too.  What about hunting banquets like RMEF, NWTF, Ducks Unlimited and SCI.  They all auctions off guns.  Our NWTF banquet we play some games like turkey pluck or bingo for firearms.  Will each of us need a back ground check before getting that firearm to the game table?  Not to mention the Sportsman's Expo.  Some of the clubs raffle off firearms.  One person can get a background check and get the transfer of the firearm but that person would have to be there from open to close and everyday of the expo.  That is how I am reading the law.

[Special T]

I think some other things are important to think of as well.
You should likely write down a list of your weapons,where you purchased them, when, and if you have had your firearm "Checked" by any leo.
you should do this why your thoughts are fresh.  As the State starts closing in on your guns its a good idea to estimate what the State can know about you.
Any pistol bought from an FFL is in the handgun registry. Any new gun has a paper trial via the Nics check. If you have been popped for some kind of hunting violation it is likely that they have the serial number and make of your firearm.

Obviously this information is just for your own use, and this poorly worded legislation is just a step in further deteriorating our rights.

Likely methods of enforcement are are Stings. Your generally advertised weapons from people you dont know are a bad idea.

The other method of enforcement will be documentation. Expect more routine stops to try and get the make and model of your weapon. A paper trail over time allows you to trap/incriminate yourself.

[Windwalker]

Good points-

The powers-at-be could defuse this by defining transfer as a permanent change in dominion or control of a firearm for the purposes of I-594.

Until then the list of questions grows-
Segments of banquets, raffles, auctions and informal fund raising activities that include limited handling of firearms for event set up and pre-purchase inspection....would fall under the FFL's umbrella of control....some would not.
 
Provisions for museums/curators, professional writers, consultants and evaluators temporary possession is another area of consideration.

Cataloging all our firearms..ahhh, IF we had any...would/could possibly be daunting..pondered separation of new/old, his hers, theirs.
To acknowledge 594 propensity for abuse of power, real or perceived and limiting exposure to its proponents is a safe bet.
 

[ghosthunter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IN9GiyRzKI&feature=youtu.be

[Windwalker]

Good stuff
I like Colion Noir's videos, thanks for posting..

[mossy8352]

So I have Concealed permit with the background checks already how does this affect my rights to
1. Shoot numerous weapons at any range or private shooting area
2. Look at admire and use any hunting weapon any time I want to
3. Look at and try a friends pistol at any shooting area (not a sanctioned event)?
4. Get this draconian law repealed???
Thanks

[Windwalker]

In Harm’s Way—I594 & Law Enforcement
http://wslefia.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=I2D59420and20Law20Enforcement

Law enforcement officers, experienced at reading, interpreting and applying laws, can read the text of I594 and understand how it will affect them directly, and how irrelevant it is to crime control.

Don’t take my word for it, go to the Secretary of State’s website and read the actual text for yourself

(http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf).


Before attempting to analyze I594, you must first understand that it regulates all transfers, not just sales.

I594 very clearly and broadly defines a transfer as any movement of a firearm from one person to another, no matter how temporary, and even without any money changing hands; this law is not about firearm sales. If you take possession of a firearm for any length of time and for any reason (safekeeping, hunting, loan, recreational sharing, safety training, coaching, transport, etc.) then you have met the I594 definition of transfer.

 "(25) "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 usual way to obtain law enforcement support for an oppressive law is to grant LE officers an exemption.

Let’s take a look at the "exemption" I594 grants to LE.

Your firearm transfers are exempt from the requirement that you go through an FFL dealer (paying a fee, registering your firearms) only when, "acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties."

Clearly, while on-duty you can continue to confiscate firearms during arrest or for safekeeping, and all agency-issued firearms would appear to be exempt from this law. What about your off-duty pistol or backup gun?

Does your department require you to carry a firearm off duty? You are okay if this pistol is department issued, but if you carry a personally owned firearm of any kind then the private purchase of this firearm will fall under the requirements of I594.

This would apply to patrol rifles (often permitted by a department as an individually purchased item). Backup guns are almost always personally owned. I594 language is very clear: "within the course and scope of…employment." The course of employment would mean a transfer conducted while performing your job, and the scope of employment is limited to official actions required by your employer in order to perform your duties. I see no way that even a clever lawyer can extend this exemption to any firearm you personally purchase and use, even if most of the use is on-duty.

Why? Because that backup pistol is probably not a department-required firearm and thus is not within the scope of your employment; it is a personal choice and purchased with your own funds. LE officers are not exempt from I594 when they trade, loan, purchase or transfer firearms that are not owned by the department.

So, you'd better find an FFL dealer when you trade that fishing rig for a brother-officer’s J frame 38. If you don’t, that transaction will be a misdemeanor. Go out to the range while off-duty and try out another officer’s backup gun; now you are both criminals (probably felons since a second transfer becomes a felony).

There is no way you can stretch that "scope of employment" exemption to cover transfers of private firearms done during recreational shooting. Remember, there is nothing in the law that allows even a short, trial or recreational transfer. Maybe you will buy a patrol rifle from your brother, a family transfer, so that you can be well-equipped on duty. Sure you are going to use this rifle in the course of your official duties, but the transfer is not within the "course of employment", and your non-LE brother must transfer through an FFL dealer and you must pay the fees and taxes.

Let’s assume that you buy a gun from another officer for only law enforcement purposes; this is actually a private purchase conducted without your employer’s supervision, private funds are used, and you will continue to own this firearm when you quit or retire from this employment; therefore this transfer is regulated by I594.

Sometimes we drop our LE backup firearms off at the gunsmith for repair or tune-up. During that period you might borrow a firearm from a relative or friend, someone who cares about you and won’t hesitate to loan you a gun. Do you want to make that person a felon? If the transfer is not done through an FFL in both directions, when you take it and when you return it, then you will have criminalized your friend.
 
Brady v. Maryland is the 1963 case law stating that, "evidence affecting the credibility of the police officer as a witness may be exculpatory evidence and should be given to the defense during discovery." (Police Officer Truthfulness and the Brady Decision Jeff Noble, Commander, Irvine, California, Police Department, The Police Chief, vol. 70, no. 10, October 2003) Defense attorneys often attempt to use officer disciplinary action, policy and law violations as evidence of officer misconduct and untruthfulness.

It may be quite easy for a defense attorney to portray an officer as a felon, even if not convicted of firearm violations. A series of questions regarding the officer’s use and acquisition of firearms may establish that the officer has disregarded the laws on firearms transfers. If the arresting officer’s testimony is for a firearm violation then the questions on the officer’s own acquisition and disposal of firearms may be allowed. I594 makes officers vulnerable to Brady attacks.
 
Officers are subject to a multitude of policy requirements, and most departments will not retain an officer who has committed felonies. With the I594 law, an officer can commit these felonies within the span of a few minutes, in a single shooting session with friends, or by selling a personal firearm to a brother or sister or to another officer. Most of us realize that conviction is not required for termination; the department may reach their conclusions through an internal investigation.

You are required to answer all questions and cooperate in internal investigations and if you have failed to do the paperwork on a firearm "transfer" then you are at risk of termination based upon your own admissions. Do you think that your department will choose to ignore the commission of felony crimes by their officers? Will you lose your job and civil right to possess a firearm, among other rights, because you violated the provisions of I594?

How will you answer or testify when asked, "Have you ever, no matter how temporarily, given, loaned, shared or sold a firearm to another person without processing this through a Federally licensed firearms dealer? On how many occasions?" I believe you are more at risk than the ordinary citizen.
 
.
Links to the Washington Secretary of State’s Office for the entire text of I594 and I591:
I594— http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf
 I591— http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_471.pdf

We ask you to join us in stopping I594, and here's how you do it:

 share this information with your fellow officers, family and friends

 share this information with your law enforcement administrators
 
 take this information to your guild or union and ask for public opposition to I594 and support for I591
 become involved with the pro-I591 group, Protect Our Gun Rights, visit the page
http://wagunrights.org for details on involvement

contact Phil Shave, 360-866-8478 or Bill Burris, 253-906-3371 if you need more information or wish to request a speaker to address a group.

[Windwalker]

Cross posting this to keep relevant info localized.

AGO's non opinion -

http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=32433#.VJFQfidCYtx

Initiative 594

Once voters pass an initiative, the Attorney General’s Office plays three primary roles:

    Provide legal advice to our state agency clients that have a new or expanded role under the initiative or whose operations are affected by the initiative.
    Uphold the will of the voters and defend the initiative against lawsuits.
    Provide answers in response to a request for an AGO opinion. An opinion represents the AGO’s official interpretation on a point of law. The following people can request an opinion:

        Members of the Washington State Legislature.
        Statewide elected officials.
        Appointed heads of state agencies, boards, or commissions.
        County prosecuting attorneys.

To date, there have not been any lawsuits filed against I-594, nor has our office received any AGO opinion requests. Therefore, at this point we have no interpretations of the initiative to offer to the public beyond the text of the measure itself.

Local law enforcement and local prosecutors typically enforce and prosecute firearms laws.

 (Which is true..but reads as politically correct legalese for PUNT until the time comes the AG is forced to decipher it)


Some hot links here-
http://www.progressivestoday.com/washington-state-agencies-punt-on-new-gun-law/

[mfswallace]

Was buying a rifle from a member here so I  talked to Todd the owner of Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas about background check info and he informed me  I-594 is being challenged in court and he received a letter from the State as well as ATF postponing enforcement requirements of initiative.... 

[Windwalker]

Was buying a rifle from a member here so I  talked to Todd the owner of Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas about background check info and he informed me  I-594 is being challenged in court and he received a letter from the State as well as ATF postponing enforcement requirements of initiative.... 

 Awesome 
If you come across any details or who we need to support in this let us know.

[Knocker of rocks]

Was buying a rifle from a member here so I  talked to Todd the owner of Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas about background check info and he informed me  I-594 is being challenged in court and he received a letter from the State as well as ATF postponing enforcement requirements of initiative.... 

Why would the ATF be involved?  Probably not the state either, but local prosecutors taking that stand

[Fl0und3rz]

Was buying a rifle from a member here so I  talked to Todd the owner of Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas about background check info and he informed me  I-594 is being challenged in court and he received a letter from the State as well as ATF postponing enforcement requirements of initiative.... 

Why would the ATF be involved?  Probably not the state either, but local prosecutors taking that stand

About the only reason I think ATF would weigh in is over the clogging of their record keeping system (FFL records) with so much noise.  I594 clouds all that interstate data with so much intrastate noise.

ETA: I would also be interested in any tangible information regarding legal challenges and parties involved.

[mfswallace]

Was buying a rifle from a member here so I  talked to Todd the owner of Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas about background check info and he informed me  I-594 is being challenged in court and he received a letter from the State as well as ATF postponing enforcement requirements of initiative.... 

Why would the ATF be involved?  Probably not the state either, but local prosecutors taking that stand

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just telling you what I was told when I  inquired about making a gun purchase from a private seller... I'm ok with his answer but everyone should do what they think best 

[Knocker of rocks]

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just going off what you told us, which doesn't seem correct.

When you post  hearsay, don't be upset when it's veracity is questioned.

[mfswallace]

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just going off what you told us, which doesn't seem correct.

When you post incorrect hearsay, don't be upset when it's not true

I told you a licensed firearms dealer, Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas, told me "I have 2 letters here, 1 from the state and 1 from atf that say I-594 is in litigation and firearm sales by private individuals don't need a background check at this time." Why he would lie and miss out on an easy $35 I couldn't begin to speculate.

You interjected that it was the prosecutor not state or atf who would make the call not to enforce so your not going off what I said are you?

Like I said previously, I'm good and won't be upset with what I was told and if I make a firearms purchase through private sale I won't look to pay extra fees if not necessary. You do what makes you comfortable 

Maybe some of the licensed dealers on this site could way in if they have any knowledge one way or the other?

[Knocker of rocks]

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just going off what you told us, which doesn't seem correct.

When you post incorrect hearsay, don't be upset when it's not true

I told you a licensed firearms dealer, Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas, told me "I have 2 letters here, 1 from the state and 1 from atf that say I-594 is in litigation and firearm sales by private individuals don't need a background check at this time." Why he would lie and miss out on an easy $35 I couldn't begin to speculate.

You interjected that it was the prosecutor not state or atf who would make the call not to enforce so your not going off what I said are you?

Like I said previously, I'm good and won't be upset with what I was told and if I make a firearms purchase through private sale I won't look to pay extra fees if not necessary. You do what makes you comfortable 

Maybe some of the licensed dealers on this site could way in if they have any knowledge one way or the other?

Seems weird that none of the knowledgeable sources on this board have heard about this litigation, that we must use a pawn shop as our source.

[mfswallace]

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just going off what you told us, which doesn't seem correct.

When you post incorrect hearsay, don't be upset when it's not true

I told you a licensed firearms dealer, Sure Shot Guns and Pawn in Kittitas, told me "I have 2 letters here, 1 from the state and 1 from atf that say I-594 is in litigation and firearm sales by private individuals don't need a background check at this time." Why he would lie and miss out on an easy $35 I couldn't begin to speculate.

You interjected that it was the prosecutor not state or atf who would make the call not to enforce so your not going off what I said are you?

Like I said previously, I'm good and won't be upset with what I was told and if I make a firearms purchase through private sale I won't look to pay extra fees if not necessary. You do what makes you comfortable 

Maybe some of the licensed dealers on this site could way in if they have any knowledge one way or the other?

Seems weird that none of the knowledgeable sources on this board have heard about this litigation, that we must use a pawn shop as our source.

Mouse in your pocket or do you always speak for others     You don't have to do anything as I have stated repeatedly now 

[jackelope]

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just going off what you told us, which doesn't seem correct.

When you post  hearsay, don't be upset when it's veracity is questioned.

A friend and gun shop owner has not recieved anything indicating this.
 

[mfswallace]

You must have talked to the Kittitas county prosecutor or Todd ??

Just going off what you told us, which doesn't seem correct.

When you post  hearsay, don't be upset when it's veracity is questioned.

A friend and gun shop owner has not recieved anything indicating this.
 

Thanks for input jackelope.

  I just contacted Millards Gun Sales in Moses Lake and was told private sales don't need an ffl background check yet. He referenced the state/Olympia not having produced and distributed required paperwork ffl dealers would need...

2 other gun shops say yes you need to have background checks done now.

Kittitas County Sheriffs office said -summation- "the initiative took effect Dec. 4th but paperwork and all legalities weren't finalized. The required background check for private sales starts Jan 1..."

I am only passing on what I have been told, how you(especially knocker) handle your sales is for you to decide.  I have been quoted anywhere from $25 to $40 dollars for background check.

 

[Special T]

I wanted to add one more thing to my list. It appears that the DOL is sharing CPL holders information with BC Canada. When border Guards are pressing people what kind of guns do they own. It is reasonable to assume that the BC border cops are reporting back to Wa State what you declare. Be vauge Shotgun, deer rifle, or just refuse to answer.

[Windwalker]

DOL sharing CPL holders information with BC is probably part of the enhanced DL system dove tailing with BC's high tech facial/image recognition system. The use of "pixie dust" or smart dust (intelligent surveillance sensors) the size of a grain of sand juiced them up years back.
http://blacklistednews.com/?news_id=3011 Advised conversations of it in use (under development) 10 years ago.
 Figure it would only get worse.. more hi tech toys to surveil regular folks daily lives tracking everyone everywhere, full bio's available with one click of the mouse.


Back to the 594 debacle..
Some of SAF's Points of contention-

Delivery of a firearm to a common carrier, such as FedEx, for shipping
Delivery of a firearm to airline personnel for checking the firearm to the passenger’s destination
Exchanges of firearms at a range when those firearms are not permanently kept at the range
The return of a firearm from a LEO after an individual provides it for inspection during a stop
Delivery of a firearm that is property of a trust from one trustee of the trust to another
Delivery of a company firearm to security personnel requiring multiple exchanges of a firearm throughout a day
A nonresident with a Washington CCP borrowing a residents gun to carry