Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2014, 01:44:56 PM
A gun safety instructor wouldn't be able to effectively teach students how to handle and/or shoot a gun safely because if they handled his gun, that would be considered a transfer. No gun safety classes? Is that safe?
A grieving widow would violate the law if she didn't report her dead husbands firearms within 60 days of his death. A grieving widow! Who is the law protecting us from here?
You could give a gun to your minor son as a gift. Once he becomes an adult, if he lets you shoot or even just hold that gun without going through an FFL, he's a criminal.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2014, 01:48:30 PM
From page 8 exceptions:
"(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent
the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her
employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections
officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the
United States or the national guard, or federal official;"
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 06, 2014, 01:50:21 PM
But I did not have the time to chase through the initiative and referenced sections.
I'd like to see some authoritative comments those (CCRKBA, No on 594, etc.) who do have time to research such issues.
Here are some good points as well.
https://www.voteno594.com/media/1121/i594-08262014hq1.pdf (https://www.voteno594.com/media/1121/i594-08262014hq1.pdf)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 08, 2014, 07:08:16 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 08, 2014, 11:51:38 AM
You with all the damn money that the seahawks (Paul Allen), Bill Gates, et. al have place to pass this bill, why don't they spend it in the schools to hire professional guard to protect them. Those people have such tunnel vision its unreal. They want all the protection but don't want you to have a gun.
Post by: biggfish on October 08, 2014, 12:45:10 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 08, 2014, 12:48:24 PM
The crack pots envision a world without guns they just wrote this to be a stepping stone. It'll just pave the way for more bs I'm surprised they didn't include background checks for ammo purchases in the initiative.
Shhhhh!
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 08, 2014, 01:23:42 PM
The crack pots envision a world without guns they just wrote this to be a stepping stone. It'll just pave the way for more bs I'm surprised they didn't include background checks for ammo purchases in the initiative.
Shhhhh!
Because its the guns fault not the ammo's fault. They (the takers) in this ridiculous initiative probably don't know what the heck ammo is? Remember its the guns fault! all this is a big tax increase. Why do you think a couple of good ole boy prosecutors are in on it? promoting gov't change and taxes. Care less if you own guns.
Post by: Wacenturion on October 08, 2014, 05:15:40 PM
It's unconstitutional like most of the anti gun restrictions.............and would most likely be overturned.
Post by: timberfaller on October 09, 2014, 10:37:48 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/06/michael-bloomberg-anti-gun-propaganda/?intcmp=obnetwork (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/06/michael-bloomberg-anti-gun-propaganda/?intcmp=obnetwork)
Post by: vandeman17 on October 14, 2014, 03:49:32 PM
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/14/gabby-giffords-washington-gun-law/17254709/ (http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/10/14/gabby-giffords-washington-gun-law/17254709/)
Post by: xd2005 on October 15, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
Hunter Education Instructors will no longer be able to teach gun handling with real guns, nor will live fire be allowed.
I would venture a vast majority of the time such an activity would fall under one or both of the exceptions emphasized below.
(4) This section does not apply to:
.
.
.
(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;
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2014, 06:34:39 AM
Hunter Education Instructors will no longer be able to teach gun handling with real guns, nor will live fire be allowed.
I would venture a vast majority of the time such an activity would fall under one or both of the exceptions emphasized below.
(4) This section does not apply to:
.
.
.
(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;
The key to the second line you highlighted is "a person who is under eighteen years of age". Adults are not exempted. In reference to the first section you highlighted, I'm unsure about the rest of the instructors here, but most of our classes are not done at a range. In addition, the live fire is often done not at a range, but in a field on WDFW property. Without background checks, I would be breaking the law by handing a firearm to an adult without first performing a background check.
Post by: xd2005 on October 16, 2014, 07:04:09 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 16, 2014, 07:12:08 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2014, 07:24:31 AM
Good points. I went the online route, so my only hands-on experience for the course was at a range, same as my wife's, but I suppose the in-class training would be different.
All good questions. The general public doesn't know. Incidentally, a common misunderstanding arises from people not knowing that students can't bring their own guns to Hunter Education or gun safety classes for safety reasons. So they're confused by the education objections by thinking that the students already have firearms. Why would they need to be handed one?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2014, 02:03:35 PM
Also, ask them why they think that the largest law enforcement association in the state (WACOPS) opposes I-594 and why they should support it when the police don't. Ask them if this bill is unfunded (which it is), how the police will keep up with the increased demand for background checks without more employees to perform them. Tell them that the answer is that police will be pulled off the street to meet the demand. Ask them if that's safer for us.
Post by: Bob33 on October 20, 2014, 02:19:27 PM
My wife and I both had the same reaction. Don't they get it? That's what the pro 594 people want and the same message they are promoting.
There was nothing mentioned about how this regulates all "transfers" and not just sales. No mention of making someone a criminal for lending a friend a shotgun to hunt ducks. No mention of the crippling impact this will have on hunter education and gun safety courses. No mention of the onerous burden this places on law enforcement, and how it detracts from their ability to deal with other crimes.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Post by: xd2005 on October 20, 2014, 05:28:40 PM
Gun owners should have taken ownership of the issue earlier in the process with a solution, instead of simply fighting everything with a "no." I recognize that's not a popular stance, but people want solutions, not just heels dug in the ground. :twocents:
Post by: Stein on October 20, 2014, 09:40:40 PM
The issue is that non-gun owners simply do not care, and the arguments made my the con-594 people play on deaf ears. They do not comprehend the issue, all they know is they think background checks should occur and that to think otherwise is to show favor for transferring to criminals.
Gun owners should have taken ownership of the issue earlier in the process with a solution, instead of simply fighting everything with a "no." I recognize that's not a popular stance, but people want solutions, not just heels dug in the ground. :twocents:
The solution is "no."
Let's compare exercising two rights - voting and gun ownership.
SCOTUS and many other courts have said that requiring a driver's license is unconstitutional because poor people would have to ride a bus to the DMV to get one - even if they gave them out for free.
For firearms, you need a driver's license plus you now have to pay $30-50 for a background check, possibly more money for a CWP, taxes, and how many other hoops to jump through?
What would the response be if you had to pay $30 every time you wanted to vote? Maybe that should have been the initiative, make the rules the same for voting and buying a gun.
More damage has been done at the polling booth than will ever be done with firearms.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 21, 2014, 12:28:44 AM
See ATF letter here.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/firearmconcierge/truth-gun-trusts-attorneys-lie-get-money/unnamed-5/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/firearmconcierge/truth-gun-trusts-attorneys-lie-get-money/unnamed-5/)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/firearmconcierge/truth-gun-trusts-attorneys-lie-get-money/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/firearmconcierge/truth-gun-trusts-attorneys-lie-get-money/)
Post by: huntnphool on October 21, 2014, 01:25:56 AM
Post by: xd2005 on October 21, 2014, 06:08:40 AM
My fear is that it is because the opponents do not care who has a firearm (unfortunately, I know that is the case for some here). I've discussed my "proposal" ad nauseam on here (much to the frustration of many) that would simply be to change the law to make it illegal to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it. It would not require a background check, but the person transferring the firearm would have to take responsibility if the transfer occurred without one. Again, I do not know if the opposition to that proposal is based on the opponents being against taking responsibility, or whether they simply do not care who has a firearm.
Ultimately, I believe it is appropriate to limit the possession of firearms for certain individuals. I also believe that as a responsible gun owner, I am responsible for doing what I can to ensure my firearms stay out of the hands of those individuals. If others share those views, it would have been easy to move something forward that stayed true to those principals, accomplish the "stated" goals of I594, but did not go to the extremes of I594.
Post by: xd2005 on October 21, 2014, 06:14:46 AM
Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".
Whether sales tax is charged or not is irrelevant as Use Tax is already due (it's possible there's an exception, which I would be willing to concede). So to argue that the state will force us to comply with the law is probably not a very strong one.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 21, 2014, 08:26:41 AM
Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".
Specifically excepted from WA sales tax for private transfers with checks in I594.
18 USC 922 b(3) for transfer across state lines with no WA state pistol registration.
I've discussed my "proposal" ad nauseam on here (much to the frustration of many) that would simply be to change the law to make it illegal to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it. It would not require a background check, but the person transferring the firearm would have to take responsibility if the transfer occurred without one.
It is already illegal under Federal law, and a voluntary background check is one way to ensure. CPL checks are another mostly effective way to ensure.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 21, 2014, 08:44:57 AM
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. I've received flack on HuntWA for saying that I require a CPL for a private purchase. I'm not advocating that is be made a law or anything close. I do feel that as responsible citizens, it's incumbent upon us to ensure we're not arming someone who shouldn't be armed. 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 know the arguments against background checks for private sales. But I also know that standing firm for no regulation of any kind is a path of dwindling returns. I'd rather be proactive and have gun owners be portrayed in a positive light than be obstructionist and continue to lose ground. Flame away!
Post by: Stein on October 21, 2014, 08:47:47 AM
Specifically excepted from WA sales tax for private transfers with checks in I594.
How long before that "loophole" will be closed? We have to realize 594 isn't the war, it is only the next small battle.
It isn't too hard to picture a day where you have to pay 8.8% tax on a transfer as "fair" and the amount of paperwork/money/red tape prevents sales. Then, a company like Amazon or Microsoft or private liberal billionaires step in and creates a trust to buy and destroy the weapons as an easy alternate (no questions asked, total amnesty on any prior transfers). The opposition is trying to get rid of private firearms and we need to remember this. If a guy will spend $1M on a background check initiative, what would they spend to really get rid of firearms?
Also remember the unofficial handgun registry was started and justified by tax receipts. Even if they imposed a 0.01% tax to "cover administrative costs", it would create a firearms database.
Post by: xd2005 on October 21, 2014, 09:00:19 AM
Sales tax and use tax are two different taxes. While they act the same, exempting something from sales tax does not necessarily impact use tax (I haven't read the exemption to know if it covers both).Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".
Specifically excepted from WA sales tax for private transfers with checks in I594.
18 USC 922 b(3) for transfer across state lines with no WA state pistol registration.I've discussed my "proposal" ad nauseam on here (much to the frustration of many) that would simply be to change the law to make it illegal to transfer a firearm to someone that cannot legally possess it. It would not require a background check, but the person transferring the firearm would have to take responsibility if the transfer occurred without one.
It is already illegal under Federal law, and a voluntary background check is one way to ensure. CPL checks are another mostly effective way to ensure.
Post by: huntnphool on October 21, 2014, 09:54:23 AM
Not to mention that background checks/paperwork create trails, which of course makes it easy for the state to charge sales tax on those "transfers".
Whether sales tax is charged or not is irrelevant as Use Tax is already due (it's possible there's an exception, which I would be willing to concede). So to argue that the state will force us to comply with the law is probably not a very strong one.
"Use" tax was my point, I used "sales" tax assuming several on here have no idea what "use" tax is.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 21, 2014, 01:18:24 PM
I-594 Exempts sales tax.
Quote
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 (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 (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.
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 21, 2014, 03:53:33 PM
VOTE NO 594
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 21, 2014, 03:57:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 21, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
Got you.
I-594 Exempts sales tax.QuoteNEW 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 (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 (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.
Post by: npaull on October 21, 2014, 04:12:31 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 21, 2014, 04:59:23 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Stickerbush on October 21, 2014, 05:27:02 PM
Post by: RIVERRAT on October 21, 2014, 05:28:53 PM
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.
Post by: xd2005 on October 21, 2014, 05:36:42 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,120630.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,120630.0.html)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 21, 2014, 05:47:05 PM
Post by: xd2005 on October 21, 2014, 05:58:15 PM
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. :bash:
Post by: lamrith on October 21, 2014, 06:09:17 PM
Quote
Section 2
"(9) "Firearm" - means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder."
Post by: Stein on October 21, 2014, 08:10:18 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 21, 2014, 08:26:26 PM
Post by: xd2005 on October 21, 2014, 08:34:36 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 06:11:08 AM
Post by: Bob33 on October 22, 2014, 06:48:05 AM
One of the members of the wildlife commission called me last night to ask about the implications for Hunter Education. He plans to bring his concerns to the commission by phone today. Their next meeting isn't until after the election.As I read the bill, temporary transfers may be made at "an established shooting range". Transfers may be made to individuals under 18 for "educational purposes." Transfers to adults may not be made unless at a shooting range. Class locations such as Cabelas should not allow anyone to touch a firearm.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 06:52:07 AM
One of the members of the wildlife commission called me last night to ask about the implications for Hunter Education. He plans to bring his concerns to the commission by phone today. Their next meeting isn't until after the election.As I read the bill, temporary transfers may be made at "an established shooting range". Transfers may be made to individuals under 18 for "educational purposes." Transfers to adults may not be made unless at a shooting range. Class locations such as Cabelas should not allow anyone to touch a firearm.
That is correct. All of the classes I've taught have been at a donated union hall and the test day at a WDFW hunting area, both of which preclude the instructor's ability to transfer a firearm to an adult student.
Post by: Bob33 on October 22, 2014, 07:13:33 AM
(4) This section does not apply to:
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal andstate laws.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 07:19:41 AM
(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;
In a state where hunter retention is of the utmost concern to the WDFW, this should raise huge red flags.
Post by: Bob33 on October 22, 2014, 07:28:08 AM
The exception for kids under eighteen means that those under eighteen will no longer be able to hunt without an adult. Here's the wording:I believe this other exception might allow it, although as written the transfer must occur in an area and during a time when hunting is legal.
(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;
In a state where hunter retention is of the utmost concern to the WDFW, this should raise huge red flags.
(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;
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 08:00:29 AM
Post by: Stein on October 22, 2014, 08:24:23 AM
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. :twocents:
If he has money, he gets the keys. Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver? After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.
Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?
Post by: Bob33 on October 22, 2014, 08:27:38 AM
At the very least, this seems to be a conflict within the initiative. And, because the section to which I referred specifically requires those under eighteen to be under direct adult supervision and the one to which you referred doesn't mention age, I would think they'd need to be supervised. The fact that this is unclear with seemingly mixed messages is another reason to oppose it. Like we need more reasons, right?It's bad law. What's unfortunate is that many of the good reasons for opposing it are not being stressed by gun owner organizations. Most of our gun-ignorant public doesn't see a need for "assault weapons" to be sold to anyone without any background check, and that's how the pro 594 effort is selling it. What the public probably wouldn't support is a law that makes hunting and gun safety education much more onerous, puts a burden on law enforcment, and makes criminals of a large number of good citizens. The anti 594 messages are preaching to the choir. The choirs' votes won't matter.
Post by: Stein on October 22, 2014, 08:33:04 AM
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. :twocents:
If he has money, he gets the keys. Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver? After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.
Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 08:55:45 AM
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. :twocents:
If he has money, he gets the keys. Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver? After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.
Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?
There's a big difference between car ownership and gun ownership. First, one's a right and the other isn't. Secondly, if you sell a firearm to a felon, you can lose your rights. If your sell a car to a felon, you don't lose anything. Prudence might dictate that we create a law which doesn't infringe on our rights but which does take into account that there are definitely people who shouldn't own firearms. Not only should we push for stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, but we should do what we can to make it tougher for criminals to get hold of our guns. I ask for a CPL. If you think gun ownership is your right and you don't need a CPL, then you won't be buying any guns from me. If there were a way i could check someone out online before selling them a firearm, I would because gun ownership is not only a right, it comes with responsibilities. Don't leave them around kids. Don't point them at things you don't want to destroy. And don't sell them to bad people.
If we continue to give nothing, our support will dwindle and we'll eventually lose our rights. Although I see I-594 for what it is - a gun grab - I also see that the people on the fence want to know if there's anything we're willing to agree with regarding the sale of firearms and the reasonable wish to make it harder for criminals to procure them.
Post by: Stein on October 22, 2014, 09:30:53 AM
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. :twocents:
If he has money, he gets the keys. Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver? After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.
Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?
There's a big difference between car ownership and gun ownership. First, one's a right and the other isn't. Secondly, if you sell a firearm to a felon, you can lose your rights. If your sell a car to a felon, you don't lose anything. Prudence might dictate that we create a law which doesn't infringe on our rights but which does take into account that there are definitely people who shouldn't own firearms. Not only should we push for stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, but we should do what we can to make it tougher for criminals to get hold of our guns. I ask for a CPL. If you think gun ownership is your right and you don't need a CPL, then you won't be buying any guns from me. If there were a way i could check someone out online before selling them a firearm, I would because gun ownership is not only a right, it comes with responsibilities. Don't leave them around kids. Don't point them at things you don't want to destroy. And don't sell them to bad people.
If we continue to give nothing, our support will dwindle and we'll eventually lose our rights. Although I see I-594 for what it is - a gun grab - I also see that the people on the fence want to know if there's anything we're willing to agree with regarding the sale of firearms and the reasonable wish to make it harder for criminals to procure them.
The CPL isn't failsafe, the guy could have committed a crime or be charged with one after it was issued and failed to give it back. If there was an online check I could do that doesn't create a permanent government database, I would do that.
What I don't like is the Trojan Horse approach where lies are told and rights are infringed. If it is an infringement on one's voting rights to have to pay $10 for a driver's license and bus fare, it is an infringement on that same person's right to have to pay $20 for a background check and have to ride a bus to the FFL twice.
This isn't a simple measure as is being advertised. From my point of view, we should pass laws that solve problems. I have yet to see anyone quote any facts about how many crimes are committed with weapons purchased from legal owners. I simply won't play with the choice of garbage or nothing.
Post by: Bob33 on October 22, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
I have yet to see anyone quote any facts about how many crimes are committed with weapons purchased from legal owners. I simply won't play with the choice of garbage or nothing.Certainly more than zero, but less than the pro gun control ads imply. Here's some inconclusive data.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 09:53:51 AM
I agree that I-594's intent is to do way more than close some gaps in gun purchasing. The problem is that the gun side won't propose any alternatives. They haven't properly educated the public on what a farce the supposed "gun show" loophole is and are seemingly unwilling to come to the table at all. Remember that more than two-thirds of our population don't own guns. Remember that most of those people watch the news and think that gun violence is growing faster than ebola, when it clearly isn't. The success of the antis to garner support from the media and the politicians has people asking why gunners aren't concerned about what seems to be horrific gun violence in the US.
We have to be better at educating people. We need to be approachable in our attempts to do so. If someone is ignorant to the facts and I treat them like they're ignorant, they'll remain ignorant and no longer listen to my reasoning. If my approach is non-combative and reasonable, I'll have a much better chance of bringing a fence-sitter to my line of thinking. In like manner, if we don't come up with reasonable safeguards against private sales putting the guns into the hands of criminals, the antis will push their agenda. You might say it's a slippery slope to gun control. I would say that giving nothing to the majority of voters is the slippery slope. Until the Supreme Court rules that any restriction on the sale of guns is unconstitutional (which I doubt will ever happen), we'd better be approachable and willing to at least come to the table. My :twocents:
Post by: lamrith on October 22, 2014, 10:28:44 AM
This is the same sort of thing that started in NY, NJ, CA.
1st register, then background checks, then the Govt passes a law to limit X, then Y. Suddenly all you are allowed to get is a 9mm revolver that you are not allowed to carry or have loaded outside of your home or a gun range. And you have to go buy a special permit in advance to buy the gun, and can only buy one gun every 30days.
It just gets to the point were you have to say enough is enough. Go prosecute the criminals for the laws they are ALREADY BREAKING and leave the legal gun owners alone. Be nice if we could initiate lawsuits for false advertising and lying during campaigns too, some of the adds I have seen are just blatant.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
Post by: Bob33 on October 22, 2014, 10:42:27 AM
The reason many refuse to give ground or make any compromises is that the 2A has been giving ground for decades, little by little, inch by inch.And as you have pointed out, that approach does not appear to be working well.
This is the same sort of thing that started in NY, NJ, CA.
1st register, then background checks, then the Govt passes a law to limit X, then Y. Suddenly all you are allowed to get is a 9mm revolver that you are not allowed to carry or have loaded outside of your home or a gun range. And you have to go buy a special permit in advance to buy the gun, and can only buy one gun every 30days.
It just gets to the point were you have to say enough is enough. Go prosecute the criminals for the laws they are ALREADY BREAKING and leave the legal gun owners alone. Be nice if we could initiate lawsuits for false advertising and lying during campaigns too, some of the adds I have seen are just blatant.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 22, 2014, 10:45:55 AM
Post by: lamrith on October 22, 2014, 10:57:17 AM
I do understand what you're saying. Absolutely.Fyi- I am like you, wa Id&cpl required, even for rifles. Just as a means for trying to weed out prohibited people.
Post by: Windwalker on October 22, 2014, 10:56:02 PM
It is well known that murder/theft/burglary/rape is against the law..yet it still happens-
The premise suggests endorsing yet another law to dictate the legality of buying a gun - allegedly sifts out the riff raff -
That's already being done with a background check when buying a gun... albeit doesn't address a micro law to individuals purchasing via the "loophole". I highly doubt the majority of law abiding citizens would sell to a criminal knowingly. Producing a cpl in some instances wouldn't erase the niggling of doubt with some private sales. I agree, insisting on a cpl or proof of eligibility would be in the spirit of all that is good. That said, I wouldn't endorse a mandate.
I'd hazard to guess that would essentially cleave off the majority of women and 18 - 20 year olds.
The Ten commandments address the generalities better than volumes of dissertations on intricate meddling laws ever will.
The notion a segment of our crumbling society is staring into the abyss they created demanding an answer is just sad - societal maintenance would be easy if kept up- like any devise, once worn to disrepair the gaps show up.
We're seeing the effects of back filling with empty ideas and no bolstering to strengthen the fabric of family bonds or build a nation - honesty, integrity, service and empathy aren't held in the same high esteem.
Whittling away at mental services and an anything goes attitude has further enabled miscreants.
Throwing a bone to those without the facilities to comprehend there is no magic wand to rid the world of evil, is enabling more dysfunction.
"Good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
- Plato
Educating those who care to listen is a good way to start. And hold the line until we can harvest more pockets of good honest hard working folks of high moral character that understand cause and effects.
"I'm afraid of guns"
"Why?"
"They can kill you"
"So why aren't you afraid
of your car?"
"I learned to drive it"
"Exactly".....
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 23, 2014, 11:06:26 AM
Apologies to those from whom I have wholesale copied material without credit (mainly riverrat).
Quote
I suspect that you have little time to research issues on the ballot. As such, I offer my thoughts on these pending and controversial initiatives.
Please consider voting no on I-594.
While seeming to be about the good goals of preventing domestic violence and keeping guns out of the hands of felons, dishonestly, it does so much more while, in reality, there is little to support the promise that it would achieve its goals.
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, and will result in the inadvertent criminalization of both citizens and law enforcement officers.
As a concrete example, I-594 requires background checks for any "transfer," defined as "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." For instance, I could not take my nieces and nephews out to the National forest where we camp, and (presuming your blessing and supervision) instruct them in proper and safe firearm handling, without first conducting a background check (on children?), and then they could not hand the firearm back to me, without me then undergoing another background check. Each transfer requires a trip to a firearms dealer, payment of a $25+ fee, PRIOR to the transfer. Violation of this provision of I-594 would make me and them guilty of a misdemeanor, and the scenario I provide would make us guilty of a felony.
As another concrete example, the tragedies involving Gabby Giffords, Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, would not have been prevented by these additional background checks. Loughner (Giffords' shooter) and Holmes (Aurora CO theater shooter) both passed background checks, the types of which I-594 would require, and Lanza (of Newtown, CT) killed his own mother to obtain the weapons for his acts. Stunningly, I-594, addresses nothing regarding mental health issues, which were common to these high profile cases. That is, contrary to TV ads and claims otherwise, I-594 will do nothing to prevent any of these types of attacks.
In Summary, I-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, (26 of 39 County Sheriffs oppose I-594)
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.
Please consider voting yes on I-591.
I-591 preserves existing constitutional and legal protections for citizen firearm ownership. Furthermore, I-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.
Post by: huntnphool on October 23, 2014, 01:23:27 PM
I compiled a note to send to a sibling, who being in the King County cocoon, will not have received any contrary viewpoints. Please consider sending it to others who might be on the fence.
Apologies to those from whom I have wholesale copied material without credit (mainly riverrat).QuoteI suspect that you have little time to research issues on the ballot. As such, I offer my thoughts on these pending and controversial initiatives.
Please consider voting no on I-594.
While seeming to be about the good goals of preventing domestic violence and keeping guns out of the hands of felons, dishonestly, it does so much more while, in reality, there is little to support the promise that it would achieve its goals.
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, and will result in the inadvertent criminalization of both citizens and law enforcement officers.
As a concrete example, I-594 requires background checks for any "transfer," defined as "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." For instance, I could not take my nieces and nephews out to the National forest where we camp, and (presuming your blessing and supervision) instruct them in proper and safe firearm handling, without first conducting a background check (on children?), and then they could not hand the firearm back to me, without me then undergoing another background check. Each transfer requires a trip to a firearms dealer, payment of a $25+ fee, PRIOR to the transfer. Violation of this provision of I-594 would make me and them guilty of a misdemeanor, and the scenario I provide would make us guilty of a felony.
As another concrete example, the tragedies involving Gabby Giffords, Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, would not have been prevented by these additional background checks. Loughner (Giffords' shooter) and Holmes (Aurora CO theater shooter) both passed background checks, the types of which I-594 would require, and Lanza (of Newtown, CT) killed his own mother to obtain the weapons for his acts. Stunningly, I-594, addresses nothing regarding mental health issues, which were common to these high profile cases. That is, contrary to TV ads and claims otherwise, I-594 will do nothing to prevent any of these types of attacks.
In Summary, I-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, (26 of 39 County Sheriffs oppose I-594)
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.
Please consider voting yes on I-591.
I-591 preserves existing constitutional and legal protections for citizen firearm ownership. Furthermore, I-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.
Well done. :tup:
Post by: rim_runner on October 23, 2014, 02:30:48 PM
you made some very good points there.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. :twocents:
If he has money, he gets the keys. Do you run a background check or ask him if he is a habitual drunk driver? After all, it is all our responsibility to prevent criminals from getting cars that are used to kill people.
Eric Holder can give rifles to gang members that kill Americans but I need to run a background check on my uncle or neighbor I have known for 20 years to sell him a single shot .22 because a couple of billionaires decide to lie on tv commercials?
There's a big difference between car ownership and gun ownership. First, one's a right and the other isn't. Secondly, if you sell a firearm to a felon, you can lose your rights. If your sell a car to a felon, you don't lose anything. Prudence might dictate that we create a law which doesn't infringe on our rights but which does take into account that there are definitely people who shouldn't own firearms. Not only should we push for stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, but we should do what we can to make it tougher for criminals to get hold of our guns. I ask for a CPL. If you think gun ownership is your right and you don't need a CPL, then you won't be buying any guns from me. If there were a way i could check someone out online before selling them a firearm, I would because gun ownership is not only a right, it comes with responsibilities. Don't leave them around kids. Don't point them at things you don't want to destroy. And don't sell them to bad people.
If we continue to give nothing, our support will dwindle and we'll eventually lose our rights. Although I see I-594 for what it is - a gun grab - I also see that the people on the fence want to know if there's anything we're willing to agree with regarding the sale of firearms and the reasonable wish to make it harder for criminals to procure them.