Post by: Windwalker on December 19, 2014, 03:18:18 PM
December 19, 2014
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/19/a-month-after-passing-anti-2nd-amendment-law-washington-authorities-still-baffled-on-how-to-enforce-it/ (http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/19/a-month-after-passing-anti-2nd-amendment-law-washington-authorities-still-baffled-on-how-to-enforce-it/)
Beyond the ideological divisions on the so-called “gun control debate,” laws that try to curb lawful ownership of firearms have one central flaw that is utterly inescapable: Only the law-abiding follow laws.
Criminals, as the name would suggest, do not; what madman is content with committing mass murder with a firearm but is stopped only by the hefty penalties of purchasing a firearm or carrying a firearm when ineligible?
Now, Washington State authorities are scratching their heads. Having hurried-up and passed an anti-Second Amendment law, few, apparently, considered how to enforce the law and are putting on the issue of law enforcement.
I-594 was approved by Washington voters in November. The law prohibits private sales of firearms and welcomes government into the transaction.
The law is an 18-page quagmire of jumbled legalese and unenforceable garbage and the state Attorney General has thrown-up his hands in desperation and has now tasked local law enforcement to do their best in enforcing this law that confuses even legal authorities.
The state Attorney General’s office has released a statement, saying,
“…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.”
For those who do not speak baffled lawyer, allow me to translate:
“This law is an absolute mess and practically unenforceable; so, I now ask local law enforcement to, you know, just do the best you can and make up the law as you go along.”
If the state’s top law enforcer cannot figure out how to enforce the new provisions, surely the police cannot be expected to know, right?
How about the citizens? What should they do if they’re being unfairly arrested for breaking a law that may or may not prohibit their actions? Contact the licensing bureau?
I wouldn’t.
The Department Of Licensing issued a statement clarifying that they know nothing:
“Please contact your local law enforcement agency if you have questions about firearms licensure requirements, clarification of definitions, violations of the law or need additional information regarding exemptions…. Again, the Firearms Program staff cannot provide legal advice or help the public or licensed firearm dealers interpret the firearms statutes found in RCW 9.41 or I-594“
Washington voters were fed a lot of misinformation about I-594; while Second Amendment advocates warned that this was a registration scheme, supporters maintained that this was purely a background check initiative and that family members would receive an exemption, but that only person-to-person transfers done outside of an immediate family were required to submit to a background check.
Progressivestoday.com, however, notes that that is not how the law is being interpreted:
You may notice a couple of concerning lines in that statement, such as “This program’s role in the implementation of Initiative 594 is limited to record keeping requirements.”
If a background check is all this is, then why does a state agency keep records?
The I 594 supporters continually said all along that this is not a registration scheme, so what are these records that are kept?
Towards of the end of the statement, we also see “To report possession or ownership of a pistol acquired upon the death of the prior owner after December 4, 2014, contact the Firearms Program at 360.664.6616 or email at firearms@dol.wa.gov.”
Since transfers to immediate family members are exempt from having to go through the background check process, why does there need to be any reporting of inheritance of a firearm?
The Washington State Police want nothing to do with enforcement of the state law, either, as they didn’t arrest anyone who participated in the “I Will Not Comply” rally that took place on December 13th, where 1,000-2,000 stood outside of the capitol building in Olympia, transferring and selling guns back and forth in an open defiance of I 594.
The Vancouver police department has a vague statement on their webpage that punts the ball back to the Department of Licensing, while Seattle PD has remained silent.
To demonstrate how easy it is for someone to break this new law, on the moment it went into effect, activists made a video of a firearms sale taking place on the street in downtown Vancouver, with nary a law enforcement officer in sight to do anything about it.
Lewis County prosecutor and sheriff have released statements saying they will not enforce it.
So the question now becomes “If no one wants to enforce a law, is it still a law?”
To answer the above question, no; the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and, just as importantly, it is the only amendment that clarifies in crystal-clear wording that this right shall not be infringed.
In this context we see that
A) the Second Amendment supersedes this new law and that
B) nobody is willing to interpret or enforce the law.
Therefore, the rule of law continues on its slide towards irrelevancy in America.
Post by: tjthebest on December 19, 2014, 03:55:21 PM
For the record I am completely against 594, but it is definitely enforceable.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 19, 2014, 04:01:05 PM
Regarding the attorney general comments, just because he says that the law should be enforced the way it reads, doesn't mean he doesn't know how to enforce it. It's pretty clear how to enforce it. Visually see someone hand a gun to another person without a ffl dealer present and doing a background check. Just because a cop cannot be around for ALL transfers, doesn't mean it's not enforceable. For example, speeding in a car, it is only enforceable if a cop sees you doing it...
For the record I am completely against 594, but it is definitely enforceable.
Enforceable would imply being able to convict.
BTW, has anyone even been charged yet?
Post by: Crunchy on December 19, 2014, 04:09:16 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 19, 2014, 04:11:36 PM
Post by: gaddy on December 19, 2014, 04:13:50 PM
Post by: jrebel on December 19, 2014, 04:22:37 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 19, 2014, 04:54:57 PM
"The Washington State Police want nothing to do with enforcement of the state law, either, as they didn’t arrest anyone who participated in the “I Will Not Comply” rally that took place on December 13th, where 1,000-2,000 stood outside of the capitol building in Olympia, transferring and selling guns back and forth in an open defiance of I 594."
Post by: Atroxus on December 19, 2014, 09:05:00 PM
Post by: splitshot on December 19, 2014, 09:14:59 PM
Post by: jrebel on December 19, 2014, 09:19:37 PM
I am sorry but I just read what I wrote and it is gibberish, oh well I have spoken, excuse me but I will have another. mike w
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :party1: I just cracked one myself as I watch shark tank and smoke my last batch of jerky. :party1: Cheers
Post by: stuckalot on December 19, 2014, 09:20:19 PM
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. :dunno:
I believe the first part of that quote was edited out. The statement I heard was that "no one had challenged the law yet and had not officially requested an opinion from the AG so they weren't going to offer one at this time.
Post by: Windwalker on December 19, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
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. :dunno:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=32433#.VJFQfidCYtx (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/ (http://www.progressivestoday.com/washington-state-agencies-punt-on-new-gun-law/)
Post by: csaaphill on December 19, 2014, 11:38:59 PM
I wonder if Gruber wrote this law for the Nazi's in Olympia ...............:yeah:
Post by: Atroxus on December 20, 2014, 07:30:34 AM
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. :dunno:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=32433#.VJFQfidCYtx (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/ (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. :bash: 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.
Post by: Brad Harshman on December 20, 2014, 08:39:48 AM
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. :dunno:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=32433#.VJFQfidCYtx (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/ (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. :bash: 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.
Post by: blackdog on December 20, 2014, 09:31:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 20, 2014, 09:40:50 AM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on December 20, 2014, 09:49:46 AM
Quote
url]"To: Hunter Education Instructors
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.
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.....
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 20, 2014, 12:36:10 PM
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
Post by: Firedogg on December 20, 2014, 06:47:01 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 20, 2014, 06:48:44 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 22, 2014, 02:57:51 AM
This was in the editorials of the Spokesman Review this morning.That's why the I will not comply movement needs to be one, and not fragmented as it is.
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
Post by: ghosthunter on December 22, 2014, 12:10:05 PM