A Month After Passing I-594 Authorities Still Baffled on How to Enforce it

[Brad Harshman]

Anyone know where that quote from the AG was obtained? That article has a link to the DOL statement, but I would like to find the full statement that was released by the AG if possible. 

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/

Thanks Windwalker. That's why I hate when articles only contain partial quotes. I agree that the AGO is dragging their feet on giving their interpretation of the law. It sounds like we need to start writing our legislators and push for them to make formal requests for interpretation from the AGO. Of course that doesn't sound quite as bad as when the comment is intentionally taken slightly out of context, then further misinterpreted to get more reaction from the readers of the article.  I really wish the media(liberal, conservative and everyone in between) would stop trying to put their own spin on everything and just give us the facts when reporting so that we can draw our own conclusions.

Well said, well said.

[blackdog]

There are legislators working on formal AGO requests, just remember we have to live with the answers until a court finds otherwise.

[pianoman9701]

I can't find any statement from either the Vancouver police or the Clark Co. Sheriff on 594. I did verify by going to the websites of the AG and the DOL, they basically say "All we do is records and give legal advice. Talk to the cops."

If no one in our government really has any idea of what the law says, how the hell will it ever be enforced? In addition, if it is enforced, won't prosecutors have a tough time winning a case about a bust for breaking a law that no one understands? This is crazy.

[Bob33]

url]



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.

"To:      Hunter Education Instructors

From:      David Whipple, Hunter Education Division Manager

SUBJECT:   ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE 594

Dear Instructors,

During the November election, the voters enacted Initiative 594, concerning background checks on firearm sales and transfers.  I-594 becomes effective on December 4, 2014.  The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in close consultation with our legal counsel in the Attorney General’s Office, has assessed the potential effects of I-594 on the Hunter Education Program, our instructors, and our prospective students...."

Hmmm.....

[Ridgeratt]

This was in the editorials of the Spokesman Review this morning. 


December 20, 2014 in Letters, Opinion


Protesters had a point

Initiative 594 states that “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.

Under the new law, a lawful transfer cannot occur without a background check, with limited exceptions.

Each transfer of firearms, without background checks being done, from one person to another at a recent protest in Olympia was a crime. The Washington State Patrol had announced it did not consider it a crime and would not enforce the law.

The most dangerous law enforcement agency is one that is inconsistent, deciding in one case not to enforce the law and in another to consider the behavior criminal. We are supposed to have rule by law, not by men. The people passed the law, and the State Patrol cannot choose not to enforce it because it may be convenient.

If people didn’t think the law would have this result, perhaps they should have read it more carefully before approving it. By the way, if you thought this would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, you are terribly naive because criminals do not follow the law.



Don Brockett

Former Spokane County prosecutor

Spokane

[Firedogg]

It's going to come down to a case where someone used a gun against another and in the process of the investigation they will ask where the gun was obtained. It will be enforced/prosecuted as a secondary reaction to a crime or legal defensive shooting. But that's just my opinion and a peanut in the gallery.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Excellent Ridgeratt!

[csaaphill]

This was in the editorials of the Spokesman Review this morning. 


December 20, 2014 in Letters, Opinion


Protesters had a point

Initiative 594 states that “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.

Under the new law, a lawful transfer cannot occur without a background check, with limited exceptions.

Each transfer of firearms, without background checks being done, from one person to another at a recent protest in Olympia was a crime. The Washington State Patrol had announced it did not consider it a crime and would not enforce the law.

The most dangerous law enforcement agency is one that is inconsistent, deciding in one case not to enforce the law and in another to consider the behavior criminal. We are supposed to have rule by law, not by men. The people passed the law, and the State Patrol cannot choose not to enforce it because it may be convenient.

If people didn’t think the law would have this result, perhaps they should have read it more carefully before approving it. By the way, if you thought this would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, you are terribly naive because criminals do not follow the law.



Don Brockett

Former Spokane County prosecutor

Spokane

That's why the I will not comply movement needs to be one, and not fragmented as it is.

[ghosthunter]

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