Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration

[ohbythebay]

The blowback of the school shooting

It was horrific and it may sounds callous, but would love to see a commercial that points out I594 would have done nothing to prevent it - the .40 firearm was legally obtained (by the father) and technically, under the new law he can transfer (temp) to his son without an FFL. He was under age but it was not about ownership.

Still praying for the right outcome on I594. Also sending prayers to the family and friends impacted by this horrible event in WA.

 

[barnbwt]

Would have no effect, other than in the minds of the like-minded. After the Santa Monica shooting, CA politicians were practically up front that the GVRO law they were ramming through would have prevented nothing, but still said that incident was proof more 'reasonable' restrictions were needed. There's no convincing these folks, or honestly, those who would be led by them; there's only domination. A lot of the electorate will simply follow whoever has the power/initiative/most followers, making their courtship more a matter of strategy than policy (let alone philosophy). States with robust popular initiative processes for legislation are arguably the most vulnerable to this behavior in the electorate.

TCB

 

[CoalTrain49]

States with robust popular initiative processes for legislation are arguably the most vulnerable to this behavior in the electorate.

True enough.

These initiatives are subject to mass amounts of cash from outside the state by special interest groups and individuals. It end runs the legislative process where bills can be vetted by law makers. I-594 is a train wreck that can't be enforced and has not been endorsed by any LE group in the state. The reason is they know the resources are not there to enforce it. It's basically an unfunded mandate. If everyone who voted for it had an additional 0.1% added to their property tax it probably wouldn't get a single vote.

 

[Ryanxia]

We're right around the corner for election day, good like guys.

 

[bikemutt]

So, I have a question for the more mathematically inclined WA members.

Today, as is customary, I met 3 buds at the rifle range for some R&R. One brought a pistol only, two brought one pistol and one rifle, one brought one rifle.

We each shot our own firearms, and then got to shoot the others firearms accordingly. We all left the range with the firearms we came there with.

What we are uncertain of, assuming 594 passes, is how many Gross Misdemeanors and Serious Felonies did we rack up today?

Now, if that seems as if it has a simple answer, what if we'd all decided to do this lawfully and left the range prior to swapping firearms, each time, and drove to a local gun dealer 20 minutes away in order to get background checked, at $30 per check, how much would that have cost us?

I know, the answer to the second question is a lot less money that the first question will cost. Just great.

Whatever happened to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness here in Washington State? There is still hope this abomination goes down I suppose.

 

[Bobson]

What we are uncertain of, assuming 594 passes, is how many Gross Misdemeanors and Serious Felonies did we rack up today?

Zero, as I-594 specifically grants an exception for the "temporary transfer" of firearms at "official" firing ranges; eg, allowing a friend to shoot your rifle at an "actual gun range" (as opposed to shooting in one's backyard, even where legal - which is not included in the exception).

That doesn't make 594 any better, and I'm certainly not a supporter of it in ANY way; but I'm not going to lie to make it seem worse than it is. Just like I wouldn't lie about a rapist by calling him a murderer - rape is bad enough.

 

[bikemutt]

if the 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"

So how do you know if the range is "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located"?

 

[Bobson]

In all fairness, I am speculating here, but that seems to refer to a legitimate business, where you would pay for admission or use of the property, etc. If they've got a business license they could show you, you're good to go.

Like I said, I'm speculating; but that seems like the common sense answer to me.

 

[bikemutt]

Well, I'd be good to go at half the places I shoot at, half is better than none I suppose

Oh, thanks for the clarification bobson, we (meaning my small group) was under the impression the only range exemption was for sanctioned competitive meets.

 

[ohbythebay]

actually ...no

There is no exception of that kind in the 18 pages. Only if the range FF Licensee conducts the transaction which would also require them to do a background check.

It also doesn't address things like:

I have 25 acres and shoot on my property all the time - I invite 3 friends to shoot with me - BING - broke the law

My son is in the Navy and brings home buddies. They love to see my gun collection. I carefully check to make sure the guns are unloaded. I hand it to my son (allowed) and he hands it back. I hand it to his buddy. Misdemeanor. He hands it back. Felony.

the full text is here
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

 

[Wyatt]

My son is in the Navy and brings home buddies. They love to see my gun collection. I carefully check to make sure the guns are unloaded. I hand it to my son (allowed) and he hands it back. I hand it to his buddy. Misdemeanor. He hands it back. Felony.

I know there has been debate on the definition of transfer. Supports of this initiative claim sharing guns while out shooting will not be prohibited. If you believe sharing is considered a transfer, I do not think there is an exemption with family like you listed above. I think it is a misdemeanor or felony (depending on the number of times) no matter if it involves family or strangers. The believe the family exemption is only for gifts or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

My brother has a rifle in his safe being stored for a friend who inherited it from his deceased father. If this passes, he will have to return the gun even though the owner is not comfortable with it in his house or has a proper way to secure it.

It is going to be an interesting vote. The poll numbers were starting to change, but with the recent shooting, it is going to be a tough sell.

 

[bikemutt]

My brother has a rifle in his safe being stored for a friend who inherited it from his deceased father. If this passes, he will have to return the gun even though the owner is not comfortable with it in his house or has a proper way to secure it.

I just spoke with a friend of mine who has a similar situation; he has a monster safe, two of his good friends who are apartment dwellers keep rifles at his place because it's a much safer place.

That will have to stop if 594 passes.

 

[Theohazard]

What we are uncertain of, assuming 594 passes, is how many Gross Misdemeanors and Serious Felonies did we rack up today?

Zero, as I-594 specifically grants an exception for the "temporary transfer" of firearms at "official" firing ranges; eg, allowing a friend to shoot your rifle at an "actual gun range" (as opposed to shooting in one's backyard, even where legal - which is not included in the exception).

From my reading of the law, it does look like there would be a whole mess of gross misdemeanors and felonies even at an officially recognized range. I recently re-read the law, and it looks like the range exemption requires the firearm to be stored at the range at all times. So if you bring your own gun to the range and let your buddy shoot it, that's illegal, but if you use rented range guns that's OK.

 

[OilyPablo]

594 = stupid mess.

EXAXAXAXACTLY as intended.

 

[Jackal]

I live on the Olympic Peninsula where there is effectively no official shooting ranges. Pretty much everyone shoots on their own property or on state land. There are going to be SO many people breaking these new "laws" its going to be amazing.

 

[JRH6856]

This is what the New York Times has to say on this in an editorial yesterday:

" Should Mr. Bloomberg prevail in Washington, “we are very concerned that he will replicate this across the country,” a spokeswoman for the N.R.A. told The Olympian newspaper, aiming to portray Mr. Bloomberg as an intrusive bête noire in local politics.

In truth, a vote of approval would bring the sheer power of the voice of the people to the fore. And it would be significant evidence of large-scale popular resistance to the gun culture the N.R.A. has so assiduously promoted."​

 

[steelerdude99]

This is what the New York Times has to say on this in an editorial yesterday:

" Should Mr. Bloomberg prevail in Washington, “we are very concerned that he will replicate this across the country,” a spokeswoman for the N.R.A. told The Olympian newspaper, aiming to portray Mr. Bloomberg as an intrusive bête noire in local politics.

In truth, a vote of approval would bring the sheer power of the voice of the people to the fore. And it would be significant evidence of large-scale popular resistance to the gun culture the N.R.A. has so assiduously promoted."​

Not so fast NYT. Just because WA state is quick to use a referendums, does not mean all states legislatures will give up their votes to the "voice of the citizen". Especially when the question asked on the ballot barely represents the proposed law. It's bait and switch, pure and simple.

chuck

 

[CoalTrain49]

I honestly think there will be some push back if I-594 passes. I'm sure SAF already has plans for the courts to have a look at it. The fact is only about half of all inititives in WA. that pass get past the courts intact.

Third, the outcomes of cases suggest that courts have played an
important countering and filtering role in Washington's initiative
process. Courts struck down, either in part or in their entirety, 53%
(eight of fifteen) of Washington initiatives challenged in court over the
past four decades.

Reference
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=sulr

About page 1072 there is some good reading about the courts and how they view the initiative process.

 

[crazysccrmd]

It would be mildly entertaining if both 594 and 591 pass. One law requiring significantly expanded background checks and one prohibiting expanded background checks.

 

[bikemutt]

maybe there's hope

I was gassing up earlier today when a very nice older gentleman who was using the pump next to me approached concerning my NO on 594 bumper sticker. I figured here we go, this guy is going to chew me a new one. Turns out he said he and his wife just voted NO on 594 and YES on 591. At 82 years old he remembers Pearl Harbor like it was yesterday even though he was just a wee boy at the time. We had a long talk about guns, gubmint and lighter things.

 

[Bobson]

I recently attended the last section of a 40-hour CE course in King County.

One of the students in class was a very outspoken, gay Democrat. I only say she was gay because I've never met a gay conservative - not because I have something against gay people. ANYWAY.

On the last day of class, which happened to be the day of the shooting at MPHS, she and I were working together on finishing a project, and the shooting came up in our conversation. I decided to be up front about my beliefs, and said I believed teachers should have the option of being armed in public schools. She gave me crazy eyes for almost a full second, and I expected I was about to get an ear-ful. Then she agreed with me and we talked about it for a few minutes.

I-594 didn't specifically come up, but it did give me some hope. I figured if this lady (white, educated, upper-middle class, gay, and living in a somewhat ritzy area of King County - several very-liberal demographics) agreed with me about guns, maybe things aren't nearly as bad as we think.

Of course, ultimately, time will tell.

 

[Buzzard]

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Measures-All.html


Here's a link to keep an eye on both measures tomorrow.

 

[OilyPablo]

Buzzard - thanks for the easy link. I have to admit, many, many people have come up to me and said they voted NO the last few days. It has made me pretty hopeful. I know I will be let down, but still.

 

[David4516]

Especially when the question asked on the ballot barely represents the proposed law

This is what my ballot said:

-------------------------------------

This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

-------------------------------------

Doesn't mention anything about registration, increased waiting periods, etc, that are included in 594. Possibly the worst case of bait-and-switch I've ever seen. If this passes I will seriously consider moving to another state...

 

[R.Greene]

591 summary is similarly misleading :

"This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.
Should this measure be enacted into law?"


This might seem like it gets rid of all background checks. It does not.