User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 3:14:40 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration.
Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 3:29:25 PM EDT
[#2]
we need to understand that the writers of this bill are clearly sending a message, that message is that they want to turn ALL law abiding citizens into felons. in doing so felons can't possess guns. make no mistake that is their INTENT, and nothing else.
once you have all guns registered and most everyone is a felon then they will confiscate all weapons and live in the happy utopia they have created. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 3:38:03 PM EDT
[#3]
I believe he is breaching his oath of office as an attorney and he should be barred from practicing law in Washington State, and all his cases should be reviewed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 4:02:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Translation, "I wouldn't worry, we'll interpret it reasonably..." pfffttt....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 4:31:15 PM EDT
[#5]
What I read in the text of the bill is that it has to be an approved range, no going out into the woods shooting with your buddies and letting them fire your guns there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 5:04:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:59:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then they ask you for a receipt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. And if you bought the gun a while back from someone else when such idiocy wasn't in place? If that thing passes the next step will be requiring registration under the excuse that it's required to enforce it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:04:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And if you bought the gun a while back from someone else when such idiocy wasn't in place? If that thing passes the next step will be requiring registration under the excuse that it's required to enforce it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. And if you bought the gun a while back from someone else when such idiocy wasn't in place? If that thing passes the next step will be requiring registration under the excuse that it's required to enforce it. I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying I wouldn't put it past them to put the burden of proof on the owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 3:17:09 AM EDT
[#9]
ask him why the explicit exemption for temporary transfer for self defense exists in 594.
if it really was the intention of 594 that temporary transfers of possession were exempt, the exemption for self defense would not exist. but there it is. ask him if it is legal under 594 to lend someone your gun on private land, not a rifle range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 3:27:56 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then they ask you for a receipt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. my dad gave it to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 11:56:54 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then they ask you for a receipt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. Ask them for the receipt for the underwear they have on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 3:50:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And if you bought the gun a while back from someone else when such idiocy wasn't in place? If that thing passes the next step will be requiring registration under the excuse that it's required to enforce it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. And if you bought the gun a while back from someone else when such idiocy wasn't in place? If that thing passes the next step will be requiring registration under the excuse that it's required to enforce it. I-594 is what could be phrased, "rolling registration." As time passes and firearms are sold or "transferred" (what a bullshit law) more and more will be re-registered in various FFL books. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:43:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? I think the problem is when you and your friend are seen trading guns back and forth while out shooting. Then who ones the gun? You, guilty of a transfer of a firearm, friend guilty of accepting firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:49:09 AM EDT
[#14]
I saw in the WAC magazine, that if I kick the bucket, my wife is GTG with rifles and shotguns, but she would have 60 days to get a background check and transfer the hand guns to her. Or some one else.
The devil is truly in the details of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:17:11 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw in the WAC magazine, that if I kick the bucket, my wife is GTG with rifles and shotguns, but she would have 60 days to get a background check and transfer the hand guns to her. Or some one else. The devil is truly in the details of this. Interesting scenario. So, here in WA a couple already co-owns everything (the technical term escapes my memory). So, guns are exceptions? Furthermore, what if you had already given everything to her (or vice-versa) even before the plebiscite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 2:29:34 PM EDT
[#16]
What about weapons held in a trust? Does 594 address that at all?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:24:51 PM EDT
[#17]
A trust is mentioned; it is a legal entity. Section 2 of I-594 says in part;
(17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity. As far as the police observing two people sharing a firearm. I suppose they would have to prove that the two people did not co-own the firearm. This means that when you are questioned by the police you do not admit to anything or make a statement of any kind other than"this is our rifle" for example. Do not lie to the police; best not to make any statement at all. Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 8:00:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A trust is mentioned; it is a legal entity. Section 2 of I-594 says in part; Quote HistoryQuoted:
A trust is mentioned; it is a legal entity. Section 2 of I-594 says in part; (17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity. So if you have all your guns in a trust, and you put everyone you know in your trust as well, you can pass your guns around all you want without transferring through a dealer? Sounds like a lawyers wet dream. I wonder how much we are going to have to pay a lawyer for the privilege... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 10:37:21 PM EDT
[#19]
CavVet is my friend.
He is known to me. I lend him an AR15 for the weekend to check out because he wants to buy one. Did I just break the law under 594? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 10:41:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Yes Sir!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 10:49:23 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CavVet is my friend. He is known to me. I lend him an AR15 for the weekend to check out because he wants to buy one. Did I just break the law under 594? If he's such a good friend the rifle should actually belong to him forever, at least for the weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 10:20:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting scenario. So, here in WA a couple already co-owns everything (the technical term escapes my memory). So, guns are exceptions? Furthermore, what if you had already given everything to her (or vice-versa) even before the plebiscite? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I saw in the WAC magazine, that if I kick the bucket, my wife is GTG with rifles and shotguns, but she would have 60 days to get a background check and transfer the hand guns to her. Or some one else. The devil is truly in the details of this. Interesting scenario. So, here in WA a couple already co-owns everything (the technical term escapes my memory). So, guns are exceptions? Furthermore, what if you had already given everything to her (or vice-versa) even before the plebiscite? when I told Mrs. Kubota this, she said I had bought the guns then gave them to her as birthday and Christmas presents over the years, prove otherwise. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 12:10:19 AM EDT
[#23]
The question I was thinking of the other day: what if I will my firearms to my son, but I die before he turns 18. Under 594 he must pass a background check within 60 days, but being a minor, he cannot pass a NICS check, he is not old enough. Would the firearms be seized?
What an absolute bizarre requirement of an already shitty initiative. That being said, some of my good family friends are well-known attorneys in the Kitsap area. Hauge is almost universally disliked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 2:28:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Good thread Randy. I also asked for an AG opinion but they won't give one unless it passes.
There is one exception in 594 that doesn't make sense. If you have a type 6 FFL for manufacturing ammo you are exempt from the check. A Type 6 FFL costs $30 last time I checked. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 2:31:44 AM EDT
[#25]
The AG is not going to be giving any opinions on any law to a mere resident. You will have to ask your legislator or sheriff to ask the AG for you. If I-594 passes I plan on asking my Senator to ask the AG for an opinion on the hunting exception and use of another person's firearm while they are present.
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 2:53:16 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:There is one exception in 594 that doesn't make sense. If you have a type 6 FFL for manufacturing ammo you are exempt from the check. A Type 6 FFL costs $30 last time I checked. It doesn't have to make sense. I-594 is about reducing access to firearms. Interesting idea though. I think a type 06 FFL is in my future if I-594 passes. I-594 defines a dealer as; (4) "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail who has, or is required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). A licensed dealer is defined as: (13) "Licensed dealer" means a person who is federally licensed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). It goes on to say in Section 3; (2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer; (b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or (c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met. Dealers as defined by 18 USC 923a are; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/923 (a) No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. .........
(1) If the applicant is a manufacturer— (A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year; (B) of firearms other than destructive devices, a fee of $50 per year; or (C) of ammunition for firearms, other than ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $10 per year. ......... (3) If the applicant is a dealer— (B) who is not a dealer in destructive devices, a fee of $200 for 3 years, except that the fee for renewal of a valid license shall be $90 for 3 years. Thanks for the information. :) Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:31:55 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ask him why the explicit exemption for temporary transfer for self defense exists in 594. if it really was the intention of 594 that temporary transfers of possession were exempt, the exemption for self defense would not exist. but there it is. ask him if it is legal under 594 to lend someone your gun on private land, not a rifle range. Practically, that exemption still requires a background check. So, you're supposed to stop everything and assure that (ii) below is satisfied. Note that it says "state and federal law". So if, in an emergency, you hand your backup gun to someone who is otherwise clean, but has smoked a joint (legal in WA but still prohibited federally), you just violated 594. Just another example of the excessively convoluted reasoning behind this. Harassment of law abiding gun owners passed off as public safety. To wit: (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; ETA: fixed bold formatting |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 1:17:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Practically, that exemption still requires a background check. So, you're supposed to stop everything and assure that (ii) below is satisfied. Note that it says "state and federal law". So if, in an emergency, you hand your backup gun to someone who is otherwise clean, but has smoked a joint (legal in WA but still prohibited federally), you just violated 594. Just another example of the excessively convoluted reasoning behind this. Harassment of law abiding gun owners passed off as public safety. To wit: (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) [b]The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ask him why the explicit exemption for temporary transfer for self defense exists in 594. if it really was the intention of 594 that temporary transfers of possession were exempt, the exemption for self defense would not exist. but there it is. ask him if it is legal under 594 to lend someone your gun on private land, not a rifle range. Practically, that exemption still requires a background check. So, you're supposed to stop everything and assure that (ii) below is satisfied. Note that it says "state and federal law". So if, in an emergency, you hand your backup gun to someone who is otherwise clean, but has smoked a joint (legal in WA but still prohibited federally), you just violated 594. Just another example of the excessively convoluted reasoning behind this. Harassment of law abiding gun owners passed off as public safety. To wit: (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) [b]The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; Did the idiots that wrote this thing also provisioned for a huge fund to enforce it? It appears that the State would have to spend quite a fortune trying to keep an eye on every range, transaction and even private lands trying to enforce it. And, of course, the criminals would be left alone since no one would have time for them. But that is probably part of their plan. Now they even bring criminals for commencement speeches across the country (WA included) that show what their role models are. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/01/despicable-decision-to-allow-abu-jamal-to-give-college-commencement-speech/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 11:11:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Oh, I'm sure they put a lot of thought into this. How to maximize harassment of law-abiding gun owners while minimizing inconvenience to career criminals. Genius, really, the ability to make something so convoluted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:34:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The AG is not going to be giving any opinions on any law to a mere resident. You will have to ask your legislator or sheriff to ask the AG for you. If I-594 passes I plan on asking my Senator to ask the AG for an opinion on the hunting exception and use of another person's firearm while they are present. To be more specific, I asked my Senator to get an opinion, and he said the AG's office won't give one prior to an election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 1:48:43 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think a type 06 FFL is in my future if I-594 passes. You're welcome! I'm not sure how a Type 06 FFL handles firearms though - do they have to keep a bound book like a regular FFL? And I assume the ATF requires a business zoning so you can't run it out of your residence in King County. Kitsap might be OK. Everything I've seen about Type 06 FFL mentions the cost of insurance and ITAR registration. I wonder if you could apply for a Type 06 FFL because you theoretically planned to design a limited number of special bullets for commercial sale. But if no actual manufacturing, sales or handling of primers or powder ever happens, I don't see how you would need ITAR or insurance. That wouldn't affect your status under 594 however. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 2:32:30 AM EDT
[#32]
Nuts, didn't think about the ITAR; I feel like a total dork now. :)
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2014 6:58:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I'm sure they put a lot of thought into this. How to maximize harassment of law-abiding gun owners while minimizing inconvenience to career criminals. Genius, really, the ability to make something so convoluted. Yep. The supporters hate guns, so they will just keep marching. They are trying to pass this law because they are trying to make gun ownership uncomfortable as possible. And when the law does nothing to reduce real crime they will just want more gun laws. It's pretty simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2014 12:53:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then they ask you for a receipt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't understand how they could carry out I-594 without registration. Police: "Is that gun yours?" Response: "Yup." Who would be to argue that response? Then they ask you for a receipt. Not having a receipt isn't probable cause to believe you transferred it illegally... After all, there are how many million guns in this state that were bought long before 594 & no one thought 'hey, I should save my reciept in case the Microsofties push through an idiotic gun law'... Enforcement would be by sting operation or random roll-up 'luck'... Just like enforcement of the straw-buyer law (When it happens) today... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
