Washington Law Forces Museum to Remove Historic Guns

[monotonous_iterancy]

It seems that Washington's new background check law has forced a museum to remove historic rifles loaned to it and return them to their owners to comply with the law.

The Colombian reports,

The new law, passed by voters this month as Initiative 594, requires background checks on the recipients of guns in all sales or transfers, with exceptions for family members and antiques.

The 11 rifles the museum borrowed from collectors for the exhibit are too new to qualify as antique under the law, and I-594 is silent on any exemption for museum displays.

“I read through the law about 10 different times looking for a loophole,” said Troy Luginbill, the museum’s director.

Why isn't this an ex-post facto law?

On Facebook, the museum encouraged people to visit before Dec. 3 to see the “very rare and unique firearms” on display. The museum is at 217 Front St.

The weapons in the exhibit include an anti-tank rifle, a rare Johnson M1941 used in the war by a Marine paratrooper, and a Japanese infantry rifle used by a U.S. Navy man, Luginbill said.

The museum will be returning these guns to their owners because as of Dec. 4, we would be in violation of the law if we had loaned firearms that had not undergone the background check procedure,” the museum posted Thursday, Nov. 13, on Facebook.

According to the article, authorities have taken a neutral position in interpreting the law for this situation.

Full article here: http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/nov/19/washington-gun-law-leads-museum-remove-rifles/

 

[suemarkp]

No, it isn't ex-post facto. The story was misleading. The have no issue if they keep the guns. It is returning them to the owner after 3 December that will cause them to have to pay for the transfer and background check.

They don't have that kind of money, so they are giving them back before they have to do it through a dealer. I was wondering though, how would a museum handle guns. If they go from one employee to another to get moved, would each of those touches be a transfer? Just who is the museum that owns the guns -- is it all employees. Not sure how the law covers businesses with guns that are not gun dealers.

Our state will probably choose to not implement the class size initiative that passed because they can't fund it. But will they ignore I-594 even though it will cost the dept of licensing money? Doubt it. But at a minimum, they need to perform some surgery on it to clarify what a transfer is and handle some of these "untended consequences" that we all warned about but the proponents said "this is not our intent".

 

[Willie Sutton]

The transfers were done long before the law came into effect. There is no reason for them to worry about their current posession of them. The museum could keep them on display forever.

Now when they are returned to the original owners... different story. They need to be transferred back under the new law. The cost to do that is minimal. Certainly within the budget of any museum. The real question is if the owners want to go thru that BS to get their own property back. Perhaps this is driven by the donors, not the museum.



Willie

.

 

[CraigC]

Perhaps this is driven by the donors, not the museum.

Could very well be it is the donors worrying about getting their property back. They could all belong to the same collector.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ My bet excactly.

Willie

.

 

[murf]

owners probably don't want their guns "registered" when returned.

murf