Not sure if this has been posted, I just got it from SAF. We'll see how far this one goes. Maybe state supreme court will translate it into english and prune it up a bit. The BC part will probably stand.
Last edited:
I-594 lawsuit filed by SAF
- Thread starter LostintheOzone
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
quneur
Member
I would add several additional items:
(1) Do away with the registration. Firearms information has nothing to do with background checks.
(2) Rifles and shotguns are treated like handguns under this law including hunting rifles and hunting shotguns.
(3)Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8
"In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license"
This statement forces people to buy a concealed pistol licence in order to buy a pistol even if they don't conceal carry. A person buying a firearm such as the TC Contender as a rifle would need a CPL in order to turn it into a pistol. This provision effectively turns this law into a European style state. The law now puts control into the hands of Dept. of Licensing (issuer of CPL).
(4) "and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or
sheriff;"
The burden of proof should be upon the chief of police or sheriff. Hence, a person should be eligible to purchase until proven otherwise. As such, they should be required to submit to the municiple court the reasons stateing the denial.
Lastly, (5) "Residents of a state other than Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in Washington: PROVIDED...That such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter."
Do away with this stupid statement altogether. Why should WA State determine rules for another state? This law makes no provisions for internet sales. If a person in TX wants to buy a rifle from WA State, why would the buyer need to go through a background check when TX law doesn't require one?
(1) Do away with the registration. Firearms information has nothing to do with background checks.
(2) Rifles and shotguns are treated like handguns under this law including hunting rifles and hunting shotguns.
(3)Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8
"In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license"
This statement forces people to buy a concealed pistol licence in order to buy a pistol even if they don't conceal carry. A person buying a firearm such as the TC Contender as a rifle would need a CPL in order to turn it into a pistol. This provision effectively turns this law into a European style state. The law now puts control into the hands of Dept. of Licensing (issuer of CPL).
(4) "and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or
sheriff;"
The burden of proof should be upon the chief of police or sheriff. Hence, a person should be eligible to purchase until proven otherwise. As such, they should be required to submit to the municiple court the reasons stateing the denial.
Lastly, (5) "Residents of a state other than Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in Washington: PROVIDED...That such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter."
Do away with this stupid statement altogether. Why should WA State determine rules for another state? This law makes no provisions for internet sales. If a person in TX wants to buy a rifle from WA State, why would the buyer need to go through a background check when TX law doesn't require one?
Last edited:
The RCW has been updated.
RCW 9.41.113: Firearm sales or transfers?Background checks?Requirements?Exceptions.
Still some gray areas though.
One thing that local FFL holders have noticed is that during a private transfer conducted by the FFL, they are still ultimately responsible. So, some are taking possession of that firearm. When/if the buyer passes the NICS check, the FFL delivers the gun to them. If they don't pass, the seller must pass the NICS check to get the gun back. If they don't pass then the gun is sold on consignment. This is understood by all parties before the transfer process begins.
RCW 9.41.113: Firearm sales or transfers?Background checks?Requirements?Exceptions.
Still some gray areas though.
One thing that local FFL holders have noticed is that during a private transfer conducted by the FFL, they are still ultimately responsible. So, some are taking possession of that firearm. When/if the buyer passes the NICS check, the FFL delivers the gun to them. If they don't pass, the seller must pass the NICS check to get the gun back. If they don't pass then the gun is sold on consignment. This is understood by all parties before the transfer process begins.
OP
Although I agree, that one could be tough since there was one in place before I-594.
The people that wrote I-594 were smoking crack. If I want to sell a gun to someone in Texas the gun would have to be received by an FFL and in order for the person there to take possession they would have to submit to a BC check. I believe, could be wrong, that all sales or transfers by an FFL has to be done with a background check.
I will be calling my FFL about this as he ships and receives from all over the country. I have to get a BC when I have something shipped from out of state so I think that is ATF requirement. Nothing to do with WA I-594.
These guys were just sitting around dreaming stuff up without even researching anything saying lets throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.
quneur
Member
Okay, I've studied it a bit more and here is what I came up with.
For long guns that are purchased in Washington, the purchaser must be able to pass a Washington State background check even for non-residents (which is still pretty useless considering they would have no history here).
Ambiguity comes in on internet sales. RCW 9.41.122 (previous chapter) states "transaction takes place in Washington, including, but not limited to, internet sales". So, if using this definition, the provision is illegal. If the definition means physically in Washington State then out-of-state purchaser do not need a background check. I say illegal because it would force Washington State laws over purchasers own state laws which would be a federal issue and open law suits to anyone outside of WA to sue WA.
Imagine, buying a long gun from WA without a BGC which would be a gross misdemeanor. The second purchase would be a felony and WA would have to issue a warrant and make the purchaser fail subsquent NICS checks.
For handguns, the situation would be too much of a hassle for non-residents. First, it would take sixty days to get it, "has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days." and they would have to apply for a concealed pistol permit, "The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license" which would be an additional $55 and be subject to two BGCs; once for the CPL and one for the gun purchase.
So, if you live in WA, you're stuck with selling your handguns in WA. If buying a handgun from out-of-state, you need to own a CPL on top of the BGC.
For long guns that are purchased in Washington, the purchaser must be able to pass a Washington State background check even for non-residents (which is still pretty useless considering they would have no history here).
Ambiguity comes in on internet sales. RCW 9.41.122 (previous chapter) states "transaction takes place in Washington, including, but not limited to, internet sales". So, if using this definition, the provision is illegal. If the definition means physically in Washington State then out-of-state purchaser do not need a background check. I say illegal because it would force Washington State laws over purchasers own state laws which would be a federal issue and open law suits to anyone outside of WA to sue WA.
Imagine, buying a long gun from WA without a BGC which would be a gross misdemeanor. The second purchase would be a felony and WA would have to issue a warrant and make the purchaser fail subsquent NICS checks.
For handguns, the situation would be too much of a hassle for non-residents. First, it would take sixty days to get it, "has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days." and they would have to apply for a concealed pistol permit, "The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license" which would be an additional $55 and be subject to two BGCs; once for the CPL and one for the gun purchase.
So, if you live in WA, you're stuck with selling your handguns in WA. If buying a handgun from out-of-state, you need to own a CPL on top of the BGC.
quneur
Member
Also, I have no idea when trying to purchase a long gun like the Thompson Encore which are designed to be user modified into a pistol.
Similar threads
