"Official" i594 Rally Thread - December 13, 2014


PDA






The_Next_Generation
November 6, 2014, 03:50 AM
This was brought up in another thread, but I didn't want to derail it.

There will be a "Will not comply" rally held in Olympia at the Capitol on December 13th. It is being organized by Gavin Seim, and its the best thing we have going so in terms of showing resistance to i594.

The event is scheduled to start at 11am, attendees are encouraged to open carry. The facebook page for the event is here. (https://www.facebook.com/events/788109621237033/788674021180593/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity)

So far, there are over 3,300 people saying they will go. Based on prior experience, we can expect about half to show up.

The organizers list the following things they are in need of:
Covered awnings.
Tables.
Propane Warming fires.

If you want to contribute some gear, be sure to contact them!

Bring your friends, and tell them to bring their friends.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Official" i594 Rally Thread - December 13, 2014" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bobson
November 6, 2014, 05:57 AM
I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, but I'm a bit confused. Help me understand why/how a "We will be breaking this law" rally is going to benefit anyone.

If all it takes to get laws repealed is for the public to refuse to comply, murder would be legal already. It may have worked for repealing the alcohol prohibition, but that seems to have been an isolated incident.

The_Next_Generation
November 6, 2014, 03:07 PM
My understanding is that this rally is intended to show that we will not comply with unconstitutional laws. It shows that we have a backbone and are willing to stand up for what we know is right, regardless of what the "majority"/millionares determine.

Dain Bramage
November 7, 2014, 01:57 PM
Close the barn door, the horse has escaped.

MyGreenGuns
November 7, 2014, 02:33 PM
Thanks for info.

Remembered the date, couldn't remember the details.

Note: 594 will be IN EFFECT when this rally takes place.

Old Dog
November 7, 2014, 03:56 PM
So "MyGreenGuns statedNote: 594 will be IN EFFECT when this rally takes place.
No, no it will not be in effect. The state legislature still has to meet, review and add this measure into the RCW. That's not going to happen until next year.

MyGreenGuns
November 7, 2014, 04:04 PM
No, no it will not be in effect. The state legislature still has to meet, review and add this measure into the RCW. That's not going to happen until next year.

OK. I was just going off my voter pamphlet.
It says, "The effective date of the initiative is December 4, 2014."

EDIT: It does say this under "General Assumptions" so I probably shouldn't "assume" they will have it done by then. :)

The_Next_Generation
November 7, 2014, 06:52 PM
Close the barn door, the horse has escaped.

What do you mean by this?

Dain Bramage
November 8, 2014, 02:01 AM
I mean there was a rally in Westlake park before the initiative passed. That was the time to get a wave of people involved. I tried my best, on this board and elsewhere. Maybe a hundred people showed up.

Any sort of after-the-fact bravado is pointless, in my opinion.

And, also my opinion, any flaunting of the law will not play well with the masses.

Jackal
November 8, 2014, 04:54 PM
The #1 thing that has me worried is how 594 actually REDEFINES what a gun is. Here's the quote straight from the bill.

"(9) "Firearm"
means a weapon or device from which a projectile or
projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(10)
"Gun" has the same meaning as firearm."

That wordage means that most fireworks, nail guns, etc will be considered a firearm too. Cant imagine Home Depot doing 4473's for nailguns....

The_Next_Generation
November 8, 2014, 09:00 PM
I didn't even know there was a rally against 594 before voting day. In my opinion, late is better than never. We may as well band together and show that we won't let them quietly take our rights away.

Bobson
November 9, 2014, 01:45 AM
The #1 thing that has me worried is how 594 actually REDEFINES what a gun is. Here's the quote straight from the bill.
"(9) "Firearm"
means a weapon or device from which a projectile or
projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(10)
"Gun" has the same meaning as firearm."That wordage means that most fireworks, nail guns, etc will be considered a firearm too.
Every nailgun I've seen was powered by compressed air, just like BB and pellet guns. They aren't firearms under 594.

That said, the topic of your post is on point: 594 is poorly written garbage.

Jackal
November 9, 2014, 03:50 AM
Every nailgun I've seen was powered by compressed air, just like BB and pellet guns. They aren't firearms under 594.


I'm referring to all the ones that use .22 blanks. Like these: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ramset-Hammer-Shot-0-22-Caliber-Single-Shot-Tool-00022/100091715

They will be firearms under I594. Actually, a combustion engine is a firearm under the same conditions. You *can put a projectile in the exhaust pipe and now your car is a "firearm". An engine is a device from which a projectile can be fired using an explosive. Yes, its going to get ripped to pieces in court.

I for one will call the sheriffs dept on DEC 4th and report that firearms are being sold illegally at Home Depot and every other hardware/tool store in the state. If enough attention is brought to the forefront of just how stupid this law is (and not just to the gun community but even to the people who voted for it), then maybe the word will spread and changes will be made.

As it is written now, if a contractor lets an employee use his Ramset or similar tool on a jobsite, he will be committing a crime.

Bobson
November 9, 2014, 04:20 AM
Oh gotcha, the tool for driving nails into concrete (never knew what they were called lol). Good call; I believe you're absolutely right.

I'm not sure how I feel about calling the cops to hardware stores for that. I mean, you're right in that these are technically violations of the law. It's a shame that it's come to this, but you may be right about this being a means to getting 594 into court. My fear is that they won't repeal the law, but rewrite the parts that are idiotic (like the definition of firearm you pointed out).

Mrninninnin
November 9, 2014, 12:11 PM
News release: 11/07/14. Washington State.

TO: All media organizations and groups.
FROM: Gavin Seim, lead organizer of the “I WILL NOT Comply Rally”.

Initiative 594 just passed in Washington State, bringing on residents mandatory gun background checks and making it a felony to privately purchase or even hand a gun to a friend without government permission. We the people of Washington State will not comply with this lawless legislation. The highest law is that of liberty and our Constitution. Our rights will be upheld.

On Dec 13th 2014, just after the law is legally in effect, we stand and disobey the illegal restrictions of i594. We must not wait for our rights to be decided but act swiftly to affirm them. In under 72 hours over 5000 have RSVP’d to this stand on Capital grounds in Olympia and assert their God given rights.

Learn more about this peaceful civil rebellion here: http://callmegav.com/ral/

View the event page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/788109621237033


Joining in the event will be speakers, patriots and families from across the State to remind our legislators that lawless legislation will not be obeyed and to teach others about their rights.
Will you bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, or will you stand for the liberty of your children? We are not asking permission, we are not standing silent. Our birthright is not theirs to take. We stand peaceful, principled, firm and resolute for the liberty so many have perished for. We stand to uphold law and we will not comply with lawlessness from government.

We Stand! Stand with us.

In Liberty – Gavin Seim.
gavinforliberty@gmail.com

TINCANBANDIT
November 9, 2014, 08:09 PM
I'll be there with a car load of gun rights supporters

ohbythebay
November 9, 2014, 11:56 PM
Does anyone know who is bringing this before a court > There are several holes that would bring it into a court (vagueness of definition of a firearm, what a transfer is, etc.)

I head a lot about how there would be a legal battle but have seen nothing in terms of action being taken

bonza
November 10, 2014, 04:42 AM
"The event is scheduled to start at 11am, attendees are encouraged to open carry."

Why so? In my opinion this would likely do more harm than good to the opinion of the 'neutral' observer we are trying to convince. What message is open carrying at the rally going to convey?

Kurastduuks
November 10, 2014, 06:56 AM
I wish they would organize a rally on my side of the state. You wanna see a large block of extremely pissed voters come across the cascades. May be time to re-visit that east washington secession movement after a 20 year hiatus.

JTHunter
November 11, 2014, 12:25 AM
Bobson - there are also nailguns that use a battery and a butane cartridge so they don't have hoses dragging all over the place.

I believe they are called "Paslode" but I'm unsure of the spelling.

Because they use a fuel/air mix that is "detonated" and aren't tied to another machine, these will probably qualify as a "gun" too. :barf:

Jackal
November 11, 2014, 12:38 AM
Because they use a fuel/air mix that is "detonated" and aren't tied to another machine, these will probably qualify as a "gun" too.

As will many fireworks, model rockets, engines, the list goes on. Even your arse hole is considered a "firearm" under this Initiative. Its a device that *can fire a projectile with an explosive (methane). Yes, now we in WA can truly say our arsehole is a lethal weapon..... The wording in this bill literally makes EVERYONE in WA a criminal.

hso
November 11, 2014, 07:58 AM
It is inadvisable to OC, but open holsters displayed provide a clear identifier for the opinion.

Also, well made signs (especially pointing out the criminalization of the safety practice of handing off a firearm while crossing a fence or teaching someone to shoot) can illustrate the wrong headedness of the law.

For those in Washington state participating I recommend contacting the Second Amendment Foundation for advice and support.

bikemutt
November 11, 2014, 09:11 AM
Also, well made signs (especially pointing out the criminalization of the safety practice of handing off a firearm while crossing a fence or teaching someone to shoot) can illustrate the wrong headedness of the law.

I believe one of the transfer exceptions applies to individuals lawfully engaged in hunting which I imagine is the scenario most likely to involve crossing fences.

NewHamshooter
November 11, 2014, 09:34 AM
amen to that .what will this accomplish?

Kurastduuks
November 11, 2014, 11:30 AM
It will accomplish making it clear that we WILL NOT COMPLY.

Dain Bramage
November 11, 2014, 12:29 PM
It will accomplish making it clear that we WILL NOT COMPLY.
More effective would have been attending the previous rally and making it clear that WE WILL VOTE.

The new rally is an exercise in futility. Our only redress now is through the courts.

Old Dog
November 11, 2014, 01:28 PM
More effective would have been attending the previous rally and making it clear that WE WILL VOTE.Agreed. Pretty pathetic when our rural Western Washington counties and our Eastern counties get out only about thirty percent of their registered voters, leaving Metro King County to once again make its liberal voice heard. This election could have, and should have, gone the other way (as far as I-591 and I-594 are concerned) had simply more gun owners voted. Just abysmal, considering it takes one only about five minutes to fill out the mail-in ballot and maybe go a few minutes out of one's way to drop the ballot in a drop box or mailbox (wasn't worth the price of a few minutes of your time or a first-class stamp to some of you, eh?).

The new rally is an exercise in futility. Especially if we're represented by some of the more flamboyant open-carry crowd (such as the guy prominently featured on the KOMO news website in the week leading up to the election). It'll simply confirm the beliefs of the anti-gunners that we're a bunch of extremist nutjobs.

ohbythebay
November 11, 2014, 02:15 PM
We let EVERY single member of this current WA State Legislature know they will be VOTED AGAINST if they do not act to repeal.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rosters/Members.aspx

Let them know we feel they are ALL complicit - They take a stand or they are gone. THAT is action. Keep the list handy.

hso
November 11, 2014, 03:25 PM
You have to focus on the ones that are vulnerable instead of threatening the group as a whole if you want to make them actually listen. Carefully pick the individuals who you actually have a chance to throw out of office like voters did in Colorado and go after them. By focusing instead of diluting your efforts you can actually make others fear the possibility of an effective recall campaign or election challenge that you can't accomplish by a "trow da bums out" approach.

bonza
November 12, 2014, 07:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We let EVERY single member of this current WA State Legislature know they will be VOTED AGAINST if they do not act to repeal."

But I think we just showed them how meaningful our votes are, if the average firearms owner in WA actually gave a crap & took the effort to vote in the first place we wouldn't be in this position now.

Midwest
November 12, 2014, 09:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We let EVERY single member of this current WA State Legislature know they will be VOTED AGAINST if they do not act to repeal."

But I think we just showed them how meaningful our votes are, if the average firearms owner in WA actually gave a crap & took the effort to vote in the first place we wouldn't be in this position now.
I agree, but how many would now show up and vote to overturn I-594? I'm reading threads here and elsewhere that some people think UBC is a good idea but the law went to far.

I think some questions need to be asked.

How many gun owners are there in Washington State?

How many gun owners in Washington State are dead against I-594?

How many gun owners in Washington State are for just parts of I-594?

How many gun owners in Washington State are for all of I-594?

How many gun owners in Washington State are for some kind of UBC?

How many gun owners in Washington State are dead against any kind of UBC?

Did voters really understood what I-594 contained?

Is there enough people in Washington State to mount a petition or vote to repeal the law?

I'm surprised I-594 passed, I'm even more surprised by the lack of people who showed up at the polls. I'm even more surprised that Hickenlooper in Colorado wasn't thrown out of office. Just to be clear, I am against any kind of UBC, and I am against all of I-594.

Good Luck and I hope y'all can overturn the law.
.

MyGreenGuns
November 12, 2014, 06:05 PM
I'm surprised I-594 passed, I'm even more surprised by the lack of people who showed up at the polls.

I found this interesting.

WA Voter Results (http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/)

It has a breakdown by county. Most have 50% turnout or less.

I voted differently than the majority of my neighbors (that vote). :cool:

David4516
November 13, 2014, 06:54 PM
Did voters really understood what I-594 contained?

No I am sure they didn't. If you look at the voters pamphlet it was very dishonest (see attached photo)

Also the ballot itself was misleading this is what mine 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

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

They neglected to mention anything about increased waiting periods for pistols, registration, etc. in this description.

Also all this "online sales" stuff makes me angry, they make it sound as though you can buy a gun on ebay or something.

I'm even more surprised that Hickenlooper in Colorado wasn't thrown out of office

Between the CO vote and 594 passing, voters this election sent a clear message that if you violate the 2nd amendment, voters won't care! :cuss:

Mrninninnin
November 14, 2014, 10:19 PM
http://callmegav.com/2014/11/i-will-not-comply-qa/

IOwnTheWorld1994
November 18, 2014, 01:18 AM
This is a bold movement. If only the people would do that here in California for these stupid assault weapon laws.

Mainsail
November 18, 2014, 08:50 PM
To demonstrate that voters didn't read or even try to understand the law, our old friend and former contributor here (before he was banned for his views on open carry) wrote this letter to the editor (http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/opinion/letters/282766881.html), which shows how silly I594 is.

SNIP
Walmart and many sporting goods stores sell 12-gauge flare guns used for signaling straight off the shelves.

These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.

I-594 requires background checks for these sales, loans and transfers.

Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.

These nail guns have actually been used in the past to murder people. I-594 requires background checks on these sales, loans and transfers.

When the Washington DOT sends out their artillery gun with a road crew for avalanche control, there is no exception in I-594 for that temporary transfer.

I-594 requires a background check for it. SNIP

IOwnTheWorld1994
November 19, 2014, 06:06 PM
I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, but I'm a bit confused. Help me understand why/how a "We will be breaking this law" rally is going to benefit anyone.

If all it takes to get laws repealed is for the public to refuse to comply, murder would be legal already. It may have worked for repealing the alcohol prohibition, but that seems to have been an isolated incident.
That's where you're wrong. Murder would not be legalized as it's also a moral issue. Owning guns isn't a morally unacceptable thing by society depending on who you're dealing with. That's not a good analogy or comparison as you are comparing a moral issue with a political issue. Plus no one is going to want to have murder be allowed, everybody who is sane knows that is wrong on all levels.

psyopspec
November 19, 2014, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by Bobson
I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, but I'm a bit confused. Help me understand why/how a "We will be breaking this law" rally is going to benefit anyone.

If all it takes to get laws repealed is for the public to refuse to comply, murder would be legal already. It may have worked for repealing the alcohol prohibition, but that seems to have been an isolated incident.

1) If you have to be told not to commit murder, I'm glad we don't live near each other.

2) There's a huge difference between laws which are malum in se, near-universally recognized as morally wrong (your counterexample notwithstanding) and those which are malum prohibitum, basically "wrong because I say so." This rally applies to the latter.

IOwnTheWorld1994
November 19, 2014, 08:37 PM
1) If you have to be told not to commit murder, I'm glad we don't live near each other.

2) There's a huge difference between laws which are malum in se, near-universally recognized as morally wrong (your counterexample notwithstanding) and those which are malum prohibitum, basically "wrong because I say so." This rally applies to the latter.
That's not what I mean. We are taught from a very young age that killing is immoral. No one should have to be told not to murder. You have to teach your kids right from wrong at a very young age. We are all told what to and not to do at a point in time in our lives. But yes I agree that the latter applies to the guns while the former applies to murder which is why it shouldn't be compared or be used in an analogy for making an argument or case.

Wojtek
November 20, 2014, 03:11 AM
I'm not from WA and I don't visit this forum often, however I'd like to point out a few things:

First, there's almost no point in throwing a rally after the bill already passed. The point of a rally such as this is to show numerical opposition in the wake of legislation, and doing so afterwords in the name of 'defiance' will only work to alienate those opposed to I594 from the general populace. Why associate yourself with such lawlessness?

Second, open-carry is an incredibly stupid idea; it gives pro-gun control advocates the exact ammunition they need to pass legislation by projecting gun-owners as extreme or irrational. Instead, it should be shown that gun-owners are dignified, respectful and more akin to the moderate standings which the vast majority identify with. Open-carry does nothing but paint a negative picture.


Take it from me. I live in CT and we got hit with worse legislation than you guys. If you want to defy the law then defy it, but don't make it well-known. And when someone gets caught and charged, you take it the fight to court and gather your support there.

Mainsail
November 20, 2014, 01:52 PM
I'm not from WA....

Second, open-carry is an incredibly stupid idea...

Take it from me. I live in CT...
If you were from Washington you'd know that open carry is normal here and does not bring the doom & gloom you think it does. There is nothing extreme or irrational about it, and it isn't viewed that way by the majority of people.

I grew up in CT and my entire family still lives there. It's like a weight taken off your shoulders when you leave and experience liberty that most of the states outside New England enjoy.

You come from a different and darker place. When we open carry here, it IS dignified and respectful. We are not ashamed of our ownership or carry of firearms; we don't need to be coy or chagrined as though it's something illegal or immoral.

No thanks, Washington doesn't need advice from Connecticut; that's what got this mess started.

Theohazard
November 20, 2014, 06:24 PM
In my opinion, this whole rally idea is pointless. The problem here is that most people in the state think that I-594 is only about requiring background checks on all gun sales. If they see a bunch of people standing around temporarily holding each other's guns in protest, they'll just think those people are a bunch of weirdos. The ONLY way this would work is if the police started arresting people for temporarily exchanging guns, and the police have already said they won't. Even worse, the police claimed it wasn't illegal according to I-594, which we all know is untrue.

The best way to fight this law is to educate the people as to what the law actually does and how absolutely over-the-top draconian it is. Standing around handing guns to each other while the police watch and do nothing probably isn't the best way to do that.

Realist
November 20, 2014, 08:02 PM
The idea is not to necessarily to educate society at large (although that would be a benefit) but to show that, as the law is written, the actions described would be in violation.
Other articles indicate that many police agencies will turn a blind eye to any alleged violation.

The best way to prove the law bad is to follow it.

Theohazard
November 20, 2014, 09:37 PM
The idea is not to necessarily to educate society at large (although that would be a benefit) but to show that, as the law is written, the actions described would be in violation
But if the police claim those actions aren't illegal under the law and refuse to arrest anyone for simply exchanging guns temporarily (as they've already done), how does that accomplish anything? The casual observer just sees a bunch of "gun nuts" handing guns back and forth while protesting against a law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

hso
November 21, 2014, 07:41 AM
Unless there are arrests for exchanging firearms there won't be any value in publically exchanging firearms. All that gets accomplished is a public demonstration of how wrongheaded the opinion of those who claim the law makes it illegal is in the face of the general opinion that it does nothing harmful.

Theohazard
November 21, 2014, 12:20 PM
^^^ Exactly. Without arrests, this can actually hurt our cause. Pro-594 folks can use this as "proof" that we're wrong about 594 and how draconian it is.

OilyPablo
November 21, 2014, 12:49 PM
One clown and a ND and we are toast.

IF you bring a gun, nothing in the chamber, no full mags, good lord. I know you are trying to make a point and all guns should be treated as loaded, regardless. But triple check. Then check again.

I fully predict there will be plants with guns there. One might actually chamber a round and pull the trigger.

The_Next_Generation
November 23, 2014, 03:17 AM
Apparently prayer is going to be a large part of the event. I attempted to discuss the shortcomings of this with the event organizer, Gavin, but he would have none of it. No matter what I said, he did his best to paint me as a "troll" that lacked faith.

FWIW, I go to church somewhat regularly, and pray every now and then. However, I think this rally needs to be about gun-rights, and how i594 is a violation of those rights. I don't understand why Gavin feels attendees need to fulfill the negative gun-owner stereotype.

The new message from Gavin is that this rally is about all rights, not just i594 and the second amendment. I was blocked from the group for my questioning, and have no intention of attending the rally.

Edit:

In case you doubt my claims, Gavin recently made this post to his blog with the following closing statement:

We start with a revolution of hearts. With that must come a resolve to do what we must to preserve liberty.

On December 13th we fire a metaphorical shot across the bow on an invading force. If they continue to attack rather than retreat, we have a moral obligation to destroy them for the preservation of peace and the safety of our families. Love your neighbor, be speaking truth and defending their liberty!

WE STAND!

— Gav

http://callmegav.com/2014/11/revolution/

I will definitely not be attending the rally. This is not the right person to have in charge of such an event.

OilyPablo
November 23, 2014, 09:06 AM
I agree on Gavin. Most people on SGN and WaGuns say this clown is NOT our leader.

I will attend but will be with the people holding the permit for the gathering, not Gavin.

hso
November 23, 2014, 09:46 AM
Who actually have been issued the permit?

The people with the permit need to speak up and they need to clearly quash usurpers trying to hijack the gathering.

OilyPablo
November 23, 2014, 10:06 AM
The Gun Rights Coalition secured the permit to keep the anti-gunners from locking us out.

SAMCRO.

Supposedly it's the Sons of whatever motorcycle club (sorry, I don't remember the name)/Gun Rights Coalition. They are good guys and are involved in many of the 2nd Amendment rallies. It's probably good that they got it. I really don't think there is an actual conflict.

http://seattleguns.net/showthread.php?203403-I-594-Opposition-Rally-Saturday-December-13th/page3&highlight=permit

http://waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=48310&hilit=permit

2bfree
November 23, 2014, 02:19 PM
I have to agree about Gavin. Heard him on KIRO doing a 20 min interview as the organizer of the rally. He spent half the time talking about how everyone should have a bazooka and he would feel safer if his neighbor had a tank in his front yard. The rest of the time was spent on how the goverment had no right to make any laws on weapons and that was what he was going to be making his speech about at the rally. Not the face I want at this time representing me as the general population would disagree. Not the time to be making that fight. IMHO

hso
November 23, 2014, 08:03 PM
People spouting things like that hurt our cause, not help it. The holders of the permit better step up and organize or the vacuum gets filled quickly.

ohbythebay
November 24, 2014, 11:27 AM
Anyway, in regards to Gavin's poor interview. I tried to point that out on the I594 facebook page (after being known as a great supporter) and that one observation had me labeled as a traitor to the cause. Sad./

I wrote about it on my own blog site

http://thecommontruth.net/the-truth.html

Dave Workman
November 25, 2014, 02:21 PM
'Theohazard'
Don't believe for a nano-second that the police don't know what a "transfer" is. That's pretty well defined at the bottom of Page 6 of the Initiative.
What they're really saying is that they have no intention of confirming to the general publi that this measure is as big a stinker as gun rights advocates said it was in the months leading up to the election.

That much was confirmed by the museum flap up in Lynden.

It would have been nice if people now complaining had turned out every vote they could. That might have stopped this thing from becoming law.
Also, if they had voted FOR the alternative, I-591, it would now be a constitutional crisis that at least would delay any implementation of the law.

Ah, but too many people tried to be too smart by half. Oh, well.

Realist
November 25, 2014, 04:46 PM
"But if the police claim those actions aren't illegal under the law ..."
Then we win. Game over.
How is it a problem if a 'law' is either unenforceable or ignored by those in law enforcement?
Personally i don't see 594 as legal under the State Constitution, but that won't resolve until someone takes it to court.

hso
November 26, 2014, 12:38 AM
Having the authorities pick and choose what provisions of the law are enforced whenever and wherever they decide is not a win.

MyGreenGuns
November 27, 2014, 05:38 AM
Next time we get the family together for "shooting day", we will keep track of how many times we "transfer" the guns.

If its before 594 is in effect, I will post the results.

2bfree
November 27, 2014, 06:53 PM
Lets not forget, with all the problems 594 the reality is it is about gun registration. Why else is a CPL holder excepted from the 10 day waiting period but not a sale, 60 days to report all inherited guns to the Wa Dol It is to make sure all gun sales from this date forward are registered with the state. The temporary transfers are nothing but a bonus.

Realist
November 27, 2014, 09:18 PM
@hso: It's a win.

Years ago there were laws on the books here (Blue laws) that required a man with a flag by day and a lantern at night [told you it was years ago] in front of those horseless carriages to warn the populace...

Cops ignored this and other laws like it for decades...finally someone got a neuron activated and cleaned up the books.:)

Midwest
November 27, 2014, 11:41 PM
Scenario question:

Two out of state hunters visit Washington State to hunt deer. If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?


What about two resident hunters? If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?

If that is the case...wouldn't I-594 affect local hunters and out of state hunters where it may not be worth the hassle to hunt anymore in Washington State? Thus could the law ultimately affect the amount of money that the state collects from hunting licenses?
If so could this be a reason (or one of the reasons) for having the law overturned.

If these questions have been addressed already, I apologize....I missed the answer.
.

bikemutt
November 29, 2014, 09:46 AM
Scenario question:

Two out of state hunters visit Washington State to hunt deer. If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?


What about two resident hunters? If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?

If that is the case...wouldn't I-594 affect local hunters and out of state hunters where it may not be worth the hassle to hunt anymore in Washington State? Thus could the law ultimately affect the amount of money that the state collects from hunting licenses?
If so could this be a reason (or one of the reasons) for having the law overturned.

If these questions have been addressed already, I apologize....I missed the answer.
.
As I understand it, loaning a gun to another while lawfully engaged in hunting is an exception to the transfer rule. However, if my hunting pal and I sit down to breakfast prior to a day in the field, it would be unlawful for us to exchange shotguns for the day's hunt without an FFL transfer. Once in the field hunting, no FFL transfer needed.

2bfree
December 1, 2014, 01:47 PM
Just a reminder, this law takes effect this Thursday :cuss:

OilyPablo
December 1, 2014, 02:22 PM
Are you guys writing your state senator and two reps? Please do so. Immediately.

ohbythebay
December 1, 2014, 03:33 PM
I have written mine and

Does it really take effect ? Has the AG signed off on it ? As I understand it he has been bombarded with questions about the finer points. LOL

OilyPablo
December 1, 2014, 04:01 PM
I have written mine and

Does it really take effect ? Has the AG signed off on it ? As I understand it he has been bombarded with questions about the finer points. LOL
I do not think the AG has signed off.

Ryanxia
December 1, 2014, 04:42 PM
So, I'm unclear. Are there any defined steps WA residents are taking at this stage or is everyone just kind of doing their own thing in protest?

OilyPablo
December 1, 2014, 05:01 PM
Check in at Waguns

ohbythebay
December 1, 2014, 06:16 PM
An attorney put together a flowchart to show what is allowed and what is not...SPOUSES ARE EXEMPT according to this

click the link then click the picture to zoom in
http://i.imgur.com/QLMj1Em.png

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;

2bfree
December 1, 2014, 06:23 PM
Thr AG only gets involved after the fact, if at all .It will be in effect as of the 4th.

hso
December 2, 2014, 03:20 PM
finally someone got a neuron activated and cleaned up the books

And that would be where a "win" might happen. If the law is rescinded or modified in our favor so that there's no ambiguity, and therefore no selective enforcement, then we would have that "win". BUT where you can be subject to the provisions of the law differently than another citizen based on the ambiguity or conflicting interpretation of what the law actually means we all are still losers.

DoubleMag
December 3, 2014, 10:04 AM
I'm clear on the other side of the country but I feel for you folks. Haven't read entire thread, but spot-reading.
A suggestion is to amend the bill...a sunset clause, an effectiveness review clause. It's always easier to amend a bill then delete it altogether. Some may not have the political will to do one; the other becomes more politically palatable.
Then, if there's not sufficient evidences to proceed with the bill past sunset, it's the EVIDENCE, or a DATE, that stopped it not a particular elected official.Clean hands.

High Ground:) , the best position to be in an encounter

Just a suggestion , rubbing 2 pennies together here paying for thought! Good luck!

OilyPablo
December 3, 2014, 10:07 AM
Those are some good ideas.

Tawnos
December 3, 2014, 07:08 PM
An attorney put together a flowchart
FYI, I'm not an attorney.

ohbythebay
December 4, 2014, 10:25 AM
I was led to believe it was an attorney but great job nonetheless.

OilyPablo
December 4, 2014, 10:31 AM
Thr AG only gets involved after the fact, if at all .It will be in effect as of the 4th.
I meant to correct my post to say Sec of State. Anyway it is law now.

Seattleimport
December 9, 2014, 05:31 PM
That Gavin fellow sounds dangerous. To himself, to others (particularly LEOs), and to 2nd Amendment rights. Yikes.

Add my voice to the chorus saying this rally is a bad idea. 594 passed. Overwhelmingly, in my county (King: 75%). 591 lost by a similar margin. These were citizen initiatives. I'm a citizen, and I respect my fellow citizens' voices. I'm willing to see how 594 works out in practice before getting riled up about alarmist hypotheticals.

Personally, if I'm going to attend a rally Saturday, it'll be this one (http://stopmassincarceration.net/). More impact to me on a day-to-day basis, and to US society in general.

CoalTrain49
December 10, 2014, 04:17 PM
Quote:
It will accomplish making it clear that we WILL NOT COMPLY.
More effective would have been attending the previous rally and making it clear that WE WILL VOTE.

The new rally is an exercise in futility. Our only redress now is through the courts.




Exactly. The train has left the station. Of course the law says you can peacefully demonstrate and many feel it is effective, but it is 10X more effective to understand the initiatives and vote.

I will use an example. I'm not changing the subject, just trying to get people to see a correlation here. In Ferguson there exists a similar problem. It has been reported that the voter turnout for the last 3 municipal elections in St Louis was 12%. Well, there sure were a lot of people protesting after the shooting. I wonder how many of those who were protesting actually took the time to vote in the last election? A fair guess would be not many.

Same thing is going on here. No one cared enough to vote except in the populated metro areas. So my guess is no one is going to care about that demonstration. Just like no one really cares about the demonstrations in Furguson. I certainly don't.

Laws last a long time and demonstrations last a day or two.

MyGreenGuns
December 14, 2014, 01:29 AM
So did anyone go to this?

I was planning on checking it out, but an impromptu funeral was sprung upon me.

Welding Rod
December 14, 2014, 01:42 AM
I went today. First rally I ever attended. I was apprehensive to go, and didn't make the decision to go until last night. I was worried there might be a few armed people with poor/unsafe gun handling skills, or a few nut jobs saying stupid things that could discredit gun owners.

I went anyway as it seemed it was just the right thing to do.

I found observing hundreds of citizens congregating at the state capitol packing long guns and loaded mags to be quite a powerful experience. It made me feel very proud as I approached, seeing people streaming in with ARs, AKs, etc from the middle of downtown Olympia and on to the Capitol grounds. I found such a profound display of real freedom to be personally invigorating.

There were a couple of really good speakers.... I really liked Elizabeth Scott (WA state District 39 Representative) and Sheriff Mack (former Sheriff of Graham County AZ).

I was there for the whole rally and I never saw an unsafe act or anyone behaving in a shameful manner. Everyone I saw was polite and cool headed, including the WA State Patrol working the event. It was a very positive experience. I am glad I went.

For me, just seeing so many young guys, 18 - 25 or so, carrying ARs or whatever to the public event, being safe and respectful, and clearly caring about freedom's future, gave me a bit more hope and was worth the trip.

bikemutt
December 14, 2014, 08:47 AM
Great report Welding Rod, thanks for sharing.

EmGeeGeorge
December 14, 2014, 01:13 PM
That Gavin fellow sounds dangerous. To himself, to others (particularly LEOs), and to 2nd Amendment rights. Yikes.

Add my voice to the chorus saying this rally is a bad idea. 594 passed. Overwhelmingly, in my county (King: 75%). 591 lost by a similar margin. These were citizen initiatives. I'm a citizen, and I respect my fellow citizens' voices. I'm willing to see how 594 works out in practice before getting riled up about alarmist hypotheticals.

Personally, if I'm going to attend a rally Saturday, it'll be this one (http://stopmassincarceration.net/). More impact to me on a day-to-day basis, and to US society in general.
I'm wondering if an "unintended consequence" of -594 might be a resurgence in the "kitchen table" ffl here in WA. I know a few guys who had ffls in the past and had to give them up as they didn't deal enough volume so the BATF made renewals difficult.
There has always been a "registry" in WA as long as I've been here; I had access years ago to WACIC and was able to "run" my permit. Saw everything I'd bought via dealers listed.
While I don't like the direction -594 is turning it will do two things. Force "fence-sitters" to take a side when they see the law does very little to reduce crime/shootings and it will also solidify resistance to future restrictive legislation.
The Stumbo crowd is already pushing more crap for initiatives and after seeing the media run-up with the scary gun narrative maybe now is the time to get going on effective counter strategies...

Theohazard
December 14, 2014, 03:12 PM
There has always been a "registry" in WA as long as I've been here; I had access years ago to WACIC and was able to "run" my permit. Saw everything I'd bought via dealers listed.No, that's only for handguns. The state gets a copy of the state pistol form when you buy a handgun, so they have a record of every handgun sold through a dealer. But they have no way of collecting information on all other firearm purchases.

OilyPablo
December 15, 2014, 08:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxFFovYZ3t0

wannabeagunsmith
December 20, 2014, 11:36 PM
So apparently even the dealers don't know what to do..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=EY6Qe9DJp4A&app=desktop

leadcounsel
December 29, 2014, 06:02 AM
Another rally is scheduled for 15 January at the Capitol.

A case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While I applaud the efforts after the fact to hold rallies, it both saddens and angers me that a HUGE percentage of gun owners just were too lazy to vote. It's easy to get registered, the state will mail you your ballot which takes a few minutes to complete, seal, and stamp and mail. Just infuriated over this stupid law that really clamps down on the hobby of collecting and shooting, adding significant hassle and expenses, and devaluing a gun collection immediately. Used guns just took a huge hit in value. Now you're at the mercy of an FFL and his business hours and fees.

The threat of voting folks out is relatively meaningless when gun owners can't even manage to vote on the darn initiative. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners failed to vote in lots of rural and urban areas... so infuriating. Now the anti-gun crowd has a wedge, and we can fully expect 1) registration, and 2) magazine bans, and 3) other pet project bans in our future.

The fact that handing a gun to a friend in your own home to examine now is a misdemeanor offense the first time, and a felony the second time, is simply mind boggling.

Text of I594. There are exceptions such as family members, domestic partners, state sanctioned ranges, and hunting partners. But it's an abomination. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

RCW 9.41.113
Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions.

(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
(a) The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted. If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.
(b) Except as provided in (a) of this subsection, the licensed dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law that would apply if the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, including but not limited to conducting a background check on the prospective purchaser or transferee in accordance with federal and state law requirements and fulfilling all federal and state recordkeeping requirements.
(c) The purchaser or transferee must complete, sign, and submit all federal, state, and local forms necessary to process the required background check to the licensed dealer conducting the background check.
(d) If the results of the background check indicate that the purchaser or transferee is ineligible to possess a firearm, then the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor.
(e) The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm.
(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer 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; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws. Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person knowingly violating RCW 9.41.113 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of RCW 9.41.113. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer satisfied one of the exceptions in RCW 9.41.113(4).

hso
December 29, 2014, 09:11 AM
Since the event has been held a new thread should be opened for spin off topics.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Official" i594 Rally Thread - December 13, 2014" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!