I594 - Surprising news..maybe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's another WA agency declaring that they can't give anyone any advice about I-594.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/

Seems like they all want the county sheriff/prosecutor to decide how to enforce. If there is nothing coming from them, I wouldn't expect there would be, there would be no way to determine exactly how the ambiguous language applies to any of us.

Having worked for the county for a number of years I can tell you that they won't be forthcoming with any advice or guidance. Their legal counsel will instruct them to clam up regarding I-594 due to liability issues. Their position will be determined if they decide to charge you for a violation. Everything evolves from a liability/cost assessment and no one commits until they have to. It's how they roll.

My guess is the county won't prosecute under that statute unless they really want to hang some ne'er-do-well out to dry for other violations. They like to charge with as many violations as they can dig up as it raises the odds of a conviction on something. But that's just a guess.
 
Last edited:
This is messed up, it's painful to read even though I live on the other coast. Someone somewhere needs to come out with a clarification, how would hiring a personal attorney help anyone? There isn't even enough info for them to form a legal opinion. The fact is the law should never have even been allowed on the ballot, doesn't there have to be a judicial ruling on the language of the law before it is allowed on the ballot? At least that's how it works in my state. Whoever let that through I think is whom the blame should ultimately fall on.
 
ohbythebay said:
This one boggles me and surprised I received a FAST follow-up ...can anyone with legal experience speak to this ?...
Click to expand...
The letter from the AG you quoted post 14 is what I'd expect from an Attorney General's office and, more importantly, is an accurate statement of the role and the limitations of that role of a state attorney general. People often have incorrect and unreasonable expectations of state attorneys general. They are the lawyers to the state; they are not your lawyer.

CoalTrain 49 in post 23 covered it quite well:
CoalTrain 49 said:
...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".
...
Click to expand...

RetiredUSNChief said:
The've set themselves up into a deliberate legal paradox, where nobody wants to commit to clarifying the law....
Click to expand...
In the real world there are only limited ways in which an unclear law can get meaningfully clarified:

  1. The best and most durable way is for the legislature to amend the law to resolve uncertainties. This can be extremely problematic if the law has been adopted by initiative. As I understand things, in Washington State the legislature can amend an initiative during the first two years by a 2/3rds vote. Thereafter a simple majority vote would be sufficient. In some State, a law adopted by initiative may not be amended by the legislature.

  2. If a law authorizes a regulatory agency to promulgate regulations to implement the law, ambiguities can often be resolved through the process of adopting regulations. I don't think that works with I-594, because I don't believe it grants any state agency the authority to adopt regulations in connection with it.

  3. As a law is enforced, ambiguities in the application of the law will need to be resolved in court. Thus a body of common law interpreting, implementing and clarifying the law will develop.

  4. While lawyers, including the Attorney General, county or city counsels, or private counsel, can prepare opinions regarding how a court should apply the law, and why, those are just opinions and not binding on the courts.

    • A legal opinion by the Attorney General in response to a question raised by a state agencies or an elected officials could influence how the law will be enforced, and might also have some influence on a court. But in litigation flowing from enforcement action, it will finally be up to the court to deal with the issue raised in the litigation.

    • Opinions of county or city counsels might influence how the law will be enforced within those jurisdictions. But will finally be up to the court to deal with the issue raised in litigation.

    • Opinions provided by private counsel at the request of a client reflect that lawyer's best professional prediction of how a court is likely to deal with matters. Thus they can help a client keep himself out of trouble. However, the predictive value of such opinions is very limited in the early stages of the life cycle of a law -- before a body of common law implementing and applying the law has developed.

steelerdude99 said:
230RN said:
Is there a definition of "transfer" elsewhere besides in the body of that law?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I-594 defines "transfer" very broadly (Section 2, Paragraph 25, emphasis added):
(25) "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.
Click to expand...
But that's not inconsistent with other definitions of "transfer." Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):



Also, the word "transfer" in common terms has a very broad meaning, as I've outlined. Courts will look at the common meanings of words (Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42):
...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...
Click to expand...
 
A question of clarity: are these AG responses any different from a question about, say, the new marijuana laws? Or any other laws?

In other words: what's the "control" in this email inquiry experiment? Is there actually anything unusual/unreasonable going on?

Seems to me like enforcement has always been a local issue. It's how the city of Seattle made marijuana enforcement a "lowest enforcement priority", and so on. If you want to know how I594 is going to be enforced, ask the folks who'll be doing the enforcing. Write to (or better yet, talk to) your local prosecutors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and rank-and-file cops.

In some communities, jaywalking is a ticketable offense. In some, cops don't care. In some neighborhoods, you can drive 5 mph over the speed limit with no fear of getting pulled over. In some (like Kirkland), going 1 mph over the limit will get you the blue light special.

Law enforcement, or rather, the enforcement of laws is a human issue. It all depends on the humans involved.
 
Seattleimport said:
A question of clarity: are these AG responses any different from a question about, say, the new marijuana laws? Or any other laws?

In other words: what's the "control" in this email inquiry experiment? Is there actually anything unusual/unreasonable going on?...
Click to expand...
They shouldn't be. It looks to me as if a bunch of folks want the AG to do things he doesn't do and could not appropriately do.
 
The purpose

Is someone has to set the standard and policy for the initiative as well as clarity on the 18 pages.

I went to the AG seeking input which he supplies (to other agencies within WA) or to my attorney if I so desire, but will not to the general public that elected him.

I have now reached on to the SNO CO Prosecutor who this got punted to and whose office is surprised the legislature hasn't set the policy and guidelines.

If what the AG's office says is correct (I am sure it is) then it brings up the issue of unequal enforcement of the law. It cannot be a "State" law if counties can pick and choose. Though they may deprioritize, I can see where that would work as an affirmative defense by someone being prosecuted as they would be held to a different standard.

Bottom line. It sucks and needs to be rectified.
 
Well, again: WA elected the AG to be the top lawyer for the state of WA. Not to be every Washingtonian's attorney. He can't, and shouldn't, provide legal advice to random citizens.

Now, the office of the attorney general can issue statements on laws. It's reasonable to expect that office to give an opinion on a controversial initiative such as this. I expect we'll get one, eventually. Probably after the holidays.

Honestly, Frank's post up above is pretty eloquent and informative. Give it a read.
 
Seattleimport said:
If you want to know how I594 is going to be enforced, ask the folks who'll be doing the enforcing. Write to (or better yet, talk to) your local prosecutors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and rank-and-file cops.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that even this tactic will produce any amount of clarification.

Very rarely will any law enforcement or prosecutor come out and say they will or won't enforce any given law...or even how they'll enforce the ones they choose. It's just not that simple.

And even if they did come out with something like what you suggest, that would be no guarantee that they'll stick to that particular position.

Once in a blue moon you'll see someone official take a stand...but it's very rare.
 
No doubt on Franks accumen on this

I did speak with the Chief of operations Sno Co Prosecutors office. I will share later what was said, but in quick summary 1) Who is going to enforce the transfers ? NOT the LEO's 2) He agrees there needs to be some centralized direction and gave me some people to contact

He said everyone has the same questions. Not about private sales, but what constitutes a transfer.
 
Thank you for the update; please keep up the good work. I expect RetiredUSNchief is correct, and we won't get a firm opinion soon. I think we'll likely have to just wait and see what the practical effect is.
 
Remember that a core principle of our system is the Separation of Powers. Each branch of our government, the executive branch (the AG's office is part of the executive branch), the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, has its respective role and associated powers appropriate to that role.
 
Since it looks like we have some members here who are active in Washington State RKBA politics, let me suggest that the best short term approach to clarifying the law might be legislative.

It looks like Washington is lucky insofar as the legislative can amend an initiative. Although it takes a super-majority to do so in the first two years, and I'm not really up on the Washington political climate, there still might he some opportunity for a fix.

I know most of us don't like the idea of Universal Background Checks (UBCs); but since I-594 passed pretty handily, that horse has left the barn. The legislature is not going to toss or gut the law. But you might be able to get super-majority support of some clean-up and tweaking.
 
Spot on Frank...

I was to tired to post in full but here is the update

Okay, Status Update - I received a call form the Chief of Operations at the Sno Co Prosecuter's office. We had a great conversation which I will try to summarize. First, their office doesn't offer legal advice (yes, we understand). Their office as well as the Sheriff's offices prioritize their work, what they will go after - example - robbery, homicide, domestic violence, etc. Transfers at a range or in your home are very low on the totem pole (as in not even a radar blip) and as he pointed out, who is going to enforce it ?

I explained how I had contacted the AG's office and was concerned because while Sno Co may not enforce, what about King, kitsap, etc. He indicated that its up to them but from what he understands, its about the same level of intense scrutiny (not!). He understood my concern that no one wants to be the unlucky person to get tagged by some area that says they do enforce when no one else does. He says yes, it does require a centralized decision and policy and gave me an agency to contact and how to contact WASPC (WA Association of Sheriff's and Police Chiefs) to get a unified answer from how they plan on handling.

He also shoots where I do and laughed when I told him what my range has said (oh no you cant share guns). So bottom line, I will contact WASPC , we can be a bit calmer knowing big brother is not going to storm the door and call us felons. I am sure though, as per WAGUNRIGHTS.ORG, this needs to go to a court because he agreed, while it is pretty much ok, its still a law. if someone wanted to, you could be prosecuted. I know for me, I don't do the crime cause I cant do the time...Sorry for the long post...Hope this helps.
 
I think I-594 and the law it created will become a political football. It has a good chance of being enforced in the populated counties on the east side of Puget Sound. Not so much anyplace else in the state. A few eastern WA sheriffs have already said they wouldn't enforce it and it got bad reviews from most of the sheriffs in WA.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/i...f-washington-state-sheriffs-oppose-i-594.aspx

You have to remember that sheriffs, prosecutors and judges are elected officials in WA. They have to stay in touch with their communities or run the risk of losing an election.

Here's a true story and I learned a lot from it.

I live on a rural island in western WA. The county closed the major road on the island for repair. The project was scheduled to last 6 months. They set and signed the "official" detour. It added 10 miles to the commute to get off the island to most workplaces. Another detour was available that didn't add any distance to the commute. People figured that out in about 2 seconds and started using it. Sheriff barricaded it and people started moving the barricades and using it anyway. Sheriff started giving people tickets who used it. I called the sheriff and asked why they were not letting people use the short detour. His response was it was unsafe because of an eroded bank. I looked at it (built and repaired lots of roads for another county) and didn't see any problem. Loaded dump trucks were using it and there were no load restrictions posted so I figured it was safe. Load restrictions or closure would indicate that the county had inspected it and declared it conditionally unsafe. The locals and the contractor continued to use it. I also heard (small community) that it was closed because the people that lived on the short detour didn't want the traffic in their neighborhood. I moved the barricade myself twice a day to and from work and waited for a ticket. I never got one but my neighbor did. I told him to fight it in court because what the sheriff did wasn't based on a safety issue but community pressure near the project. He took his ticket to court and it was dismissed along with all the other tickets that were given out. The barricade was removed.

I know this doesn't help trying to clarify anything but unfortunately this will probably be how things are handled in the short term. Bottom line is speak softly and carry a good attorney.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
What veterans can do about bad NICS data
Replies
23
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
V
  • Locked
Feds Collect Data on Air Passengers
Replies
10
Views
612
Vernal45
V
F
  • Locked
Montana passes house bill excluding firearms from fed government control
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
132
Views
10K
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
WA - GOAL Legislative Updates from Olympia
Replies
4
Views
1K
wqbang
W
C
  • Locked
Minnesota: "Growing use of private police network raises concerns" (CCW angle)
Replies
5
Views
625
TekChef
T
Back
Top