WA Gun Owners Stage The Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally In America’s History

[Theohazard]

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.

Show me where it says that in the law, because I didn't see that definition anywhere.

And I'll ask you a question here: If simply handing someone a gun isn't included in WA's broad definition of transfer, why would I-594 need to provide several exceptions where temporarily handing a gun to someone isn't a transfer? If your definition is correct, those exceptions wouldn't be needed at all.

Again, here is the WA state definition of "transfer":

"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.

Notice the part where it says, "including but not limited to, gifts and loans." So your definition in post #50 is blatantly wrong. You're simply making stuff up in order to make I-594 not seem as bad as it really is, and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

 

[yugorpk]

Delivery is the operative word in the definition of transfer. I understand. You want the law changed . Its not going to happen through the courts because the state doesnt feel the same way about the law that you do. You are stuck in a belief system and belief systems often do not mirror reality. The state does not feel that handing someone a gun in your presence is a transfer. You can't get that through your head because you read the law to say something else. Either the law gets changed to reflect your reading of it which is unlikely to happen because the state doesnt see it the same way or it happens through the judiciary which won't happen either because the state is not interested in prosecuting anyone for letting someone else touch their hardware whilst in their presence.

The law authorizes certain short term loans, or transfers and a litany of other stuff that you are reading show how your point is correct but all it does is make a hamfisted attempt at stopping transfers without background checks...a transfer being giving someone else your gun to take away . Its a poorly worded law because of its initiative status. The state says letting someone hold your gun is not a transfer. Why is that so hard to let in?

 

[Theohazard]

Delivery is the operative word in the definition of transfer.

Again, show me anywhere in WA state law where it says that.

You are stuck in a belief system and belief systems often do not mirror reality.

You're making up your own definition of "transfer" that doesn't exist anywhere in WA state law. I would say that your belief here doesn't mirror reality, while I've been able to cite the parts of the law that specifically back me up.

The state does not feel that handing someone a gun in your presence is a transfer.

No, the state specifically refuses to address that part of the law entirely. That's not the same thing.

Again, why do you feel the need to make stuff up and intentionally mis-represent what the law actually says?

 

[yugorpk]

If the state felt that letting someone handle your gun was breaking the law they would enforce your version of the law. They don't.

From post #2

"The cops just claimed that it wasn't actually illegal to hand someone a gun"

They were right. Just go with that. Nothing is being transferred.

 

[Theohazard]

So now you're saying that the cops get to decide what the law actually means?

No, that's not how the law works, and you know it. Until we actually have case law to look at, all we can go with is what the law actually says. And the law definitely seems to say the that handing someone a gun is a crime in most circumstances. And many experts agree on that.

 

[yugorpk]

The definition of transfer seems to say that to you and people who agree with you. It doesnt say that to me and if I gave a damn I'd go find "experts" that agree with me. The cops say it doesnt mean what you say it means and they are the ones that matter to me.

If it gets to court, which it won't, and someone gets convicted for what you claim is the law then you can tell me how much you told me so. For now there is no case law so you can read it however you want to read it. I'll read it my way and I'll let people shoot my guns out in the woods just like I do now.

 

[Theohazard]

The definition of transfer seems to say that to you and people who agree with you. It doesnt say that to me and if I gave a damn I'd go find "experts" that agree with me.

We think it says that because that's what the law seems to say. I already made my case by citing the specific parts of the law previously in this thread, whereas twice now you simply posted your own made-up definition of "transfer" that exists nowhere in WA state law.

The cops say it doesnt mean what you say it means and they are the ones that matter to me.

There are scores of different law enforcement agencies in WA state, and as far as I know only one has gone on record as saying that handing someone a gun isn't a transfer. But again, the police don't get to decide what the law actually says.

At my job I've talked to many different police officers about this, and most of them agree that the law makes it a crime to hand someone a gun under most circumstances. They also all have said that they have no interest in enforcing that part of the law.

So yes, you're right that what matters is that no cops seem to want to enforce the law, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal. At this point, no state authorities seem to want to touch that part of the law, and that's probably because if that part of the law was enforced it would be hugely unpopular.

 

[yugorpk]

We think it says that because that's what the law seems to say. I already made my case by citing the specific parts of the law previously in this thread, whereas twice now you simply posted your own made-up definition of "transfer" that exists nowhere in WA state law.

There are scores of different law enforcement agencies in WA state, and as far as I know only one has gone on record as saying that handing someone a gun isn't a transfer. But again, the police don't get to decide what the law actually says.

At my job I've talked to many different police officers about this, and most of them agree that the law makes it a crime to hand someone a gun under most circumstances. They also all have said that they have no interest in enforcing that part of the law.

So yes, you're right that what matters is that no cops seem to want to enforce the law, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal. At this point, no state authorities seem to want to touch that part of the law, and that's probably because if that part of the law was enforced it would be hugely unpopular.

Your definition ( and the WA state part ) of "transfer" is wide open to interpretation. You say it means something and I say it means something else. You know your'e right. So do I. Neither one of our opinions is worth squat. No one you asks opinions mean a damn thing either. The only opinion that matters is the first trial judge who's desk it hits. If the cops think it doesnt mean what you think it says it means or they are too busy doing real stuff then

a. What difference does it make? Seriously. If everyone is driving 10 MPH over the speed limit past the cops and they don't care are you the guy driving the speed limit?

b. The judge decides what it means.

Hint...Its B.

 

[Theohazard]

You say it means something and I say it means something else. You know your'e right. So do I. Neither one of our opinions is worth squat.

Again, you completely fabricated your own definition of "transfer" that exists nowhere in state law, whereas I simply cited the law itself. You're right that neither of our opinions mean squat, but at least I can back up my opinion with the actual text of the law.

 

[yugorpk]

Again, you completely fabricated your own definition of "transfer" that exists nowhere in state law, whereas I simply cited the law itself. You're right that neither of our opinions mean squat, but at least I can back up my opinion with the actual text of the law.

You are stating your interpretation of the law as if it were fact because you read it that way. I read it completely different. The state definition

"."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."

What that means to me is that if I deliver ( transfer ) a weapon to someone I have given it to them. If I don't let them take it away from me I have not delivered it to them. It is still in my possession. That follows the federal definition of transfer and every other states definition of transfer. I read the same definition you do and see something completely different than you do.

 

[Theohazard]

If I don't let them take it away from me I have not delivered it to them.

Again, where does it say that in the law?

The state definition of transfer specifically leaves open the possibility that just handing someone a gun is a transfer when it says, "including, but not limited to, gifts and loans." And to make it more clear, the law specifically allows for several situations where handing a gun to someone isn't a crime. Why in the world would those exceptions be necessary if your definition was correct?

I read the same definition you do and see something completely different than you do.

No, you're adding your own made-up definition of "transfer". Again, show me anywhere in WA state law that says a transfer must involve taking the gun away.

 

[yugorpk]

You say transfer means something based on what you read. I read the same thing and see something else. Hard to fathom I know. I see you reaching and reading t say things it doesnt. The concept of "Transfer" of a firearm is well documented . The Washington State definition of transfer

"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 read that to say that handing a gun to someonewhile in your presence means you are delivering the gun to them. It doesnt eplicity say that in the law. Its NOT THERE. You are interpreting the law to mean that.

I read it to say that transferring the gun to someone by delivering it to them BLAH BLAH BLAH means that its theirs to take away from me even for a little while ( like the listed exemptions outline ) . That is what federal law says and I dont see in that statement of definition where that changes.

You have your interpretation. I think your interpretation is ridiculous and just something meant to try and force a change of the law.
I have an interpretation. It recognizes the spirit of the law and that Federal laws definition of a transfer means the same thing.

Until a judge says that one our readings of the law is correct we can argue about this until the end of time while no one ever gets arrested, charged and convicted of handing someone their gun.

The exemptions you speak of have nothing to do with the state definition of "transfer" . Nowhere in the law does it specifically say you cannot hand a weapon to someone in your presence and that that act would be considered a transfer. Its not there.

 

[Theohazard]

You read that to say that handing a gun to someonewhile in your presence means you are delivering the gun to them. It doesnt eplicity say that in the law. Its NOT THERE. You are interpreting the law to mean that.

Actually it is there. It's right in this line: "including, but not limited to, gifts and loans." That part specifically leaves open the possibility that simply handing someone a gun is a transfer. And nowhere in the law does it say otherwise; in fact, the need to add exceptions solidifies my argument.

Does it explicitly say that handing someone a gun is a transfer? No, but the definition of "transfer" leaves that open as a possibility and then strongly suggests that's the case when it offers several exceptions where that's not a crime.

So while the law is somewhat vague, there's strong evidence to back up my opinion, while there's zero evidence to back up yours.

 

[yugorpk]

I read the same law and see zero evidence to back up your claim and despite your circuitous path towards proving your point I really can't see where you get your main point that it is illegal to let someone handle your firearm in your presence. Its not spelled out in the law that way. . You seem to be coming from the guilty until proven innocent camp.

"Does it explicitly say that handing someone a gun is a transfer? No"

The rest is just your interpretation.

To be honest I would think that someone who works in a gun shop and especially someone who deals with NFA items would have a better understanding of what constitutes a "transfer".

 

[barnbwt]

Does it explicitly say that handing someone a gun is a transfer? No

It explicitly states "delivery," which is a vague term that covers all intentional point A to point B events. It would be as illegal to hand it to them as it would be to fire the gun from a cannon at them, and for the same reason, hillariously enough. Think of it this way; when is the illegal action performed in a sale under this law, not relying on what happens later? Arranging the sale, omitting the BGC, exchanging cash, handing them the weapon, or parting ways? If you think it's 'parting ways,' do show us where presence or oversight are specifically given as exemptions. Even then, how far constitutes "parting ways?"

The assumptions you've made are premature. A court would probably rule such a law is overly broad to the point of impossibility, and pare its scope back to what is enforceable or (more properly) strike it down. Hasn't happened yet, amd more importantly, won't happen until someone is arrested for a hand-off (and it will eventually happen since the law is on the books, police discretion merely gives it more time to 'sink in' and become part of WA heritage until prosecution is more favorable.)

Not to pry, Yugo, but you wouldn't happen to hold this belief about legal transfers as an officer charged with enforcing them, would you? It would explain your firm insistence on 'the state's' position matching yours, if you had been told by superiors as such. I only ask because a personal relationship to a bad law could cause one to create all sorts of excuses or contradictions to justify a) enforcing the thing, and b) not enforcing that which has been made illegal. Lots of conflicted officers out there enforcing gun laws, lots of officers ignoring drug and immigration laws, that are otherwise simply trying to do their jobs in spite of injustice or dereliction by their superiors.

TCB

 

[yugorpk]

I am an engineer but I spent a decade as an 02/07 FFL. A transfer is not letting someone touch your gear. A transfer is well defined under federal law and I think state law as well as giving someone permanent control of the item. Where or how you people interpret transfer to mean handling in the owners presence is beyond me. It does not say that in the statute and while you can certainly be overly cautious if you want I don't believe anyone will ever be prosecuted for what you firmly believe is against the law based on your reading of it. I don't see that and I'm truly not alone in that thinking. Until a court rules on it all of us are using the law as written but as law in Washington is often prone to it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Theohazard]

To be honest I would think that someone who works in a gun shop and especially someone who deals with NFA items would have a better understanding of what constitutes a "transfer".

Seriously? Yugo, you've made up your own definition of "transfer" that doesn't exist in WA, and now you expect me to agree with that imaginary definition? I really don't understand why you feel the need to defend I-594 so much.

Here are examples of several experts who agree with me:

Here's a link to an article about one of the unintended consequences of I-594 transfer restrictions by Dave Workman, the guy who literally wrote the book on Washington state gun laws:

http://www.thegunmag.com/first-impact-wa-gun-control-594-right-proponents-said/

Here's another article from the former Chief of Law Enforcement for WA State Parks, former Advanced Training Unit Manager for Washington State Criminal Justice Training, and current head of the Washington Arms Collectors:

http://wslefia.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=I2D59420and20Law20Enforcement

And Dennis Brislawn from Northwest Gun Law Group also says that his interpretation of "transfer" includes even temporary transfers such as handing a gun to someone else. He told me this in person, so I don't have a link, but here's a link to his bio:

http://nwgunlawgroup.com/about/dennis-brislawn/

And the Second Amendment Foundation arguably employs some of the nation's leading experts on gun laws. Are you claiming that they're bringing a frivolous lawsuit and that your interpretation of I-594 is more accurate than theirs?

https://www.saf.org/saf-spearheads-federal-lawsuit-against-i-594/

 

[yugorpk]

Are any of those people sitting justices in Washington who are ruling on a law? If they are not their opinion means as much as yours or mine or my cats opinion. Transfer is a well defined by state and federal concept ( law) that does not and has never meant letting someone touch or handle a piece of equipment. I dont read that in the state law because it does not say that.

 

[Theohazard]

You're right Yugo, those people have no idea what they're talking about. The Second Amendment Foundation; what do they know? Obviously you're right and they're wrong. :banghead:

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Considering that "possession" can occur without actual physical possession of a weapon, it should be no surprise that "transfer" can mean simply handing one's weapon to another under the terms of I-594.


"Until a judge says that one our readings of the law is correct we can argue about this until the end of time while no one ever gets arrested, charged and convicted of handing someone their gun."

Is this not the whole point here?

 

[barnbwt]

Yugo, when Hillary or Trump pass federal UBCs, that Supremacy Clause argument might have some merit

Until then, WA definition is what matters, and it is broadly defined.
TCB

 

[acdodd]

You are correct the weapons ban went no where.
I was referring to an article I read that the people that supported I594 stated they were not finished.
Sorry for the confusion.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_1016.pdf

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The majority of Washington State county sheriffs opposed I-594 and many have said they will not enforce it. Non-enforcement of bad law does not change that the law says what it says. Whatever it is it says, most sheriffs won't enforce it.

Typical of coverage:
Joseph O’Sullivan, "Semantics triggers opposition to I-594’s gun-sale checks", Seattle Times, 20 Sep 2014.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...rs-opposition-to-i-594rsquos-gun-sale-checks/

The Seattle Times could not get a straight definition of "transfer" under the Federal 1968 GCA from the FBI, ATF or DoJ. FBI spokesman Billy Estok wrote Seattle Times "However, it can be clarified that simply handing a gun over to somebody else to try out does not qualify as a ‘transfer.’"[1]

I-594’s definition of transfer: “‘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.”

Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility drafted the initiative. Geoff Potter, spokesman, says "transfer" means "something akin to a sale but not involving money, like a trade or barter."[2]

Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs expected county prosecutors to talk with local law enforcement to decide whether to prosecute under I-594. David Kopel opined "It is wrong to say we’re going to criminalize everybody and then count on prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute everybody."[3]

MY snarky asides.

1. Can what "transfer" means under Federal 1968 GCA even be used to define "transfer" or "delivery" under Washington State Law? State laws are in addition to federal laws; state law is not defined by federal law.

2. Which is not what is in the letter of the law I-594, is it? Potter whose outfit drafted the law says it means a trade or barter amounting to a sale. So why didn't it say what it means instead of saying what it says? I kinda thunk semantics was what the letter of the law was all about, ya know? I-594 does not have the language that was included in the Colorado and California UBC laws that allow short-term loans which cover training classes, family hunting trips, target practice at informal shooting ranges and other "transfers" or "deliverys" that don't involve transfer of ownership. Why was this language omitted from the WA State version??? The language is murky. Or rubbery, like silly putty, stretchable beyond its original intent. Gunlaws are often drawn up vague for the F-U-D factor: to inhibit lawful behavior through Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, or maybe to generate opposition for political purposes.

3. This vague law is counting on prosecutorial discretion to apply the letter of the law differently in different circumstances. I suspect that the discretion of prosecutors will depend a lot on whether the prosecutor sees guns as a badge of authority or as a right of the citizen for all traditional lawful purposes. I know, just because the letter of the law is on the books does not mean anyone is going to enforce it. Especially given opposition by most county sheriffs. But non-enforcement of the letter of the law in I-594 (for now) does not preclude strict enforcement later.

 

[Flechette]

Ignoring the semantics of the specific law, I am glad to see gun owners actually showing up to a rally and protesting.

The left has shown up to rallies and looked ridiculous at the for years...but they get their laws passed.

We need to keep protesting.

 

[danez71]

Are any of those people sitting justices in Washington who are ruling on a law?

No they aren't.... and neither are you.

If they are not their opinion means as much as yours or mine or my cats opinion. .

Totally and completely FALSE.


All opinions are not equal. Otherwise they'd hire.appoint uneducated and untrained people as lawyers, police officers, and judges.

But that doesn't happen in the real world.

Police officers at minimum, get training. Some department want formal education in criminal justice related classes.

Transfer is a well defined by state and federal concept ( law) that does not and has never meant letting someone touch or handle a piece of equipment.

I think its debatable for sure....but this is where I start supporting your side a little.

1st, we're not talking about Fed law. So lets not try to confuse the issue.

2nd, You're right, WA has defined 'transfer'.

I-594’s definition of transfer: “‘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.”

So lets look at Blacks Law dictionary.

LOAN

A bailment without reward ; consisting of the delivery of an article by the owner to another person, to be used by the latter gratuitously, and returned either in specie or in kind.

Law Dictionary: What is LOAN? definition of LOAN (Black's Law Dictionary)

So does letting someone touch or hold your gun fit 'used gratuitously'? I don't think so but I'm not a Judge, Jury, or even a Lawyer


Now lets look at 'loan' a little deeper.

"Loan" in this case is being used in the context of "lend".


So, lets take a look at Blacks Law dictionary says about that too.


Keep in mind, its citing a appellate case all the way back to 1879.

What is LEND?

To part with a thing of value to another for a time fixed or indefinite, yet to have some time In ending, to be used or enjoyed by that other, the thing Itself or the equivalent of it to be given back at the time fixed, or when lawfully asked for, with or without compensation for the use as may be agreed upon. Kent v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 177.

Law Dictionary: What is LEND? definition of LEND (Black's Law Dictionary)

So does letting someone touch or hold your gun considered 'used or enjoyed'?

I don't think so either but again, I'm not a Judge, Jury, or Lawyer


Now lets look at the exceptions specifically listed in I-594

(4) This section does not apply to:

(f) The temporary transfer (Remember, in WA, transfer includes 'loan') of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms

I'll side with Yugo in that just touching or holding doesn't fit 'loan' or 'lend' which is part of WA's definition of 'transfer' because they aren't using it or getting the enjoyment that is of the purpose of a firearm (such as keeping for the potential need of home protection.)


Letting your buddy shoot it at a real shooting range falls under the exceptions above.


I don't know if WA has open BLM land, (for EX), for shooting like CA and AZ does but if WA does,..... Letting your buddy shoot your gun when the 2 of you are just out for the day doing some plinking would fit the definition of transfer/loan/lend per WA law because he is using it, and it doesn't fit into any of the exceptions.


But what do I know. I'm not a lawyer. I just cite stuff that Yugo should have been citing.