Hi Guys,

November is coming up, and with it, voting time. On the ballot will be Initiative 594. The text on the ballot will be this:

This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

The professed intent of this bill is to "Makes sure anyone buying a gun in Washington State passes the same background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter whom they buy it from" in order to make it harder for criminals to get guns. This is, however, only part of what this law does. It makes TRANSFERS (Defined in bill as (25) "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.) subject to background check at an FFL dealership and waiting periods. This means that if you want to go shooting with friends, you better not touch another person's gun, unless they have transferred the weapon to you via an FFL dealership. That would be a misdemeanor. Do it twice, and it becomes a class C felony.

This is stupid. Criminals are going to obtain firearms. Period. Criminals who are not allowed to have guns, if they want them, are going to get them. They are LAW BREAKERS by definition. Bills like this do nothing to help lower violence, all they do is potentially make another "gotcha" for responsible gun owners everywhere. If you need proof that Gun Control laws do nothing to curb violence, please look at Chicago.

Get informed by reading the whole text of the bill before voting.

Actual text of bill
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

How are they describing 591?

Fuck 594 and the assholes that penned it!

But gotta do sumfin!

Pleebs don't know what "transfers" are, what else is new?

We even have gun owners on forums like Waguns supporting and relentlessly making excuses for 594, saying that they believe it will reduce crime with no side effects on legal gun owners.

I'm sure it will pass.  If it does I hope 591 does too.  That should be interesting.

Does anyone have access to a vote no on I-594 design that I can take to a print shop for yard signs and stickers? I am not creative but if I have to make something from scratch I will and repost here for others.

Do we have a definitive answer on what happens if 591 and 594 pass?
Thanks!

the guys at WAGURIGHTS.ORG game me this

http://wagunrights.org/graphics-and-posters/

I will be relentlessly fighting this through facebook and on the street!

All I can do is promise to vote no.  

Unfortunately this state has become completely libtarded to the max and people keep voting these idiots into office.  

So, my warm and fuzzy -o- meter is not feeling good on this one.

In Harm’s Way—I594 & Law Enforcement
By Phil Shave, Executive Director, Washington Arms Collectors; retired Chief of Law Enforcement,Washington State Parks; former Washington State Criminal Justice Training, Advanced Training Unit Manager for 19 years
There are a lot of politicians, including some mayors and chiefs, who will tell you that I594 is a good law designed to close the gun show loophole. This is not the truth. I594 is a law so broadly written that it clearly is designed to make criminals of all recreational shooters and most law enforcement officers. When you understand what it will actually do, then you too will oppose it.
Law enforcement officers, experienced at reading, interpreting and applying laws, can read the text of I594 and understand how it will affect them directly, and how irrelevant it is to crime control. Don’t take my word for it, go to the Secretary of State’s website and read the actual text for yourself (http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf). What you will find is a law that will be impossible to police, intended to criminalize only good citizens, a costly misdirection of scarce LE resources and funds, and a statute so broadly written that many of your own activities will become crimes.
Before attempting to analyze I594, you must first understand that it regulates all transfers, not just sales. I594 very clearly and broadly defines a transfer as any movement of a firearm from one person to another, no matter how temporary, and even without any money changing hands; this law is not about firearm sales. If you take possession of a firearm for any length of time and for any reason (safekeeping, hunting, loan, recreational sharing, safety training, coaching, transport, etc.) then you have met the I594 definition of transfer. Every transfer requires that a background be conducted by an FFL dealer at your expense, and this FFL background check must occur each and every time a firearm is transferred. Hard to believe someone would write a law like this isn’t it? Here’s the quoted definition of transfers which are covered by I594: “(25) “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.”
The usual way to obtain law enforcement support for an oppressive law is to grant LE officers an exemption. Let’s take a look at the “exemption” I594 grants to LE. Your firearm transfers are exempt from the requirement that you go through an FFL dealer (paying a fee, registering your firearms) only when, “acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties.” Clearly, while on-duty you can continue to confiscate firearms during arrest or for safekeeping, and all agency-issued firearms would appear to be exempt from this law. What about your off-duty pistol or backup gun? Does your department require you to carry a firearm off duty? You are okay if this pistol is department issued, but if you carry a personally owned firearm of any kind then the private purchase of this firearm will fall under the requirements of I594. This would apply to patrol rifles (often permitted by a department as an individually purchased item). Backup guns are almost always personally owned. I594 language is very clear: “within the course and scope of…employment.” The course of employment would mean a transfer conducted while performing your job, and the scope of employment is limited to official actions required by your employer in order to perform your duties. I see no way that even a clever lawyer can extend this exemption to any firearm you personally purchase and use, even if most of the use is on-duty. Why? Because that backup pistol is probably not a department-required firearm and thus is not within the scope of your employment; it is a personal choice and purchased with your own funds. LE officers are not exempt from I594 when they trade, loan, purchase or transfer firearms that are not owned by the department.
So, you'd better find an FFL dealer when you trade that fishing rig for a brother-officer’s J frame 38. If you don’t, that transaction will be a misdemeanor. Go out to the range while off-duty and try out another officer’s backup gun; now you are both criminals (probably felons since a second transfer becomes a felony). There is no way you can stretch that “scope of employment” exemption to cover transfers of private firearms done during recreational shooting. Remember, there is nothing in the law that allows even a short, trial or recreational transfer. Maybe you will buy a patrol rifle from your brother, a family transfer, so that you can be well-equipped on duty. Sure you are going to use this rifle in the course of your official duties, but the transfer is not within the “course of employment”, and your non-LE brother must transfer through an FFL dealer and you must pay the fees and taxes. Let’s assume that you buy a gun from another officer for only law enforcement purposes; this is actually a private purchase conducted without your employer’s supervision, private funds are used, and you will continue to own this firearm when you quit or retire from this employment; therefore this transfer is regulated by I594.
Sometimes we drop our LE backup firearms off at the gunsmith for repair or tune-up. During that period you might borrow a firearm from a relative or friend, someone who cares about you and won’t hesitate to loan you a gun. Do you want to make that person a felon? If the transfer is not done through an FFL in both directions, when you take it and when you return it, then you will have criminalized your friend.
And what about repairs? Those nice-to-know experts on your S&W or AR rifle cannot take your firearm even for inspection or diagnosis without transfer through an FFL. Maybe your department has an armorer qualified to work on your backup pistol; since most departments do not have an FFL, the transfer of your privately owned pistol to the department armorer is an illegal transfer unless booked and backgrounded by an FFL. Few people own, buy, sell and trade as many

firearms as do LE officers. It takes little imagination to see that LE officers will violate this law without intending to. It is
nearly unavoidable because of the breadth of the regulations.
Brady v. Maryland is the 1963 case law stating that, “evidence affecting the credibility of the police officer as a witness
may be exculpatory evidence and should be given to the defense during discovery.” (Police Officer Truthfulness and the
Brady Decision Jeff Noble, Commander, Irvine, California, Police Department, The Police Chief, vol. 70, no. 10, October
2003) Defense attorneys often attempt to use officer disciplinary action, policy and law violations as evidence of officer
misconduct and untruthfulness. It may be quite easy for a defense attorney to portray an officer as a felon, even if not
convicted of firearm violations. A series of questions regarding the officer’s use and acquisition of firearms may establish
that the officer has disregarded the laws on firearms transfers. If the arresting officer’s testimony is for a firearm violation
then the questions on the officer’s own acquisition and disposal of firearms may be allowed. I594 makes officers
vulnerable to Brady attacks.
Officers are subject to a multitude of policy requirements, and most departments will not retain an officer who has
committed felonies. With the I594 law, an officer can commit these felonies within the span of a few minutes, in a single
shooting session with friends, or by selling a personal firearm to a brother or sister or to another officer. Most of us realize
that conviction is not required for termination; the department may reach their conclusions through an internal
investigation. You are required to answer all questions and cooperate in internal investigations and if you have failed to do
the paperwork on a firearm “transfer” then you are at risk of termination based upon your own admissions. Do you think
that your department will choose to ignore the commission of felony crimes by their officers? Will you lose your job and
civil right to possess a firearm, among other rights, because you violated the provisions of I594?
How will you answer or testify when asked, “Have you ever, no matter how temporarily, given, loaned, shared or sold a
firearm to another person without processing this through a Federally licensed firearms dealer? On how many occasions?”
I believe you are more at risk than the ordinary citizen.
Surely I exaggerate the possible penalties for failure to do the paperwork on a temporary loan or sharing of a firearm?
“…any person knowingly violating section 3 of this act is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20
RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony
punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of section 3 of this act. A person is guilty
of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check
requirements of section 3 of this act.”
Let’s look for a moment at what I594 will cost and the impact it will have on law enforcement. This initiative comes with
no funding source, yet requires the State to record millions of firearms transactions each year. We don’t actually know how
many private transfers there are in the State of Washington, but based on the broad definition of transfer there must be
thousands of transfers each weekend just at firing ranges, gravel pits and DNR land. Instead of spending scarce public
funds on serious law enforcement needs, the State will be required to spend money on personnel to move all that paper,
enlarge databases to hold it, and create records for all these transactions. You know how often you use the existing State
handgun registry (seldom) and how useful it is as an investigative tool (not at all). This system will explode and begin to
consume an ever-increasing percentage of our criminal justice funding.
For a moment, please shift perspective and look at I594 as it will impact ordinary citizens. Your family members, friends
and relatives do not have even the illusory protection of a law enforcement exemption. The volunteers who coach safety
and marksmanship classes and women’s self-defense training will no longer be able to legally offer these classes. Despite
the statements of I594 promoters the language is crystal clear: There is no exemption for temporary transfer to adults, and
temporary sharing is only allowed during “organized competitions” (safety training, coaching and recreational shooting are
by definition not organized competitions), and transfers without background checks can be effected only if the “…firearm is
kept at all times, at an established shooting range,” (a false exception since firing ranges do not allow firearms to be kept at
the range). Family members cannot buy and sell within the family unless they do this through an FFL.
Nothing is free. FFL dealers can set the fee that they charge for a transfer; remember, this is not for just sales, this
includes each and every time the firearm changes hands, even temporarily. Currently this is usually $40 to $50 per
transaction. I594 appears to exempt these transactions from sales tax, but this may be illusory since it is really the use tax
that applies to these non-retail transfers. Every transfer of a firearm will be at a cost of $40 plus about 10% of the value of
the firearm.
As a law enforcement officer I594 offers you no useful tools in dealing with firearm violations. It is fantasy to expect that
criminals will seek out an FFL dealer in order to acquire or trade guns. I594 places you and your job at risk. I594
transforms casual, innocent, ordinary, non-criminal behavior into a misdemeanor or felony. It diverts public funds to a
useless database, unproductive prosecutions and wasted jail space for convicted offenders. Read the text of I594 and then
join the fight to oppose this harsh and useless law. In the current political climate the only way to prevent the passage of
I594 is to support and vote for I591, which requires that any background check law meet a Federal standard applied to all
states.

Links to the Washington Secretary of State’s Office for the entire text of I594 and I591:
? I594— http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf
? I591— http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_471.pdf
We ask you to join us in stopping I594, and here's how you do it:
? share this information with your fellow officers, family and friends
? share this information with your law enforcement administrators—we believe that many are being misinformed and may publicly support I594 if you don't discuss the problems with them
? contact your local media to dispel myths being propogated by I594 proponents, many of whom are saying that I594 is about gun sales and gun shows; it is not, rather it is a massive effort to attack firearms ownership and recreation
? take this information to your guild or union and ask for public opposition to I594 and support for I591
? become involved with the pro-I591 group, Protect Our Gun Rights, visit the page http://wagunrights.org for details on involvement
? contact Phil Shave, 360-866-8478 or Bill Burris, 253-906-3371 if you need more information or wish to request a speaker to address a group.

slow your roll there good sir as far as i know there is only one guy on WaGuns that is supportive of 594 and we tear his "facts" apart all the time

I-594 will win.

It won't be votes by the people, it'll be corrupt vote rigging.

It will be voted for by every non-shooter and half the once a year shooters out there. Just reading the basic text why wouldn't you want background checks on gun sales?


It's sad that most people don't actually take the 20 seconds to Google what they are voting for and learn what the law will do.

Combat propaganda with education!  Educate yourselves, arm up with information, and spread the word! Bring this up in conversation, open up dialogue, then show people what this actually does! Education is the best defense against government infringement, the more informed people are the less likely they fall for this kind of misrepresentation.

I-594 will pass, our only hope is that I-591 also passes, but after the seattle elitists dumped in 4 million, that probably wont happen.

This is our chance to prove money cannot buy elections. Bloomberg tried to by the sheriff election in Milwaukee but that was a bust.  Don't quit! Don't give up! How awesome would it be to see all those people crap there millions away!

Is there someplace that has a printable version of the bill, with all of the details that we can print off and give to family and friends to educate them on all of the fine print of the law?  What MRBLACK wrote above is good but a little long winded for the majority of readers.
or can someone write a brief synopsis of this bill and post it somewhere that we can direct people to for the info?

Here is some info from various sources;

NRA
WACOPS
WAC

I don't think it will pass.

Randy

I wonder what the implications would be for not complying?

Read the wording of the bill... You guys in WA are so screwed...

I hope you are right by why don't you think it will pass?

Thanks for the links, and all that you do to help with our gun rights here in WA.
I certainly hope you are right Randy, but there is alot of money behind it.  

Remember there was a lot of money behind those recalls in CO.  Bloomie dumped beacoup dollars into the mix and they still were recalled.  Do I think 594 will pass, yes I do, do I think 591 will pass as well, yes I do.  This is the barracks lawyer speaking here, but I have heard that if both of them pass, 591 takes precedence, but that's just what I have heard.  Also with what happened in CA, there is a justifiable case for getting rid of the 10 day waiting period.

The trend in the last several years has been easing restrictions, not increasing them.  If you listened to the hearings in Olympia you can see that most of the arguments for I-594 are emotional ones, not legal ones.  I don't recall anyone claiming that their tragedy could have been prevented by a new bkgd check bill.  Since I-594 is directed at law abiding persons only, most people know it will not have an effect.  

We need to get the word out on other forums that I-594 is not only about gun sales but about transfers and how a transfer is defined (just handing  gun to another person is a transfer).  The synopsis of I-594 shown on the WAGR website is misleading as it only talks about buying guns, not transfers.

Randy

I'll post the last post for page 1.

and own page 2

Made this really quick a few minutes ago.





If I should word it differently, someone let me know.  Otherwise, copy and fire at will.








 

Thanks for the pic. Posted it and already got a share out of it.

Gotta spread the word and get this crap knocked down.

Thanks!

Anyone who has an idea of some text or whatever, post it up.  I'll make some more.

Here are two I made.



and



Randy

It would also make it illegal to let your under 18yr old to hunt by themselves. Another way to become a felon.

Thanks for the flyers. Will fire up the printer and social media a few weeks before ballot time and do some more educating of others.

Start educating everyone you can.

The pro communist 594 commercials portray it as when you buy/sell a gun, but it is way more than that.

Again, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS, educate all about the details. It can be defeated, but I doubt the libtards in King Co. will be swayed by facts.

I think we may have to put our hope in the courts, scary I know.

I hope you don't mind me posting the flyers in social media. I'm trying to educate my rather large family be they democrats, Fuds or serious 2A supporters

Post away please.

Bump for the night crew

Exchange with my sheriff. I responded and asked him to add his name to the 7.

Mr....,

Thanks for the email concerning I-591. I'm currently out of the State, but I'm a supporter of gun rights. Have a great weekend!

Steve Keane, Sheriff

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 30, 2014, at 7:00 AM, " wrote:

Sheriff Keane,
I am writing to request your formal support for I-591.
http://wagunrights.org/endorsements/
I know you have supported gun rights in the past and appreciate the service you have provided to Benton County representing the rights of people in our county. Furthermore, the better educated we can make the public on I-594 and how unworkable and unenforcible it is a top priority this election season. Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful Labor Day weekend!

Thank you.

Put the 2nd of two flyers on my Facebook.  Already got a share, I'm sure more likes/shares to follow.  Thank you Ranb.

So does this mean that gun rentals at a range or usage of the ranges firearms at a basic safety class be illegal without a background check for each firearm?

Looked like they actually put an exemption in for range gun rentals. States something about if the firearm is kept at the FFL at all times, then it is ok to do transfer without BG check.

I can also allow a child to handle my firearms without a bkgd check.  I guess adults in WA just can't be trusted.

Randy

Thanks! Started circulating these tonight.

Thanks Ranb.  My education on I-594 has been expanded, and I have shared information through word of mouth and Facebook. A surprising amount of people have come in touch with me taken a back by what the bill actually does per the text on the SoS website.

still not OK to let a friend use your gun at the range though.

Here's a Facebook cover photo you guys can use.

Another 250k by Ballmer. http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/09/09/3144296_steve-ballmer-wife-give-250k-to.html?sp=/99/177/&rh=1