collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected  (Read 20038 times)

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39203
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2016, 07:45:47 PM »

It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.

However there is an exception if you're related:

Quote
    (4) 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;


Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.



One thing to keep in mind- the exception only applies if it's a "bona fide gift."

So you can't sell a rifle to your cousin without a background check, but you can give it to him.

Offline huntnphool

  • Chance favors the prepared mind!
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 32899
  • Location: Pacific NorthWest
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2016, 08:56:21 PM »

It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred.

However there is an exception if you're related:

Quote
    (4) 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;


Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.



One thing to keep in mind- the exception only applies if it's a "bona fide gift."


 Yeah, and even then, if the gun is being transported from one state into Washington, you have to pay a "use" tax on the gun. :o
The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those who got there first!

Offline Lucky1

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 3942
  • Location: Kelso
  • Groups: NRA. GOP
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2016, 09:01:00 PM »


[/quote]

 Yeah, and even then, if the gun is being transported from one state into Washington, you have to pay a "use" tax on the gun. :o
[/quote]

So when I moved here was I required to pay use tax on the guns I brought with me?
Socialism
Is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It’s inherent value is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill

Offline huntnphool

  • Chance favors the prepared mind!
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 32899
  • Location: Pacific NorthWest
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2016, 09:17:18 PM »



 Yeah, and even then, if the gun is being transported from one state into Washington, you have to pay a "use" tax on the gun. :o
[/quote]

So when I moved here was I required to pay use tax on the guns I brought with me?
[/quote]

 Not that I know of............however, I know of one member here who's father passed away in a different state a year or so ago and left him several guns. He had to pay tax on those guns to bring them home.
The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those who got there first!

Offline ghosthunter

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 7620
  • Location: Mount Vernon WA
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2016, 04:43:13 PM »
It all leads to this.



GHOST CAMP "We Came To Hunt"
Proud Parent of A United States Marine

We are all traveling from Birth to the Packing House. ( Broken Trail)

“I f he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

Don’t Curse the Darkness.

Offline Bofire

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 5524
  • Location: Yelm
  • Harley YAR YAR YAR!
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2016, 05:33:00 PM »
 :) What about your insurance policy on your sporting goods or "guns" if you must list them to get insurance is that "registration"??
I have some guns that are insured as investments, my lawyer says I am covered for loss but not "privacy" protected. :dunno: :dunno:
Carl
When the chips are down..... the buffalo is empty!!

I do not shop at Amazon

Offline dscubame

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 3603
  • Location: Spokane WA
  • 2013 Idaho Elk Hunt
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2016, 09:02:13 PM »
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.
Civil disobedience. Look up the numbers on New York's safe act. Something like over 90% of all guns in New York haven't been registered like they were supposed to be.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Fantastic.  Interesting indeed.  We the people can harmlessly protest by not participating here in WA like those in NY.  I am in.   :tup:
It's a TIKKA thing..., you may not understand.

Eyes in the Woods.   ' '

Offline DaveMonti

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 1249
  • Location: Snohomish County
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2016, 10:05:50 PM »
While there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners.  If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable. 

Nobody is "tracking" anything.  There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached. 
The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis.  And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping.  How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc?  The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there!  And that was the ATF!  The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws!  That's how good the feds have their crap together. 

This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it.  It's a political "Look what I did!  I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone.  This is no "attack" on gun owners.  No way to enforce this law.  It's simply politics.  'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it.  Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law.  To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen. 

It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database.  Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for.  Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do. 


Offline dscubame

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 3603
  • Location: Spokane WA
  • 2013 Idaho Elk Hunt
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2016, 10:13:30 PM »
While there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners.  If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable. 

Nobody is "tracking" anything.  There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached. 
The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis.  And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping.  How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc?  The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there!  And that was the ATF!  The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws!  That's how good the feds have their crap together. 

This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it.  It's a political "Look what I did!  I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone.  This is no "attack" on gun owners.  No way to enforce this law.  It's simply politics.  'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it.  Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law.  To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen. 

It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database.  Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for.  Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do.

Wow. I see that now after reading your post.  Never thought it through like that.  Very profound.  Makes me feel even that much more comfortable with this nonsense.
It's a TIKKA thing..., you may not understand.

Eyes in the Woods.   ' '

Offline smittyJ

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 532
  • Location: Allyn
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2016, 07:58:23 AM »
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.

Offline Skillet

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+43)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Posts: 5823
  • Location: Sitka, AK
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2016, 08:21:31 AM »
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.

2% of total gun transfers is way too low to accurately reflect the actual number of exchanges between private sellers.  While often quoted as "up to 40%" as a scare tactic, I believe it is more in the 25% range as per this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

The other 23% are simply exercising civil disobedience.  :tup:
KABOOM Count - 1

"The ocean is calling, and I must go."

"Does anyone know where the love of God goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
     - Gordon Lightfoot

Offline ghosthunter

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 7620
  • Location: Mount Vernon WA
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2016, 08:22:59 AM »
While there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners.  If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable. 

Nobody is "tracking" anything.  There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached. 
The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis.  And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping.  How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc?  The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there!  And that was the ATF!  The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws!  That's how good the feds have their crap together. 

This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it.  It's a political "Look what I did!  I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone.  This is no "attack" on gun owners.  No way to enforce this law.  It's simply politics.  'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it.  Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law.  To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen. 

It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database.  Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for.  Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do.

Wow. I see that now after reading your post.  Never thought it through like that.  Very profound.  Makes me feel even that much more comfortable with this nonsense.


I think the thing that bothers me the most is that they keep coming up with this crap. There is never a end to it. More mud in the water. I wish we could just shut them down with some legal option once and for all.
GHOST CAMP "We Came To Hunt"
Proud Parent of A United States Marine

We are all traveling from Birth to the Packing House. ( Broken Trail)

“I f he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

Don’t Curse the Darkness.

Offline BOWHUNTER45

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Posts: 14731
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2016, 08:27:45 AM »
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.
That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !

Offline huntnphool

  • Chance favors the prepared mind!
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 32899
  • Location: Pacific NorthWest
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2016, 10:41:40 AM »
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.
That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !

 And even then, how will they know? If you sold a gun to a guy today, and 5 years from now it was used in a homicide and recovered, how will they know that it was sold person to person today? Unless you guys document it, there is no way to prove the transaction happened today, or the day before 594 was implemented.
The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those who got there first!

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 51553
  • Location: E. WA
Re: Apparently 594 isn't tracking as many guns as they expected
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2016, 10:49:01 AM »
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.
That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !

 And even then, how will they know? If you sold a gun to a guy today, and 5 years from now it was used in a homicide and recovered, how will they know that it was sold person to person today? Unless you guys document it, there is no way to prove the transaction happened today, or the day before 594 was implemented.

. . . except when the first trace is to you, post I-594, and the gun is recovered in WA to your buyer, in WA.  If there is no subsequent trace data, then it is reasonable to charge that you did not conduct an I-594 check.  It is a misdemeanor, so BFD, sorta.  But still.  It is really only harassment of law-abiding gun owners, because it will never have any meaningful effect on crimes with firearms, and that is not just because some gun owners decide not to comply, as we all know. 

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

KODIAK06 2025 trail cam and personal pics thread by kodiak06
[Today at 07:03:46 AM]


AUCTION: SE Idaho DIY Deer or Deer/Elk Hunt by mburrows
[Today at 06:22:12 AM]


Unknown Suppressors - Whisper Pickle by Sneaky
[Today at 04:09:53 AM]


Early Huckleberry Bull Moose tag drawn! by HillHound
[Yesterday at 11:25:17 PM]


THE ULTIMATE QUAD!!!! by Deer slayer
[Yesterday at 10:33:55 PM]


Archery elk gear, 2025. by WapitiTalk1
[Yesterday at 09:41:28 PM]


Utah cow elk hunt by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 07:18:51 PM]


Oregon spring bear by kodiak06
[Yesterday at 04:40:38 PM]


Tree stand for Western Washingtn by kodiak06
[Yesterday at 04:37:01 PM]


Pocket Carry by BKMFR
[Yesterday at 03:34:12 PM]


A lonely Job... by Loup Loup
[Yesterday at 01:15:11 PM]


Range finders & Angle Compensation by Fidelk
[Yesterday at 11:58:48 AM]


Willapa Hills 1 Bear by hunter399
[Yesterday at 10:55:29 AM]


Bearpaw Outfitters Annual July 4th Hunt Sale by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 08:40:03 AM]


Yard bucks by Boss .300 winmag
[July 04, 2025, 11:20:39 PM]


Yard babies by Feathernfurr
[July 04, 2025, 10:04:54 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal