I-594 in Washington state one year after

[Shfoster]

I-594, the Bloomberg and company attempt to make us Washingtonians safer. Your state could be next if you don't become active. Don't count on the NRA, or any other national group to protect your rights.

Background check initiative a success or failure in Washington State? | Examiner.com

 

[fordson]

Whidbey Island! A beautiful place, been there many, many times.

Question: Does I594, as written, prohibit use of a firearm to anyone but the owner?

 

[ChiefStealth]

I-594 prohibits "transfer" to another person without a background check. So far, that has not meant temporarily handing a gun to another person. So far, it has not meant that another person cannot have possession of the gun. So far, it has not meant that another person cannot use the gun. There are a few specific exceptions for possession and use at a shooting range. There have been very few court cases to test the wording of the law.

 

[Tom S.]

It appears, like many other gun laws, inaction in the case of the 50 rejected felons makes the law worthless. Personally, I don't mind background checks if, and that is a huge if, police follow up on it and in the case of false positives, also follow through to fix it so it doesn't reoccur. Given the current staffing level of police across the country, it's highly doubtful we'll ever that though.

Background checks fall into a 'preventive' category, in which the idea is to prevent a felon from obtaining a firearm which can be later used to commit a crime. The police, though no fault of their own, are stuck in 'reactive mode' of responding to those crimes after the fact. For background checks to work, there needs to be police available to enforce them, and politicians fail miserably to provide this, and anti gun groups fail miserably to admit it and call for remediation.

I realize that lots of people here are against background checks and I'll submit to their flaming, but that is how I feel.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I haven't heard of a single person being prosecuted under this new code.

One would think that the idiots that spent 10 million dollars to get it passed might at least want to get a news story to the media to proclaim that their efforts have been justified, but so far nothing.

I'm sure that people have transferred (sold or loaned) many firearms without the proper FFL transfer, but how many of those have been investigated when there has been an indication of a non-legal transfer and nothing more?

My FFL friend just told me that the sales tax doesn't have to be paid on the transfer if both buyer and seller are present. I think a lot of FFL's are telling people that everyone has to pay the sales tax and are quietly pocketing the money.

I don't buy anymore firearms because of I-594. If I sell any I get the buyer to pay the FFL fee. The main thing I object to is the 9% sales tax on an item that's already been taxed once when it was sold new. I'll get by with what I have.

The initiative (now law) was designed to be as onerous as possible by a bunch of Nazis. For that reason I think most law enforcement just don't bother to enforce it. At least that's what I've been told.

I realize that lots of people here are against background checks and I'll submit to their flaming, but that is how I feel.

That's fine with me, it's your money.

 

[pmanton]

The antigun people hate us here in Arizona. Background checks are a huge "camel's nose under the tent"
Paul
Salome, AZ

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Gee... one more misguided "gun control" law doesn't do anything but hurt the law abiding and cost tax payers. That makes 20,001.

 

[ChiefStealth]

Yes, the effect of I-594 seems to only add cost to legal transfers of firearms. About 50 legal transfers were rejected. No stats on how many illegal transfers were prevented. No arrests for any illegal transfers. No arrests of the law abiding for making a mistake.
The definition of "transfer" is not clear to LE, so they take no action. As vague as the law is, no agency has asked the state AG for an opinion on I-594.

 

[k22fan]

The new law made a few changes in Washington that are seldom mentioned. Previously muzzle loading long guns and pistols could be mailed to our door, intrastate or interstate. I 594 made muzzle loaders that were manufactured after 1897 subject to the same transfer requirements as modern guns. It did the same for all cartridge guns manufactured before 1898 for which ammunition is available in commercial trade. Also it requires all transfers pass through a retail FFL effectively neutering curio and relic collector FFLs in Washington.

Additionally, all recorded gun transfers now are supposed to be entered into the state computer which was formerly only done with modern handguns. I wrote "supposed to" because before I 594 took effect the state was already a year and a half behind entering FFL handgun sales into their computer. The Washington State Legislature and Senate are in contempt of the Washington Supreme Court for not adequately funding K-12 education with no solution to that in sight. Over 300 rape kits await forensic analysis in the state crime lab. It is very unlikely that funding additional staff to keep up entering gun transfers will be given priority over those and other agencies competing for money.

I have watched a few transfers between customers at a local gun store. In every case the ethics of the store clerk's suggestions were questionable. The sellers and buyers arrived to complete prearranged transactions. In a couple of cases the clerks talked the buyer out of the purchase. In one case before the seller arrived the clerk got out pistols for the buyer to handle and gave a sales pitch for the store's guns. He either convinced the buyer that a better deal could be had from store inventory or just convinced the buyer that more shopping would be to their benefit. In the other in front of the seller the clerk told the intended buyer that the pistol was not of good enough quality for a self defense gun. While I kept my mouth shut I agreed with the later but the former was debatable. Whether the clerks were giving good advise is not the point. Neither buyer bought anything and the sellers left unhappy. Today with both buyer and seller at the counter a clerk advised the seller that he'd get more money if he put his rifle out on consignment. The seller declined and completed the sale.

 

[Bill Bates]

Of course we have another law that doesn't work and we have people that are never prosecuted for breaking the law. Watch out folks, that I believe is the plan. One day the cry will go out that all these background check an other laws don't work. They will cry the only thing that will work is confiscation and many people will believe it.

 

[vito]

I think the real danger is laws such as this one in Washington is the very vagueness of what is really meant as a transfer. This opens us up for very punitive and selective enforcement of the law. We all know how politicized the criminal justice system has become. I could well see a "good shooting" where someone acted in self defense but the activists could care less about that and are out for blood. When all else fails the prosecutor might find someone to say "yes, the accused loaned me a gun to use at the range" or something similar and at least then the prosecutor can claim to be going after the "bad guy". Maybe you write a letter to the editor and complain about the local mayor, or governor, or district attorney and the next thing you know investigators put the cuffs on you when they see you let your nephew or niece fire your gun at a public shooting range.

I fear that most citizens today are pretty stupid, and I KNOW that they are ignorant. They are willing, apparently to give up freedom in return for what they think is security, and they end up with neither. When these laws do not magically eliminate violent crime in the State of Washington, just watch the anti-gun, Bloomberg funded activists start demanding more and more "common sense" gun laws.

 

[filipows]

The next generation of I 594

Flush with success from 2014 a new initiative is now in process for 2016. It seems to me that 1, there is a LOT of money availbel for these things and 2, the anti's realize the legislative process won't work for them Thank you Mr Obama.

Ballot initiatives have been and I expect will be the prefered MO for these people.

Here is a link to the new initiative.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_1016.pdf