Quantcast
I594 - Surprising news..maybe - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Activism

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 1, 2014, 04:24 PM   #1
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
I594 - Surprising news..maybe

So I know there are numerous I594 threads but this one is specific to the attorney Generals office. I called to get information and clarity specifically on my spouse using my firearms.

Before folks jump in and say spouses are allowed, understand that section 4 says they are exempt (along with other family members) while section 5 says they are not . I want clarity.

I was directed to Assistant AG July Simpson who has a recorded message on I594. (You can call yourself, ask for her and hear this message)

Basically the message states
The Role of the AG's office - Legal advice, Uphold the law, answer affected agency questions

At this time NO LAWSUITS have been filed (hmm,..why not) no request from other agencies, none from legislature, nada , zip...so basically it said they have no further information beyond what it says in the initiative.

If that is the case, how do they plan on upholding/interpreting/etc. the 18 page document

Time to ring that phone off the hookj

Adding a link to the same garbage...WHY NO LAWSUITS !

http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=32433#.VHzRZWB0w6s
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...

Last edited by ohbythebay; December 1, 2014 at 04:38 PM.
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 2, 2014, 01:53 AM   #2
suemarkp
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 16, 2006
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 361
Don't you need to have standing to sue? How can you have standing for a law that isn't effective yet? In a couple of days, you can have standing.
__________________
Mark
Kent, WA
suemarkp is offline  
Old December 2, 2014, 10:44 AM   #3
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
I think you are right

I know SAF.ORG is gearing up...specifically, WAGUNRIGHTS.ORG....They need donations though. Lawsuits are NOT cheap.
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 12:36 AM   #4
suemarkp
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 16, 2006
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 361
I give them money every paycheck as part of our charitable giving program. I was surprised to find them in the list of possible donation choices. Sorry homeless/hungry, SAF gets a larger share of my donations now!
__________________
Mark
Kent, WA
suemarkp is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 12:40 AM   #5
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
Good idea..didn't realize

I could do a monthly donation also...hmmm..
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 01:00 AM   #6
Tony k
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 31, 2013
Posts: 304
I live in Oregon, but spend quite a bit of time in Washington. Oregon is probably one of the next states to see this type of initiative,and it would likely pass.\

Should I help Oregon gear up by joining and donating to an organization like the Oregon Firearms Federation? Should I help out by donating to WAGUNRIGHTS so that we can dump 594 and send a message that this type if chicanery won't fly? OR, should I split my limited funds and help out a little in both?

I'm inexperienced in this type of stuff and would welcome advise.
Tony k is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 06:47 AM   #7
230RN
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Near Golden CO
Posts: 5,173
Or, you could work like heck for the Oregon organization as a volunteer and give money to the Washington organization.

It's surprising how much even collating and stapling literature together, running errands, phone answering, distributing literature and other "little things" can help in a campaign --and not just election ones, but political issue/legal campaigns like WA's.

Credit? Glory? Nah, nothing beyond the leader's comments at the victory banquet thanking the volunteers. And a sense that you helped support a good cause.

Or two of them. One with $, one with work.

Terry

P.S. By the way, speaking of donations from your paycheck and the like, I was delighted to find during the annual United Way campaign at work that there were two categories for donations to NRA organizations. One was to the Legal Fund, and I think the other was for the ILA. But let's not get off on United Way... which usually happens with other boards I've mentioned this on.
__________________
The Second Amendment will have been returned to its intended pre-eminence only when pants makers quit putting belt loops where holsters should be.

Last edited by 230RN; December 4, 2014 at 06:56 AM.
230RN is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 08:00 AM   #8
RetiredUSNChief
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 9, 2012
Location: SC (Home), VA (Work)
Posts: 3,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohbythebay View Post
At this time NO LAWSUITS have been filed (hmm,..why not) no request from other agencies, none from legislature, nada , zip...so basically it said they have no further information beyond what it says in the initiative.
Ummm...why would they have to wait for any lawsuits? Part of the AG's responsibilities are to understand the laws that they may be prosecuting others by, which necessarily means that they must decide what the laws MEAN and HOW they're to be applied BEFORE they attempt to prosecute someone with them.

This means that they must either make a decision on this BEFORE prosecuting someone OR the prosecute someone and possibly get slapped with a lawsuit over the technicalities involved with a clearly conflicting law they're trying to enforce. Which is a recipe for legal disaster if a court overturns something because the law can't be enforced fairly the way it's written.
__________________
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." Ash - Army of Darkness http://youtu.be/0xwzdd-Slo8

I'm the guy with a cannon, too: http://youtu.be/X6xhYELYVDw
RetiredUSNChief is online now  
Old December 5, 2014, 03:37 PM   #9
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
I received a reply from the AG's office

I basically received a form letter version of what they have on the voicemail message. No help. So I replied as follows:

Hello,

I wanted to follow up to say I was very disappointed in the response (or lack thereof) received from Ms. Simpson. What I received was a written form of the voicemail message at her number.

I have an expectation that since the AG's office decides how to enforce laws, it should be able to articulate 1) what the law means 2) how it intends enforcement.

I was specifically interested in how it intends to address "transfers" since it is so broad and vague. First; there are many definitions of transfer. There is transfer physically on a temporary basis (handing to someone and then handing back) as opposed to transfer that also transfers rights (sales, loans, gifts).

One of the things that is very vague is sharing firearms at an authorized target range. Following the letter of the law, if I bring a friend and let him shoot my firearm for 10 minutes and he then returns it, we have committed a felony. The same would apply to cleaning a persons guns at my home or shooting on open land with friends.

I do not believe that is the spirit of the law as the above situations do not constitute a transfer of rights nor does possession truly leave the oversight of the owner. If it is to the letter, then it is not only extremely unenforceable but there needs to be clarity from the AG's office that they will attempt to prosecute these violations if reported.

I would appreciate a response above and beyond the form letter and should not have to seek an attorney to tell me what you will or will not consider. It is not up to them to decide and enforce the laws or how those laws are applied. That is (correct me if I am wrong) the pervue of the AG of the State of WA.

I await your reply.

Respectfully,
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 04:08 PM   #10
RetiredUSNChief
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 9, 2012
Location: SC (Home), VA (Work)
Posts: 3,798
Very nice.

I look forward to reading the form letter this will engender.

__________________
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." Ash - Army of Darkness http://youtu.be/0xwzdd-Slo8

I'm the guy with a cannon, too: http://youtu.be/X6xhYELYVDw
RetiredUSNChief is online now  
Old December 5, 2014, 06:01 PM   #11
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
Me too...

I wonder what Form Response 2A looks like...LOL
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 06:11 PM   #12
Crawfish1
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2014
Posts: 6
I called the Wa State AG's office with questions about I594 and spoke with a man who told me he was unable to give legal advice to an individual but would be more than happy to give legal advice to the citizen's of Washington State. I told him I was a citizen and he told me to go hire a lawyer for an interpretation of I594. I called my state representative right after and they were going to forward my question to the AG office for me. Does this sound backwards to anyone else?
Crawfish1 is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 06:32 PM   #13
OilyPablo
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 2, 2012
Location: WA State (NOT in Seattle)
Posts: 1,775
I've never received any response whatsoever from my state Senator and nada from both state reps.

Your response above is similar to what people are posting on waguns and seattleguns.
__________________
It's simple: If you don't like guns, don't own one.
OilyPablo is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 09:16 PM   #14
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
Holy Cow....Check this out

This one boggles me and surprised I received a FAST follow-up ...can anyone with legal experience speak to this ?

RE: Your Inquiry Dated December 1, 2014
Dear Mr. xxxx:

On behalf of the Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson, thank you for your inquiry received December 1, 2014. I am an Assistant Attorney General for the Licensing & Administrative Law Division’s Firearms Program, so your email was forwarded to me for response. The Attorney General’s Office serves as legal counsel to state agencies and certain elected officials and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to private citizens or their attorneys. However we do try to provide general information when we can.

You sent a follow up inquiry stating your dissatisfaction with the response to your request for an interpretation of the language I-594. The Attorney General’s Office is not an enforcement agency and does not decide how to enforce or prosecute firearms laws. The government agencies with that authority are local law enforcement and city and county prosecuting offices.

This office, by law, cannot dictate how local law enforcement enforces firearms laws nor can this office dictate how local prosecutors prosecute firearms laws. The response you received outlines the entirety of this office’s role with regard to I-594.

We regret we cannot be of further assistance. Thank you for contacting the Attorney General’s Office.
Sincerely,
R.

So what they are saying is, if Everett in SNo county says its okay, but Lake Stevens says no, too bad, its up to local officials...? *** ?

So from their website, I had to see, what the heck this guy does for a living

The Washington Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties.

While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts.

Issuing Attorney General Opinions is just one of the duties of the Washington Attorney General, as the constitutional legal adviser to state officers.


Okay, so you know what they say about opinions, right ?
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 09:36 PM   #15
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
So on to the Snohomish County DA

Dear Mr. Roe,


I hope you can clarify for me your intentions at the Snohomish County level for the enforcement of the recently passed I594. I was specifically interested in how it intends to address "transfers" since it is so broad and vague. First; there are many definitions of transfer. There is transfer physically on a temporary basis (handing to someone and then handing back) as opposed to transfer that also transfers rights (sales, loans, gifts).

One of the things that is very vague is sharing firearms at an authorized target range. Following the letter of the law, if I bring a friend and let him shoot my firearm for 10 minutes and he then returns it, we have committed a felony. The same would apply to cleaning a persons guns at my home or shooting on open land with friends.

I do not believe that is the spirit of the law as the above situations do not constitute a transfer of rights nor does possession truly leave the oversight of the owner. If it is to the letter, then it is not only extremely unenforceable but there needs to be clarity from the AG's office that they will attempt to prosecute these violations if reported.


Unfortunately, after contact the WA State Attorney General, I was told (and I quote);

The Attorney General’s Office is not an enforcement agency and does not decide how to enforce or prosecute firearms laws. The government agencies with that authority are local law enforcement and city and county prosecuting offices.

This office, by law, cannot dictate how local law enforcement enforces firearms laws nor can this office dictate how local prosecutors prosecute firearms laws. The response you received outlines the entirety of this office’s role with regard to I-594
.


This absolutely boggles me as I had thought that a state law would have some decision at the state level that unifies response however; since I have now been corrected, I request information form your office how you intend to enforce and prosecute these things. The specific segment I outline is not my only question but I think the initial part of banning private sales if fairly clear. What remains is as requested, clarity on what you feel constitutes a transfer.


If a friend comes to my house, I hand him my firearm to examine and he hands it back, have we committed a felony which, if reported would be prosecuted ? I am not being facetious, I am sincerely asking if you are aware of the different facets of the "transfer" clauses and if you intend to hold to the letter. I also think gun ranges would benefit from a decision from you as I know my local range believe friends will no longer be able to shoot together.


I thank you in advance for your attention and apologize that this letter is lengthy. I wanted to be sure that my inquiry was fully vetted.


Respectfully yours,


My name and number

This will be interesting
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 09:44 PM   #16
OilyPablo
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 2, 2012
Location: WA State (NOT in Seattle)
Posts: 1,775
Fascinating. Keep at it and thanks!!
__________________
It's simple: If you don't like guns, don't own one.
OilyPablo is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 10:34 PM   #17
230RN
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Near Golden CO
Posts: 5,173
Is there a definition of "transfer" elsewhere besides in the body of that law?
__________________
The Second Amendment will have been returned to its intended pre-eminence only when pants makers quit putting belt loops where holsters should be.
230RN is offline  
Old December 5, 2014, 11:32 PM   #18
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
There are numerous definitions

The issue at hand here is in a majority of definitions, transfer means a conveyance of rights or possession, delivery of goods etc. which differs greatly than the physical nature of a "hand to you buddy at the range and then he hands it back". There is no presumption in that physical transfer that
a) It will be no more than for the duration of the vent
b) no rights or ownership was transferred
c) the transfer was not performed while know that person would use it immediately to commit a crime

That is as it relates to firearms. So looking at a simplified

You sign a document with your pen
You hand that pen to someone else and they sign and hand it back

Nothing has really been transferred - they have just had temporary use (in your presence)

Now same situation, you let them take the pen, you say keep it or borrow it

In both cases (keep or borrow) you have given rights of ownership either temp or permanent

Anyway, one definition

Generally Transfer means to convey or remove from one place or one person to another. In law, it means
◾Any mode of disposing of or parting with an asset or interest in an asset. This can include a gift, payment of money, release, lease, creation of a lien or other encumbrance.
◾Negotiation of an instrument according to the forms of law. The four methods of transfer are by endorsement, by delivery, by assignment or by operation of law.
◾Conveyance of property or title from one person to another.

Transfer is defined as "any mode of disposing of, or parting with, an asset or an interest in an asset." Bus. Edge Group, Inc. v. Champion Mortg. Co., 519 F.3d 150, 154 (3d Cir. N.J. 2008) In another case, transfer is judicially defined as "every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payments of money, release, lease and creation of a lien or other encumbrance." Compuware Corp. v. Innovatec Communs., LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45621, 26-27 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 24, 2005)
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 6, 2014, 05:32 AM   #19
RetiredUSNChief
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 9, 2012
Location: SC (Home), VA (Work)
Posts: 3,798
The've set themselves up into a deliberate legal paradox, where nobody wants to commit to clarifying the law. I think if you keep asking what you're going to eventually get is the "blue screen of death", or maybe "I am not programmed to respond in that area..."

"Now listen to this carefully, Norman: I am lying."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVxsYzXI_Y
__________________
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." Ash - Army of Darkness http://youtu.be/0xwzdd-Slo8

I'm the guy with a cannon, too: http://youtu.be/X6xhYELYVDw
RetiredUSNChief is online now  
Old December 6, 2014, 08:37 AM   #20
steelerdude99
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Location: Stafford County, VA
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by 230RN View Post
Is there a definition of "transfer" elsewhere besides in the body of that law?
With the definition of the word "transfer" is in the law, then it would be difficult to argue that any other definition of word "transfer" applies to I-594's enforcement.

Before the fallout of the absurd of the definition of “transfer” can even take down unwitting gun owners, they ( Mikey and friends ) are looking to get more states to pass it. There looks to be an initiate push of this “Trojan Horse” gun law. I would expect verbiage from WA initiate (as well as the 18 pages of the law’s details and definitions) will find its way to other states.

... Push it to as many states as possible, and then it will be time to tightly enforce. Instantly, there will be thousands of new felons who have a lifetime firearms ownership prohibition. These new felons can't vote or own guns. All the while the politicians don't fear voter backlash as as "It was an initiative".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3L2UVg0dT
The gun control group co-founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is gearing up for a “significant” legislative push in more than a dozen states, according to USA Today.

In Nevada, Everytown for Gun Safety is trying to get enough signatures for a ballot initiative in 2016 that would tighten gun-purchase background checks for private sellers after a successful effort on that front at the ballot box in Washington state this year. ...
I am not a WA resident; I have my concerns about the way I-594's was put into place being used in other states such as mine. Through whatever means (lies, misinformation, bogus studies, coercion … etc.) a law get’s passed; it’s on the books and enforceable. Remember the lead ammo ban in CA is still law even though it was passed based on a bogus study.

chuck

Last edited by steelerdude99; December 6, 2014 at 08:52 AM.
steelerdude99 is offline  
Old December 6, 2014, 09:03 AM   #21
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
Steelerdude

You make a good point which is all the more reason to nip this in the bid now and get "transfer" defined (in this context) as transfer of rights, ownership and not temporary use transfer.

This thing is as dangerous as "may permit"....Uggg
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 6, 2014, 05:00 PM   #22
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
Okay..the plot thickens

It appears that another I594 lie has surfaced. We were told that private sales through an FFL would not be taxed (the use tax). Guess again. DOL has decided to tax. Also, forget about hunters sharing rifles. Just see what Fish and Game is up to.

http://www.examiner.com/article/more...sue-advisories
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old December 6, 2014, 08:23 PM   #23
CoalTrain49
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2014
Posts: 688
Quote:
On behalf of the Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson, thank you for your inquiry received December 1, 2014. I am an Assistant Attorney General for the Licensing & Administrative Law Division’s Firearms Program, so your email was forwarded to me for response. The Attorney General’s Office serves as legal counsel to state agencies and certain elected officials and cannot, by law, provide legal advice to private citizens or their attorneys. However we do try to provide general information when we can.

You sent a follow up inquiry stating your dissatisfaction with the response to your request for an interpretation of the language I-594. The Attorney General’s Office is not an enforcement agency and does not decide how to enforce or prosecute firearms laws. The government agencies with that authority are local law enforcement and city and county prosecuting offices.

This office, by law, cannot dictate how local law enforcement enforces firearms laws nor can this office dictate how local prosecutors prosecute firearms laws. The response you received outlines the entirety of this office’s role with regard to I-594.
This is what I would expect from the AG. His office provides legal counsel to the state, not the public. I've dealt with WA DRS and ask them questions of a legal nature and they absolutely refused to give me any legal clarification on code relating to their function. I finally had to hire an attorney.

You won't be getting anything from the state or the county except maybe prosecuted. Then the AG's office may get involved to provide legal counsel to the prosecutor. They won't be providing you with any legal advice or "clarification".

A judges ruling might have some bearing on future prosecutions but maybe not. County prosecutors have been known to spend millions of dollars prosecuting people with little chance of any conviction. The tax payer foots the bill.

It is my belief that the law was written to be ambiguous. This effectively would entice a prosecutor to try his hand at a conviction because his chances are fair that a judge would rule in his favor having no previous case law as a guide. Also an ambiguous law has a better chance of deceiving voters which is what happened.

Last edited by CoalTrain49; December 6, 2014 at 08:42 PM.
CoalTrain49 is online now  
Old December 6, 2014, 11:01 PM   #24
Crawfish1
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2014
Posts: 6
"You won't be getting anything from the state or the county except maybe prosecuted."


I find the above statement in line with my gut feeling on this whole deal. I find it hard to digest when you ask for guidance you are told to take a hike. I am contacting my state reps to try to get an adjustment of scope of duties for the AG's office. They work for me and you. Not just to incarcerate us with their opinion. This is unreal.
Crawfish1 is offline  
Old December 7, 2014, 04:24 PM   #25
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 628
See my latest blog post on I594

Located here http://www.thecommontruth.net/the-truth.html

We have to be active, we have to move. I for one am not going to let this slide. If I am the only one out on the field, so be it, but I know many of you here are action people and acting too...

God Bless America.
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.