User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:18:48 AM EDT
[#1]
That's still politics. What I am trying to talk about in this thread is operating within the law in a scenario where 594 IS the law. It might be overturned or amended later, whatever, until then what do we do to stay legal and not get busted for a felony just for going to shoot with friends...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:29:03 AM EDT
[#2]
i predict the only prosecutions for 594 will be after the fact, added on charges on top of another crime. i doubt there will be any prosecutions of 594 in and of itself.
for shooting with friends, CYA would be to just make it an 'organized competiton' under exemption f(iiii). keep a score sheet. whoever shoots the best gets free lunch courtesy of the losers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:11:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i predict the only prosecutions for 594 will be after the fact, added on charges on top of another crime. i doubt there will be any prosecutions of 594 in and of itself. for shooting with friends, CYA would be to just make it an 'organized competiton' under exemption f(iiii). keep a score sheet. whoever shoots the best gets free lunch courtesy of the losers. Not sure this would cut it. Doesn't it have to be in an "approved range"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:26:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure this would cut it. Doesn't it have to be in an "approved range"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
i predict the only prosecutions for 594 will be after the fact, added on charges on top of another crime. i doubt there will be any prosecutions of 594 in and of itself. for shooting with friends, CYA would be to just make it an 'organized competiton' under exemption f(iiii). keep a score sheet. whoever shoots the best gets free lunch courtesy of the losers. Not sure this would cut it. Doesn't it have to be in an "approved range"? I'd like to see the means for approval in the RCW/WAC 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:19:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure this would cut it. Doesn't it have to be in an "approved range"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
i predict the only prosecutions for 594 will be after the fact, added on charges on top of another crime. i doubt there will be any prosecutions of 594 in and of itself. for shooting with friends, CYA would be to just make it an 'organized competiton' under exemption f(iiii). keep a score sheet. whoever shoots the best gets free lunch courtesy of the losers. Not sure this would cut it. Doesn't it have to be in an "approved range"? no. read the text. you are confusing f(ii) with f(iii). they are independent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:06:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Well, that's encouraging. My wife and I never shoot at formal ranges anymore.. and keeping score is pretty easy. Not sure what definitions they would use for the wording of that part of the law though. If two people are shooting, is it enough for a "competition"? I would think so, but gun laws never make sense so...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:13:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no. read the text. you are confusing f(ii) with f(iii). they are independent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i predict the only prosecutions for 594 will be after the fact, added on charges on top of another crime. i doubt there will be any prosecutions of 594 in and of itself. for shooting with friends, CYA would be to just make it an 'organized competiton' under exemption f(iiii). keep a score sheet. whoever shoots the best gets free lunch courtesy of the losers. Not sure this would cut it. Doesn't it have to be in an "approved range"? no. read the text. you are confusing f(ii) with f(iii). they are independent. This may be the loophole we need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2014 12:36:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not sure why some people are claiming that 594 is "unenforceable". Like any other law in the state, all that is required to get in trouble is for an agent of the state to see you do it. If you're out in the woods shooting and a park ranger guy spots you and a friend passing guns back and forth to shoot targets and they report it, it sure as shit is enforceable. Can they prove that a gun bought before 594 is owned by a specific person? No. Can they prove that ONE of the two people passing it back/forth must NOT be the owner? Hell yes. Even if that wasn't the case, the enforcement approach may simply me a long term one. Kinda like the 1986 MG manufacturing ban. Eventually they will all be gone. Just a matter of time. Eventually a majority of the guns in the state will be 'post transfer ban' and they certainly will be able to tell who owns what, and who doesn't own what. This law is plenty enforceable enough. Whos to say you don't own a percentage of a rifle? Im not aware of any law that says you can buy a portion of a tangible item. Fractional ownership with a notarized contract.
|
|
|
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.
