Old Dog
Member
Concur with yugorpk on this issue, since in the absence of case law, with a law that's so poorly-written and murky, coupled with the apparent reluctance of law enforcement here to enforce this law ...
WA Gun Owners Stage The Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally In America’s History
- Thread starter DIY-Pete
- Start date
- Status
Theohazard
Member
See, RetiredUSNChief? Yugorpk is making my point for me. Even a gun-rights supporter like him is convinced that the law really isn't that bad and that it's not illegal to hand someone a gun.
He's right that there's no case law and nobody has been arrested, and that's because nobody wants to interpret the law... yet. But the text of the law pretty clearly makes simply handing a gun to someone a crime in most circumstances, so if they ever decide to actually enforce the law as it's written, we WA gun owners have a problem.
He's right that there's no case law and nobody has been arrested, and that's because nobody wants to interpret the law... yet. But the text of the law pretty clearly makes simply handing a gun to someone a crime in most circumstances, so if they ever decide to actually enforce the law as it's written, we WA gun owners have a problem.
Old Dog
Member
Pure hubris on our part. I think we just thought voters here -- even the non-gun-owners -- were smart enough not to vote for such an ill-worded batch of tripe. We were wrong.
Then again, in a state where 2,000 deceased King County voters and another thousand or so supposedly disenfranchised convicted felons all had ballots counted in a gubernatorial election won by a Democrat by less than 200 votes ... we should have known better.
Old Dog
Member
NO, he's not saying the law really isn't that bad or arguing the legalities -- he's simply stating his belief that the law isn't a priority for law enforcement agencies to enforce.
Theohazard
Member
Huh? Where did I say that? You're still completely missing my point. What the protesters are doing is illegal under the law. But the police (erroneously) claimed it wasn't, which made the protest kind of pointless.RetiredUSNChief said:
It doesn't matter if the transfer was for a moment or permanent; I-594 doesn't differentiate between the two. The way the law is written, even handing a gun to someone for a moment is an illegal transfer in most situations.RetiredUSNChief said:
Theohazard
Member
Yes, he's saying exactly that: He has argued previously that the law isn't as bad as we think it is and that temporary transfers are still legal under I-594.Old Dog said:
He's right that it's not a priority and that it's not currently being enforced, but he's wrong on how the law is actually written.
Posted by RetiredUSNChief:
In the event of a conviction, an appeal might then happen.
I have yet to see any reasonable argument for expecting such an appeal to be upheld in a higher court.
Posted by TheoHazard:
Absolutely, but when one of them does, it may only go as far as a trial court.
In the event of a conviction, an appeal might then happen.
I have yet to see any reasonable argument for expecting such an appeal to be upheld in a higher court.
True. But those are by no means the only transfers under the law as it is written.
Posted by TheoHazard:
Yep.
I do not believe and neither does the state, that simply handing someone a gun is a transfer. You can believe that if you want and start handing out citizens arrests if you like but given the absence of case law on the subject your opinion is just your opinion. Some people agree with you. Some don't but until a judge weighs in on the subject all we have are our opinions.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
There's been no court interpretation of the law because a case has yet to go to court over this issue. I-594 specifically says:
""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 whole issue of the protest is to GET an arrest in which to facilitate a court challenge on one or several points of I-594.
"...the law really isn't that bad"? Seems to me it is another step over the "shall not be infringed" restriction.
No such law is "really that bad" until you start adding up all the little restrictions over time. Nobody should mistake this as anything other than what it really is...incremental gun control.
It's a shame that apathy lead to I-594 not being effectively challenged when it was in the voting stage. But that's what happened, and now the gun owners who don't agree with it have an uphill battle on their hands.
BSA1
member
Hummm. I was taught that it is not up to the Police (or Sheriff or other Law Enforcement Agency) to determine if a law is legal or not. It is only up to the Officer to decide if there is probable cause a crime has been committed.
Crimes were committed in the presence of Officers and they failed to discharge their duty by making a arrest at that time.
That doesn't mean they will not come knocking on doors with arrest warrants as they identify the people in the video that was taken at the protest.
Its only a crime if an actual transfer has occurred.
""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."
You can interpret that to mean a lot of things. Agents of the state do not feel that handing someone a gun while in your presence is a transfer. They have not taken "delivery" of the gun to do with as they wish or to leave with. There has been no "transfer".
Once again you can read that law as strictly as you want to read it. If the state doesnt read it that way and refuses to prosecute anyone for doing what you think they should be doing than its a moot point. The law is stupid and the law sucks. We can agree on that. We do not agree on what the laws intent is and we certainly do not agree that handing someone a firearm is actually a transfer. Until the courts weigh in on it you can guess all you want on what they would do.
Posted by yugorpk:
If so, is one required to remain in the presence of the other person for the duration of that other person's temporary possession? Would it be necessary to take the gun back before using a restroom? Before glancing away to speak to someone else?
Do you have any evidence that all authoritative "agents of the state" do in fact officially hold that opinion? Does their opinion have a legal basis?
If so, is one required to remain in the presence of the other person for the duration of that other person's temporary possession? Would it be necessary to take the gun back before using a restroom? Before glancing away to speak to someone else?
What? Thats not spelled out in the law? In Washington? A state know for its comprehensive wording of firearms laws. Be realistic. A transfer is when you give a gun to someone to do with as they wish. You are giving them the gun. Handing a gun to someone who is standing next to you so they can get a photo op standing next to a state trooper is not a transfer. The state cops don't think it is. Why some people are trying to over reach is beyond me. To make a point? Sure. The law is as well written as any Washington firearms law. It does not spell out every contingency. Its not supposed to. Thats what case law does. No case law exists so the chicken littles of the world are going crazy.
Well, that would be reasonable, but it is not so written in the statute.
What clouds the issue is the inclusion of statements regarding some of the kinds of "temporary transfers" that are not covered. The specificity of the details limits the nature of what is not covered, and implies that many other things are covered.
Again, reasonable, but not defined.
Some of them have not.
Theohazard
Member
You seem to be taking my quote completely out of context. I think this law is terrible. Every time I think of the people who voted for it, it makes me angry.RetiredUSNChief said:
Theohazard
Member
Why does everyone seem to be missing my point here? Am I being that unclear, or are people not bothering to actually read my whole posts? :banghead:BSA1 said:
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. And none of my posts have indicated otherwise. Though I do think it's highly unlikely they'll review videos and arrest anyone. Heck, this protest happened over a year ago.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Crimes were committed in the presence of Officers and they failed to discharge their duty by making a arrest at that time."
Yup, and for political reasons. A real 'Oathkeeper' would have gotten an outrageous story in the papers by arresting an 80yo veteran in a wheelchair to illustrate to the public how obscene the law was, rather than sweeping it under the rug for a later day. You'd either have an AG ON RECORD saying the action was legal --win-- or the case goes to court --big win.
This 'discretion' happens all the time, like when drug laws are ignored, or immigration laws, or rioting/looting is tolerated. We all know with the benefit of hindsight that the aggressive police responses to peaceful protests in the '60's was almost entirely responsible for their ultimate popularity/victory, which is why the present course is to ignore and deny visibility to protestors (which only works with a compliant media, which is why this was not an option in the '60's)
As always, the root cause is the whole chain 'o command losing sight of the difference between just and unjust laws, pursuing the wrong course of action accordingly, and poking yet another hole in the public's respect for the rule of law.
TCB
Yup, and for political reasons. A real 'Oathkeeper' would have gotten an outrageous story in the papers by arresting an 80yo veteran in a wheelchair to illustrate to the public how obscene the law was, rather than sweeping it under the rug for a later day. You'd either have an AG ON RECORD saying the action was legal --win-- or the case goes to court --big win.
This 'discretion' happens all the time, like when drug laws are ignored, or immigration laws, or rioting/looting is tolerated. We all know with the benefit of hindsight that the aggressive police responses to peaceful protests in the '60's was almost entirely responsible for their ultimate popularity/victory, which is why the present course is to ignore and deny visibility to protestors (which only works with a compliant media, which is why this was not an option in the '60's)
As always, the root cause is the whole chain 'o command losing sight of the difference between just and unjust laws, pursuing the wrong course of action accordingly, and poking yet another hole in the public's respect for the rule of law.
TCB
Old Dog
Member
Yeah, well, every time I think of the thousands of gun-owners state-wide who didn't even bother to vote, it makes me angry. You can't blame the liberals and anti-gunners for voting the way they do just the same way you can't blame your puppy for acting like a puppy and peeing on your living room carpet. You can, however, blame all the gun folks in this state who preach endlessly to each but then fail to walk the walk and actually get out and vote.
Yes, the law is terrible and useless, but it's the law -- the people (those who got off their butts and voted) have spoken. Crying about election results with which we do not agree seems to be the new national pastime.
As far as that rally being the "largest civil disobedience rally in America's history," pooh. Hardly. Let's do without the hyperbole, it just makes us look uneducated and petty, and besides, it's disrespectful to those who actually performed real (and much larger) acts of civil disobedience (e.g., civil rights demonstrations in the '60s, etc.)
acdodd
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2005
- Messages
- 486
I have more bad news for those of us in Washington.
The antis are not finished.
Next initiative is assault weapons.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20141212/washington-state-gun-control-activists-vow-more-legislation
The antis are not finished.
Next initiative is assault weapons.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20141212/washington-state-gun-control-activists-vow-more-legislation
Theohazard
Member
That article is a year and a half old. And no, they weren't trying to pass an "assault weapons" ban through the initiative process (which is impossible from what I understand), that ban was through the legislature. And it went absolutely nowhere.acdodd said:
tark
Member
For the benefit of those of who do not live in Washington, will somebody please explain WHAT THE HELL IS IN this seemingly stupid law? 594 is just a number to me.
Why is this law so bad? I assume from the posts that it must be very bad indeed. Maybe on my next trip to California I'll have to swing north and commit a felony myself, in a gesture of solidarity.
Why is this law so bad? I assume from the posts that it must be very bad indeed. Maybe on my next trip to California I'll have to swing north and commit a felony myself, in a gesture of solidarity.
Universal Background Checks. Basically you have to have a background check done every time you transfer a gun to someone else. Thats the simple explanation. Unfortunately Washington State has a very long history of drafting laws that arent written by subject matter experts and especially with firearms laws we end up with vague, poorly written legislation. That is what happened to I-594. Depending on who you want to believe the law does not allow you to let someone else hold your gun if you are not at a sanctioned shooting range or engaged in hunting. Some in the anti 594 crowd are claiming that allowing someone to fondle your gun is a transfer. Some of us claim that is absurd at face value. No one has been prosecuted for any supposed violations of the law and no one is likely to be prosecuted because the cops seem not to want to push the matter. That means no clarifying case law so some of the anti 594 crowd are crying foul and doing things like the the demonstration we have been discussing. The state police claim its not against the law to let someone else hold your gun and in a odd switch up the anti 594 guys are saying it is against the law according to their "experts" . I know. Its weird.
Theohazard
Member
Sure it's absurd. That doesn't mean it's not true. You can claim all you want that handing someone a gun isn't a transfer, but that doesn't make you right.yugorpk said:
Here is the definition of "transfer" straight from I-594 itself:
Every single lawyer I've talked to about this says that -- in their interpretation -- this includes simply handing a gun to someone else. And that's why the law adds exemptions to allow people to hand someone else a gun in certain situations:
Theohazard
Member
There you have it: Those are several situations where it's legal to hand someone a gun: The writers of I-594 felt a need to add exemptions to the law that allowed you to hand someone a gun temporarily under certain situations (like in the need for immediate self-defense). Otherwise, handing someone a gun is illegal the way the law is written.
Yes, That is one way of interpreting the law and apparently law enforcement agencies in the state do not believe it constitute a "transfer" either. If I deliver something to you it is for you to keep as yours and take away with you. That is a transfer. Simply handing it to you while in my presence does not constitute delivery nor does it constitute a transfer. I'm sure you can find attorneys who will swear anything you want them to tell you as bonafide and true. Thats swell. Meanwhile the state police say its not a crime to hand someone your gun. I'm more worried about what the state police think. They dont have a problem with it and there has never been any prosecution of the law or case law to clarify things to those who feel that they are breaking the law by handing someone their gun. Even when a bunch of people gather together to swap guns back and forth and the state police say that what they are doing is not breaking the law some people still believe that it is against the law to hand someone their gun. I am sure they will continue to be worried about breaking the law no matter what happens until the courts weigh in on the subject which probably will never happen. The law has a bunch of unneeded verbiage because it was simply a poorly written initiative like many Washington State firearms laws.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
