This bill would allow person to handle firearms not belonging to them at a charity event.  It is not much, but it does illustrate how draconian the new laws made by I-594 are.

Senate Bill 5506



The hearing is scheduled for 1/31/2017 10:00 a.m.

A bill like this one was heard in committee last session.  The WAGR shown up to oppose the bill.  They claimed it was already an exemption in the RCW but they lied.  I called them on it in a letter but they refused to provide more information on their stance.  The video can be watched here; SB 6158 Committeee hearing video  Rebecca Johnson (WAGR) claims that a transfer does not occur when a person hands a gun to another; she is of course wrong as to the letter of the law.

Randy

What a waste of time. The only bill being filed should be to REPEAL THE WHOLE THING!

Is that what you said about the silencer use  and SBR bills?  They were rather piecemeal instead of removing restrictions from silencers/SBR/SBS/MG all at once.   If everyone else thought they were a waste of time, then we would still be the only state in the union that allowed silencer ownership but prohibited use even by the police and licensed dealers.

Randy

The silencer and SBR bills weren't adding a BS paragraph to a BS law, that's the difference here. Why are they wasting time adding pointless exceptions to a law that needs to be removed in entirety?

I think it's because no one else has made any progress on a total repeal.

Randy

It's a start.

Thank you for keeping us updated.

Agree.  This is BS.    It's like throwing crumbles to the masses.  Screw them.

The anti's have eroded our rights one crumb at a time.  Why not fight them at their own game.  A little here and a little there.  It may take time, but we might just get back some of what we've lost.

Not at their game.  They have the cards and dice marked.  

Want to beat those bastards you have to change the game.

Trying to get the time off for this one.  If I do I will be there.

I dont see how 594 would prevent the handling of a firearm at a charity event anyway. Ownership must change to constitute a transfer. And as set out in the bill, you can handle another persons firearms in their presence legally. This bill is a feel good waste of time and money.

Most bills are a feel good waste of time and money.

This is how.  RCW 9.41.113
So, tell me how long you can handle a firearm and how far you can take it away from the owner without a bkgd check.  It says "all transfers without limitation".  I would assume that this means there is no limit on the duration (however short) that the firearm is under the control of someone other than the owner.  I understand that the police in WA seem to be reluctant to arrest people for temporary transfers, but we can't always count on that to be the case.


There are exceptions to the rule though.
Notice how this seems to exempt gun rental counters, not people who shoot each others guns in the woods.  A temporary transfer is not defined in the RCW's either.


A competition is another narrowly defined exception.


Are you sure?  Even a temporary transfer requires a bkgd check unless it meets one of the few exceptions.  Just handing a gun to another person could constitute a temporary transfer in WA.


Read the underlined section (g) of Bill 5506.  It adds another exception to RCW 9.41.113.  Handling another person's gun at non-exempt activities currently requires a bkgd check.

Apparently I was wrong, I thought for sure it was OK to shoot/ checkout each others guns. I must have been taking the reluctance of enforcement with the combination of the range exemption and confusing them.

The fact that they haven't come for you yet doesn't mean they can't, or won't. they just haven't........yet.

Is there any movement toward recognizing a WA CPL as a de-facto background check?

My understanding is that the CPL CAN stand in place of the background check because it meets all the requirements but the state has to ask the ATF for it to start acting that way.  I don't see why the state would do that so probably won't happen.

Here is video of the hearing;  Link  Bill 5506 starts at 1:25:30.  

A similar bill died in the Rules Committee last session.  Senator Pedersen asked for example if the winner of a raffle would be exempt from bkgd checks.  One of the persons speaking in support of the bill admitted this could be an issue.  One person emphasized that it was simply another exemption for those working at charity events and .  Ms Hopkins of the NRA was present as were two members of hunting groups.

Rebecca Johnson of the WAGR was there to oppose the bill based on their concern that the new exemption could be used by a raffle winner at a charity event to avoid a bkgd check.  She is singing a different tune than last year; she just didn't like the bill back then and claimed that people working at a charity event would pass guns back and forth all they wanted without a bkgd check.

The Hearing also included bill 5552 which would exempt flare guns from the definition of a firearm and modifies the definition of a gun transfer.

It's the other way around.  The Feds already consider WA CPLs issued after July 2011 to be "NICS Exemption" qualified, but the state RCWs don't allow for such an exemption to take place.  So we have to amend our RCWs, then CPLs can qualify as a NICS exemption.  There is no "asking" involved, the RCW has to be changed.

594 needs to die, it is not law as far as I'm concerned. It is violated daily by nearly every gun owner actively using/handling their guns, but no one has been charged even after 2 years almost now, therefore, it does not apply to anyone.

I haven't heard much about 594 since the protests at Olympia following it's passage, is it being enforced at all? Or is WA state in a similar position as Connecticut and New York, where civil disobedience has essentially nullified their recent draconian laws?

The one instance of someone being charged under I594, a man gave/sold a gun to another who then used it to murder someone.  But that man had fled before the charges were filed and thus as far as I know, nobody has been prosecuted under I594, and he likely would have been charged under existing laws without I594.  http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/washington-murder-case-results-gun-charge-under-2014-background-check-law