Post by: Dave Workman on February 20, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
:tup:
House bill filed to change background check exemptions, define transfers
An eight-page bill that would expand the exemptions to Initiative 594 – the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November – was up for first reading today in Olympia, and it’s got the backing of 40 Republicans and two Democrats.
http://www.examiner.com/article/house-bill-filed-to-change-background-check-exemptions-define-transfers (http://www.examiner.com/article/house-bill-filed-to-change-background-check-exemptions-define-transfers)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 20, 2015, 10:44:46 AM
Please go read Dave's article.
http://www.examiner.com/article/house-bill-filed-to-change-background-check-exemptions-define-transfers (http://www.examiner.com/article/house-bill-filed-to-change-background-check-exemptions-define-transfers)
New Exemptions:
Quote
(5) This section does not apply to transfers of firearms between and among the following persons who are not otherwise disqualified from legally possessing a firearm:
(a) Owners of a firearm and persons who have obtained a temporary restraining order, protection order, or no-contact order involving domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or harassment;
(b) Persons who are active members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard or veterans who have been honorably discharged from military service;
(c) Persons who are active members of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard and family members or friends for the purpose of maintaining the members' firearms while the members are under orders for deployment;
(d) Persons participating in an honor guard for a funeral or flag ceremony who are associated with an organization such as the American legion, American veterans, veterans of foreign wars, wounded warrior project, and boy scouts of America, or other such organizations;
(e) Law enforcement officers who are otherwise not on duty acting within the course and scope of their employment or official duties;
(f) Corrections officers who are otherwise not on duty acting within the course and scope of their employment or official duties;
(g) First responders, including public safety, fire, and emergency medical staff who are designated or trained to respond immediately to the scene of an emergency, accident, or incident in order to provide assistance, save lives, or protect property;
(h) Persons who are licensed private security guards, armed private security guards, bail bond agents, bail bond recovery agents, or registered process servers;
(i) Owners, executives, employees, and customers of businesses engaged in the manufacture, repair, renovation, modification, alteration, or engraving of firearms or firearm parts, or firearm- related accessories;
(j) Certified, licensed, or recognized firearm training or safety instructors and students participating in the firearm training or safety class;
(k) Certified, licensed, or recognized hunter education training course instructors and students participating in the hunter education training course;
(l) Persons who hold a valid hunting license during a recognized hunting season or while legally hunting;
(m) Persons at a recognized or otherwise legal military, law enforcement, commercial, or other public or private shooting range facility;
(n) Persons loaning, giving, or receiving firearms that are curios, relics, or antiques, or have otherwise been made completely inoperable;
(o) Persons who own firearms and persons who represent historical societies or museums;
(p) Representatives of a firearm or hunter organization while preparing for an organization event that includes a raffle or auction and between and among representatives of the organization and persons who are attending the event;
(q) The owner of a firearm and other persons who remain in the immediate presence of the firearm owner and the firearm is retained by the owner once the other persons have departed from the immediate presence of the firearm owner;
(r) Immediate family members; and
(s) Persons who possess a valid concealed pistol license.
I did not see transfers to airline/airport employees for shipping of firearms specifically exempted, although it may be covered in one of the many other expanded exemptions.
Relief for heirs:
Quote
(6) This section does not apply to the transfer of a firearm that is gifted from a deceased person to a beneficiary including a widow, child, or other immediate family member, friend, or other beneficiary and who is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a firearm.
Relief from registry requirements:
Quote
(7) No state or local government entity may maintain a registry or database of information provided by persons involved in the transfer of a firearm between two persons who are not federal firearms licensees. Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 9.41.110(9)(b) , a dealer shall not transfer a record of a pistol transfer application or a pistol transfer to the department of licensing. Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 9.41.129 , the department of licensing is prohibited from maintaining records of pistol transfers and pistol transfer applications for pistol sales or transfers conducted under subsection (3) of this section.
Relief from sales and use tax burdens:
Quote
(8 ) Chapter 1, Laws of 2015 (Initiative Measure No. 594) sales or transfers between two persons who are not federal firearms licensees are exempt from the use tax as well as the sales tax. The use tax imposed under the provisions of chapter 82.12 RCW shall not apply in respect to the use of a firearm sold or transferred between two persons who are not federal firearms licensees if they have complied with all background check requirements of this chapter.
Clarification on what is a covered "transfer":
Quote
(9) For the purposes of this section, the term "transfer" means the conveyance of a firearm from a person to another person with the intent of both parties to the conveyance that the transferee assumes all rights of possession, ownership, and control of the firearm and the transferor loses all rights of possession, ownership, and control of the firearm.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2164.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2164.pdf)
Post by: bobcat on February 20, 2015, 11:02:35 AM
Quote
(o) Persons who own firearms and persons who represent historical societies or museums;
I really like the above exemption, and especially the part I bolded. So, a person who already owns a firearm would be totally exempt from the requirements of I-594?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 20, 2015, 11:10:11 AM
Quote(o) Persons who own firearms and persons who represent historical societies or museums;
I really like the above exemption, and especially the part I bolded. So, a person who already owns a firearm would be totally exempt from the requirements of I-594?
There are a lot like that in there.
Quote
(l) Persons who hold a valid hunting license during a recognized hunting season or while legally hunting;
I can see a lot of these being narrowed/removed in committee.
Post by: bobcat on February 20, 2015, 11:13:22 AM
Quote(o) Persons who own firearms and persons who represent historical societies or museums;
I really like the above exemption, and especially the part I bolded. So, a person who already owns a firearm would be totally exempt from the requirements of I-594?
There are a lot like that in there.Quote(l) Persons who hold a valid hunting license during a recognized hunting season or while legally hunting;
I can see a lot of these being narrowed/removed in committee.
Well let's hope those two are not!
Post by: Ice Cap on February 20, 2015, 12:53:45 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 20, 2015, 12:59:39 PM
Would the new transfer definition allow letting non CCP holding friends use one of my firearms while we are target shooting up in the hills?
That's how it reads from my perspective, so long as he/she is not otherwise a prohibited possessor.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 20, 2015, 01:33:22 PM
Would the new transfer definition allow letting non CCP holding friends use one of my firearms while we are target shooting up in the hills?I believe (q) would cover that
Post by: CP on February 20, 2015, 02:01:05 PM
Go here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2164&year=2015 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2164&year=2015)
Then click on "Comment on this bill"
Post by: csaaphill on February 20, 2015, 05:35:25 PM
But ok whatever guess it's a start! :rolleyes:
Post by: TONTO on February 20, 2015, 05:53:20 PM
Quote(o) Persons who own firearms and persons who represent historical societies or museums;
I really like the above exemption, and especially the part I bolded. So, a person who already owns a firearm would be totally exempt from the requirements of I-594?
Reads like that is only for a transfer to a historical society or museum.
This one seems interesting though
Quote
(s) Persons who possess a valid concealed pistol license.Again depending on definition of "transfer"
Would this make sales between cpl holders legal without an ffl?
Post by: Stein on February 20, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Quote
Dear Friends and Neighbors:
Last November, Initiative 594 passed with 59.2 percent of the statewide vote. Support for the initiative varied throughout the state, with many areas opposing it. For example, only 42.5 percent of voters supported I-594 in the 39th District. Personally, I voted NO on this initiative. My family and I have enjoyed shooting sports for years, and we have taught all of our children to be responsible, safety-conscious gun enthusiasts.
The initiative went into effect December 4. It requires background checks for all gun sales and transfers. Any time a gun is sold or exchanges hands, with a few exceptions, the parties involved must go to a licensed firearm dealer to have a background check. I-594 also doubles the waiting time on handgun sales from five to 10 days.
As many people predicted, the initiative is presenting a number of serious problems for law-abiding gun owners and businesses in our state. This, despite the fact proponents promised these problems wouldn’t happen. For example, I-594's burdensome, time-consuming requirements fundamentally prevent:
veterans who have been honorably discharged from the military from using issued firearms with honor guards for funerals or flag ceremonies;
active duty military personnel from giving their firearms to family or friends to use while at a private shooting range or to care for their firearms while they are away on training or are deployed for duty; and
certain businesses from making safety repairs to firearms or firearm accessories, such as holsters, because it is considered a transfer to receive the firearm they were asked to fix or make accessories for.
These are just a few of the unwarranted difficulties law-abiding citizens have brought to my attention on I-594. If you have a personal story to share please contact me.
Whether it was the intent of the people who wrote the initiative or not, the outcomes have had real consequences for legal gun owners. Meanwhile, criminals will continue to circumvent any gun law they can in order to commit crimes.
As you might expect, there have been bills introduced this year that would repeal I-594, (House Bill 1245), fix small parts of it (House Bill 1533) and even go beyond (House Bill 1747) what the initiative established.
House Bill 2164 is an omnibus, or comprehensive, approach that would fix the problems with I-594 I noted above. It would also: help women protect themselves when they have filed a restraining order, protection order, or no-contact order because they have been threatened; ensure museums can display historic firearms; allow gun owners and firearms safety instructors to share firearms at shooting ranges; and clarify that armed private security guards are allowed to do their jobs.
An important aspect of House Bill 2164 is that it would only apply to persons not otherwise disqualified from possessing a firearm. In other words, it empowers those who have followed the law.
The legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where we are still waiting to see if the chair, Rep. Laurie Jinkins, will give it a hearing.
Below are other gun-related bills that have been introduced, including the prime sponsors:
I-594 related bills:
House Bill 1119 (Blake)
House Bill 1245 (Shea)
House Bill 1506 (Kirby)
House Bill 1521 (Taylor)
House Bill 1533 (Van Werven)
House Bill 1886 (G. Hunt)
Senate Bill 5615 (Benton)
Senate Bill 5579 (Dammeier)
Other gun-related bills:
House Bill 1191 (Taylor)
House Bill 1193 (Taylor)
House Bill 1324 (Shea)
House Bill 1433 (Scott)
House Bill 1442 (Hunt)
House Bill 1535 (Klippert)
House Bill 1594 (Wylie)
House Bill 1692 (Wylie)
House Bill 1722 (Hayes)
House Bill 1747 (Kagi)
House Bill 1731 (Ormsby)
House Bill 1857 (Jinkins)
House Bill 2031 (Harmsworth)
House Bill 2088 (Shea)
House Bill 2089 (Shea)
Senate Bill 5036 (O’Ban)
Senate Bill 5381 (Billig)
Senate Bill 5476 (Dammeier)
Senate Bill 5500 (Roach)
Senate Bill 5539 (Roach)
Senate Bill 5643 (O’Ban)
Senate Bill 5727 (Frockt)
Senate Bill 5789 (Kohl-Welles)
By clicking on these hyperlinks, you can follow the status of bills and share your views on them by clicking on the "Comment on this bill" icon. This will allow you to say if you support, oppose or are neutral on the legislation, and provide you the opportunity to share your comments. This information will be shared with your state lawmakers.
As you know, I am a 2nd Amendment supporter and will continue to work toward protecting the rights of lawful gun owners.
In your service,
Dan
Post by: huntrights on February 22, 2015, 08:26:32 AM
Temporary transfers between all people and entities that can legally posses firearms should be fully exempted. For example: Sharing firearms while target practicing on public land. Loaning a firearm to a friend for hunting, target practice, or any legal firearm related activity regardless of whether the firearm owner is present or not. The list of examples can go on forever. What do we do when we encounter a situation of temporary transfer that isn't listed as an exemption, but is perfectly legitimate? There is no reason that temporary transfers of firearms should be subject to background checks when done between people or entities that can legally possess firearms.
In the end, I-594 needs to be repealed; it is one of the most onerous, invasive, unnecessary, and unconstitutional pieces of anti-gun legislation that has been shoved into our lives by the votes of a public misguided by the emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe paid for by anti-gun billionaires.
The initiative process was obviously abused in this case; that process should be fixed to prevent further abuses. Now that the anti-gun zealots have successfully tested their initiative approach to force their anti-gun agendas into our lives in Washington, they are using the same methodology in other states.
Post by: lokidog on February 22, 2015, 08:37:44 AM
If you have to add over 20 clarifications, I would say there might be something wrong with the original.... :bash: