Wa 594
- Thread starter Skribs
- Start date
- Status
That is what I've been told. If the gun shop employee hands you the gun prior to your actual purchase, they've just "transferred" it to you illegally. If you then hand it back to the employee, you're now both felons (first offense is not a felony but second is).
I hope this is not the case but after reading the full text of I594 I don't see any sort of exemption for gun shops...
jhb
Member
Wow that is amazingly wrong. Hope y'all can eventually get your rights and state back.
Nick Hanauer started all of this I-594 stuff in Washington State, with millions of dollars kicked in from ex-New York City Mayor Michael "nanny" Bloomberg. For a little insight read, "THE PITCHFORKS ARE COMING FOR US PLUTOCRATS," in the July/August, 2014 Politico Magazine. It's all over the internet. Google it. This guy is a gun hating, but armed to the teeth with hired security, venture-capitalist who inherited a ton of money from his father and lives in a gated community in North Seattle. He is worried about the demise of the middle class and the resentment that he feels will certainly be directed toward those like him. Bye the way, while not mentioned in his article, he is positively apoplectic with his hatred for guns and gun owners.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Right. And that's why he's blabbed his secret escape plan to the entire proletariat (to continue on with the French parallels he inaccurately draws in his agit-prop piece). That article is the political op-ed equivalent of "Grocery stores hate this man for his one trick to get 5$ checkout bills" --falsely self-effacing in order to gain the reader's trust regarding the same, played out, class warfare tropes all these guys peddle to lure the masses towards the shiny cause of the moment. Case in point, I would look to this guy's connections with the Occupy Wherever organizations; I'll bet they're tight, even despite this guy's supposedly jaded/opportunistic outlook, because neither is interested in actually solving the problems being discussed, and instead only seeking to damage our current system of protections (crucial to whatever moronic Grand Plan they think they can ultimately drag the country towards through crisis)
If they were actually scared, they'd be either:
1) leaving (duh), since there are already much better places to be wealthy than America, particularly if you are a budding despot
2) working to help our system of government help itself, by ensuring the checks and balances function properly to protect the interests and rights of those serfs they feign such concern for. These systems have been the only thing between us and anarchy for over 200 years now, and have only weakened through our consent
If they simply smell blood in the water of the governing system, that's when they begin clamoring for a piece of its power like they have been. Initiatives like those in WA, and their enormous interest in controlling elections outside their jurisdiction are the wounds to our system they now seek to exploit. Little pin-pricks poking through carefully placed barriers of legislators and geography, all sorts of wrong leaking through them forever after.
I said it before, I'll say it again; this election/past year or so has revealed Washington State to be one of the main seats of anti-gun thinking and power. It shames me since I grew up there, and never got the feeling it was so far gone, but instead rather libertarian. But just how many billionaires in Seattle are squarely focused against us now? We had thought it was only NYC and CA we had to worry about starting a "domino effect," but it seems the tech guys have finally matured into the same power-mad +40-somethings we're perennially warned about as kids. Nothing new; Ford, Rockefeller, and other magnates of eras past have taken to hot-wiring the political process for their own ambitions, but hopefully we can stop them this time before they start a war.
They liked to pretend they were populists back then, too, while abusing workers in ways unthinkable today
TCB
If they were actually scared, they'd be either:
1) leaving (duh), since there are already much better places to be wealthy than America, particularly if you are a budding despot
2) working to help our system of government help itself, by ensuring the checks and balances function properly to protect the interests and rights of those serfs they feign such concern for. These systems have been the only thing between us and anarchy for over 200 years now, and have only weakened through our consent
If they simply smell blood in the water of the governing system, that's when they begin clamoring for a piece of its power like they have been. Initiatives like those in WA, and their enormous interest in controlling elections outside their jurisdiction are the wounds to our system they now seek to exploit. Little pin-pricks poking through carefully placed barriers of legislators and geography, all sorts of wrong leaking through them forever after.
I said it before, I'll say it again; this election/past year or so has revealed Washington State to be one of the main seats of anti-gun thinking and power. It shames me since I grew up there, and never got the feeling it was so far gone, but instead rather libertarian. But just how many billionaires in Seattle are squarely focused against us now? We had thought it was only NYC and CA we had to worry about starting a "domino effect," but it seems the tech guys have finally matured into the same power-mad +40-somethings we're perennially warned about as kids. Nothing new; Ford, Rockefeller, and other magnates of eras past have taken to hot-wiring the political process for their own ambitions, but hopefully we can stop them this time before they start a war.
They liked to pretend they were populists back then, too, while abusing workers in ways unthinkable today
TCB
silvermane_1
Member
well unfortunately Casefull is correct, it's time for the "grim resolve", and moving to a so called "free state" isn't the answer, things like 594 will end up happening there at some point in the near future.
The_Next_Generation
Member
Folks, there is nothing wrong with a dealer/employee handing you a firearm before purchase. If this was considered a transfer, then it would already be illegal without a background check, even prior to 594.
"Official" transfers (sale or otherwise) from an ffl to another person already require a background check in every state.
"Official" transfers (sale or otherwise) from an ffl to another person already require a background check in every state.
MyGreenGuns
Member
I cant leave here. This is my home. But I'm embarrassed by this new law.
That shooting at MPHS made a LOT of folks vote for this. (People vote with emotion, not logic.)
Really? That means if they find you with a gun you MUST have illegally obtained it.
Dec 4, 2014
Smart man! I like that.
This applies to all firearms. Not just pistols.
It specificaly exempts police, military and federal officals.
That shooting at MPHS made a LOT of folks vote for this. (People vote with emotion, not logic.)
Really? That means if they find you with a gun you MUST have illegally obtained it.
Dec 4, 2014
Smart man! I like that.
This applies to all firearms. Not just pistols.
It specificaly exempts police, military and federal officals.
MyGreenGuns
Member
I heard there was an ANTI-594 rally in Olympia on Dec. 13 @ 11am.
Does anyone have more details about this?
Does anyone have more details about this?
That's what common sense says, however I-594 just turned a LOT of normal everyday things into "transfers". Before I-594 the above fell under Federal law, which says the gun shop employee can't hand you a gun if he has reason to believe that you're prohibited. But since it's not a transfer, it's not subject to the 1968 GCA or the 1993 Brady Bill.
I-594 is a minefield, even for 01 FFLs.
https://washingtonarmscollectors.org/reference/myths-initiative-594/ said:
Note: when I say transfer I'm talking in the 1968 GCA sense, when I say "transfer" I'm referring to I-594.
I'd ask a lawyer before I'd even have a C&R shipped into WA to my apartment again. This law is written to turn as many people as possible into felons as quickly as possible. Work is moving me to Idaho next month, I'm beginning to believe they did me a huge favor without meaning to.
The word "transfer" in both laws means the same thing. The word "transfer" is very broad and indeed includes any change in possession.happygeek said:
- Possession means:
If you have something in your hands, you have control of it, and therefore possession of it.
- Transfer is about possession, not ownership.
Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):
- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/transfer:
- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transferred:
- http://law.yourdictionary.com/transfer:
- So if you hand something to someone, you have relinquished control (possession) of that thing and given (transferred) control (possession) of that thing to someone else.
- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/transfer:
If you look at federal law things we tend to take for granted, like loaning a buddy a gun at the range, renting a gun at a range, giving possession of a gun to a common carrier for shipment to a gunsmith, including a gun in checked baggage when flying, etc., are all okay -- but not because they aren't transfers. They're okay because the relevant statutes make express exceptions for them (or, in the case of federal law simply not covered, i. e., loaning a gun to someone who is a resident of your State). I-594 was very poorly crafted -- either by design or ignorance.
The 'transfer dilemma (holding the firearm at the gun store) could be solved by attaching a wire rope to the firearm in question and fastening it to the display case.
For what it is worth, in some states you cannot hold a firearm in a gun store without having a permit. Most New Jersey gun stores require you to have a FID or Permit To Purchase. Unless you already have a permit in New York State, you cannot touch a handgun. Not sure about Illinois or Massachusetts...but I would not be surprised.
.
For what it is worth, in some states you cannot hold a firearm in a gun store without having a permit. Most New Jersey gun stores require you to have a FID or Permit To Purchase. Unless you already have a permit in New York State, you cannot touch a handgun. Not sure about Illinois or Massachusetts...but I would not be surprised.
.
Dain Bramage
Member
What's the point? I went to the Westlake rally, back when we could make a difference. I brought four young people with me. Attendance was pathetic. Probably a hundred or so.
Do you expect a huge turnout after the fact? If so, then we deserve what we got with our apathy.
I think it's in the court hands now. Public opinion is not going to turn, barring some creative exposing of bad parts of the law, like getting Bill Gates' bodyguards arrested.
I won't hold my breath on that one. This law will ensnare a lot of people for exactly what Frank Ettin said
Most of those things are no longer ok in WA. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people aren't going to read up on I-594 and many of them will continue to do what they've always done, which has been ok under Federal law.
Eventually they'll charge the wrong guy, and by that I mean an otherwise upstanding citizen who has money and a good lawyer. Then it'll end up in the courts. But it'll ruin some people's lives first, not to mention waste court time, LE resources, and taxpayer money.
I don't believe for a minute that this law was written the way it was out of ignorance. The more I've looked at it the more I come to the conclusion that the only point of this law is to turn as many people as possible into felons as quickly as possible.
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
Skribs said:
Good point!
If you don't take steps NOW to protect and preserve those rights, you won't HAVE a "collection" TO protect!
Good point!
If you don't take steps NOW to protect and preserve those rights, you won't HAVE a "collection" TO protect!
JTHunter
Member
Midwest - in Illinois, residents have to have a Firearm Owner's I.D. (F.O.I.D.) card before they can legally handle a firearm OR ammunition.
We're working on getting rid of that piece of "claptrap".
We're working on getting rid of that piece of "claptrap".
Jackal
Member
I'll say only this. Being a Western WA resident my whole life, if I post what I feel, it wouldnt be Highroad at all and would likely get this thread shut down by our banhammer wielding mods....... Remember, it doesnt matter what we think/believe/feel. The 60% majority of the 31% that voted clearly feel the 2nd amendment is valueless.
And that is an erroneous conclusion. No doubt some of those who voted for I-594 are virulently anti-gun. However, many are probably neutral, or perhaps even mildly pro-gun; but they believe a Universal Background Check (UBC) system is useful and not a serious impairment of Second Amendment rights. That is a fundamental political reality we need to learn to work with. UBC seems to have a lot of traction with voters, perhaps even some of whom are gun owners.Jackal said:
A problem with I-594 is that it's a horrible law and very poorly crafted. Its clumsy twists and turns make it especially difficult to live with and a minefield for the unwary. But it's very hard, mostly likely impossible, to deal with that level of detail and subtly in the initiative process.
wannabeagunsmith
Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 669
I agree. I have lived in Nine Mile Falls for the last 10 years, grew up here and man alive I love it. I just started going to school at NIC in Coeur d'Alene Idaho, so I basically have had one foot out the door. this is the final push. My neighbors in 9mile have said the same thing. I hate to leave but the state will continue on its wayward course helped on by millionaire idiots. Standing and fighting in a liberal- polluted state leaves me outnumbered, so I will therefore join a state where I can be part of a bigger force for reason and let my vote count. Bye Washington.
silvermane_1
Member
wannabeagunsmith, read post #56 very carefully, and understand that if it can happen here, it can and will happen no matter where you go, every state has it's metro/urban areas, which dominate the voting/political processes, even WY and AK have metro/urban areas, there aren't any "free states" left, once you come to understand this "truth" then you will understand that using the same tactics that these "Tyrants" use is a good course of action.
Bobson
Member
There's nothing tyrannical about a bunch of idiots joining forces. The results are undesirable, but that doesn't many it tyranny. Their tactics, by the way, are exactly what wbags just described - moving to an area where your vote includes you among the majority, and your desired way of life can be maintained.
"If it can happen here it can happen anywhere?" Washington has been a primarily liberal state for decades. That's a bit like saying, "If I can contract Ebola in this country infested with Ebola, I can contract Ebola anywhere." It shouldn't shock anyone that "it happened here." Shocking that it happened here before it happened in California? Yes.
"If it can happen here it can happen anywhere?" Washington has been a primarily liberal state for decades. That's a bit like saying, "If I can contract Ebola in this country infested with Ebola, I can contract Ebola anywhere." It shouldn't shock anyone that "it happened here." Shocking that it happened here before it happened in California? Yes.
CoalTrain49
Member
I keep hearing more and more that some gun owners have accepted UBC's. I suspect I have also but not because I think they accomplish what they claim they will but because it will become universal in time anyway. It's already been proven that they have no effect on deranged shooters who plan on killing as many people as they can before they kill themselves. UBC's are nothing more than a pay to play scheme that generates revenue to fund a gov't that says it's going to take care of you. In a way it's a bit like extortion only it's the gov't who is running the racket and not your local mafia. More and more people want the gov't to take care of them cradle to grave and the result are laws like these. It's a grand concept but it doesn't work. People in Germany tried it, they turned their power over to a fascist gov't and their cities were turned into rubble.
The trend seems to be moving toward prohibited people and away from prohibited weapons. Gov't likes it because it creates jobs and revenue when you have to apply for something they can actually regulate. Eventually your DL will carry all of your endorsements (that you paid for) so LE can quickly assess if you are a prohibited person in a multitude of categories.
I didn't vote for I-594 because it's a can of worms. If it had been worded correctly in two simple short paragraphs it may have passed by a larger margin. If worded correctly I may have voted for it but I doubt it. I voted for I-591.
Next up, background checks for voters.
Last edited:
Bobson
Member
If that's the perspective you hold, head out this way and we'll get you fitted for a nice pair of shackles.
CoalTrain49
Member
Quote:
I suspect I have also [accepted universal background checks] but not because I think they accomplish what they claim they will but because it will become universal in time anyway.
If that's the perspective you hold, head out this way and we'll get you fitted for a nice pair of shackles.
Well, I don't really have a choice about accepting it as it's already been voted on and passed. I didn't vote for it and I don't like it but if I'm going to transfer I guess I better warm up to it. Is there any other way besides a BC and FFL paperwork?
I suspect I have also [accepted universal background checks] but not because I think they accomplish what they claim they will but because it will become universal in time anyway.
If that's the perspective you hold, head out this way and we'll get you fitted for a nice pair of shackles.
Well, I don't really have a choice about accepting it as it's already been voted on and passed. I didn't vote for it and I don't like it but if I'm going to transfer I guess I better warm up to it. Is there any other way besides a BC and FFL paperwork?
I'm actually in agreement with CoalTrain49 on this. If 594 had been worded differently I might have voted for it too. I don't have a problem with background checks for gun SALES. That said I do NOT support registration and I question why they need the gun's serial number on the 4473 form if they aren't keeping this in some database someplace.
My issues with 594 are with TRANSFERS. I should be able to let a buddy shoot my gun at the range without becoming a felon.
I also take issue with the waiting period. I am not convinced that it does any good, and am not sure why 594 doubled it from 5 days to 10. IMHO we should ditch the waiting period, not expand it...
My issues with 594 are with TRANSFERS. I should be able to let a buddy shoot my gun at the range without becoming a felon.
I also take issue with the waiting period. I am not convinced that it does any good, and am not sure why 594 doubled it from 5 days to 10. IMHO we should ditch the waiting period, not expand it...
- Status
