Can I take my friends shooting in WA?

[Skribs]

I haven't done much shooting or paid a whole lot of attention to recent developments in laws lately. I know I perked up when I-594 passed, but I have been too busy to follow it since then.

Due to the wording of the law, it suggested I wouldn't be able to take my friend shooting unless he/she brought their own, we went through a background check, or we rented range weapons that permanently reside there. Has this been the case in practice? Or can I take a friend shooting without risking every time we swap to take turns committing a felony?

 

[dwh4784]

My interpretation of the law is that if you are at a sanctioned shooting range/event then it is OK to share guns between friends. Out in the backwoods or even your own property you'd be engaged in criminal activity. Pretty ridiculous and not a law I or anyone I know plan on ever adhering to BTW.

 

[Skribs]

On a related note (pun intended) how do in-laws factor in? Can I swap in the backwoods with my sister's husband?

 

[JSH1]

My interpretation is that as long as the person is in your presence you are fine.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Can I take my friends shooting in WA?

We are talking about Washington State I-594 or Bloomberg's Law.
[snark]After he paid for it, they had to pass it to find out what was in its 18 pages.[/snark]
I don't think Washington State gun owners are sure what is in it.
I don't think the people who voted for it knew what is in it: all they read was the one line summary on the ballot.
It was a heck of a lot more than the ballyhooed '"Universal Background Check" for gun transfers.'
But as far as answering what the law says, or how the law is enforced in Washington State, I'll leave that to posters from Washington State who have checked with local LEAs.

I believe that a minority of the possible voters voted, so a majority of a minority got it passed. If such a thing is proposed in my home state, I will read it up, read the interpretation by the state firearms assn., and be sure to vote. If all the people don't vote, it is rule by the majority of a minority, which is neither democratic nor representative, but our fault if we do not bother to vote. I do not want to have to ask "Can I take my friends shooting?"

 

[Jackal]

Under 594, you CANNOT legally let any person hold your firearms. Exemptions include: immediate family, emergency situations, official shooting events/ranges, law enforcement official use. I repeat, it is illegal for anyone, unless they fall under those few exemptions, to hold any firearm you own. Under this new joke of a law, you cannot let your girlfriend shoot a rifle you own. I also do not know one single person that has recognized the initiative, its the most widely ignored "law" I have ever seen. Virtually no one complies.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...not a law I or anyone I know plan on ever adhering to...

...its the most widely ignored "law" I have ever seen. Virtually no one complies.

It is a really lousy idea to admit in public (like here or on other social media) that you are violating a law.

It is also unacceptable on this Forum to directly or by implication suggest, encourage, or condone violating a law. That sort of thing will not be tolerated.

You've been warned.

 

[Skribs]

I don't remember the exact exemptions, but yes, friends and girlfriends are not exempt. So in order to share with your SO you need to be married.

This actually makes gay marriage a second amendment issue (regardless of your opinion on gay marriage, the connection between i-594 and marriage is a fact).

 

[Skribs]

It's still not a good idea to publicly announce you plan on breaking the law, especially somewhere where your statement is permanent. Once something is on the internrt, it is there.

 

[JSH1]

This is the actual text on temporary transfers:

(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;

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

I retract my previous statement. I seems that temporary transfers are limited to spouses, domestic partners, and children under 18.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's keep this thread responsive to the OP's questions. There have been other discussions about I-594 and its excesses, as well as attempts to challenge it.

 

[Skribs]

Okay, so out in the mountains I am the only one authorized to use my firearm unless its a spouse, we are legally hunting, the person is under 18, or we are in danger.

At the range I'm guessing it only applies to range rentals?

Is there a state with a worse background check law?

 

[Frank Ettin]

This turned into a rant fest instead of responding to the OP's questions. At least 10 unresponsive posts have been deleted, and this in closed.