Legal question

[Aticus]

While all of this may seem anal to some, remember that, unless there has been a change, it is illegal by Federal for an LGS employee to hand a handgun to someone under age 21. You may hand it to their legal guardian to hand to them but you cannot transfer possession directly. Is this law strictly enforced? Probably not but it's still there.This is why these questions are brought up. I have seen the same lawyer give two interpretations of the same question 4 weeks apart. Personally the minutia of the Washington law will not bother me as I don't and most probably won't ever live there. I was just curious. There have been noises of such a law here in Missouri.

Edited to add to post.

 

[da gimp]

Pecos, at this time, we in Missouri are fairly safe from new anti gun bills being enacted into law..........though this can change every two years as we well know. I fear this type of Washington state voter referendum more than I do anything happening in Jeff City. Both of the larger newspapers here in Missouri (KC & St L. ) are anti-gun as are most of the national broadcasters, this could be developed into a threat for us.

 

[legelegel]

Do you think the framers of the 2nd Amendment ever thought that the real threat to the right to bear arms in this country would come from certain states?

 

[sgtsandman]

There was always at least cautionary statements made about "the enemy within". I can't pick any particular quotes that concerned States themselves, outside of discussion material in The Federalist but that had more to do with arguments for preserving the union and if the States broke up in to several confederacies.

 

[filipows]

FWIW here is a link to the text of the initiative. Take note of the language in Section 1. http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf.

Read through it and you tell me what it says!!!! I am signed up for an armorers course. In the past the mfg would supply pistols for the students to use during the course. I received a message saying that because of I 594 legal council for the MFG said they could no longer provide material for the students. I received a follow up stating the the AG was contacted and that it WAS ok for the Mfg to provide material for the class. I provide this info to illustrate the ambiguity in the text and understanding of the law. There are bills in the legislature pending and no doubt legal challenges in the courts. What a mess. No doubt Mr Bloomberg and his cronies sleep better knowing they (2,000 Miles away) are now safer. BTW the law went into affect Dec 4th 2014.

 

[quneur]

It really is a mess. In areas concerning family members for example, its listed in multiple places and each place redefines who is eligible. I hacked up a copy and the reason for such. I would like some input from legal people here before I shoot it off to a state legislator.

Also, in another thread, the listing of proposed HB amendments are fairly narrow in scope. There was only one which would effect the public (the rest has to do with FFL dealers) and that would only effect concealed carry people. I suspect Alan Gottlieb of Second Amendment Foundation is behind it; he's so narrowly focused on concealed carry that he would give up our 2A rights for rifles/shotguns for CCW.

 

[TfflHndn]

Folks, read the law. Don't go by what you read about what someone else thinks the law says. I have read it. It has specific exceptions about use at ranges, and temporary use and possession. I'm not worried that if I hand my gun to another shooter at a range, I am committing a crime. The language of the law is crappy, but it does not prohibit using another person's gun at a range. (And yes, I am a lawyer. In Washington.)

 

[LoboGunLeather]

This post illustrates the real problem with such legislation, which is that what may constitute a prohibited act is left open to interpretation.

In order to be fair, just, and effective a law must be clear and concise so that any person of average intelligence can read and understand it. Without that it is never possible to know with any certainty what is prohibited conduct and what is permissible conduct, and changes in administrations will invariably result in changes in interpretation and enforcement.

My $0.02 worth.

 

[ChiefStealth]

(snip)Folks, read the law. Don't go by what you read about what someone else thinks the law says. I have read it. It has specific exceptions about use at ranges, and temporary use and possession.

Yes.

(4) This section does not apply to:
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(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;

So yes, there is a range exception. Very specific exception. Must be at an established range. Not a general exception for any place that is kinda like a range. You can shoot in a National Forest. But, that is not "an established range".

 

[k22fan]

This is my first peek at this thread in about a month so I've forgotten much of the thread. With that in mind I'll add two things.

ChiefStealth is correct but he did not write how limited (f) (ii) is. (f) (ii) covers range owned firearms that are loaned to students. As I recall the exceptions another one states we can loan guns to each other at established ranges while a competition is in progress. I-594 does not say what constitutes a competition or match. Neither of those exceptions covers loaning guns to each other at a range while casual target practice is the only activity going on. For that to be legal you have to rely on prosecutors following what you want the intent of the law to be, your claim that you are having a competition, or non enforcement.

Regarding the later, Washington's Attorney General Office (AGO) replaced their old page on I-594 with one that states they have filed to have Gottlieb & the Second Amendment Foundation's challenge throw out because they have not been injured and thus have no standing to sue. The AGO also posted there have been no prosecutions under I-594 so plaintiffs are only speculating on how it will be enforced. Bear in mind the AGO is legally required to defend the state's laws, even if they believe the opposing side is correct.

 

[ChiefStealth]

Well... there ya go. I copied and pasted the entire contents of
(4) (f) (ii) It does not have a single word about "range owned firearms that are loaned to students". Here's all of (f):

(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; or

Nowhere does it say anything about range owned firearms. There's not a word in all of section (4) that uses wording like range owned firearms. Yet somehow, someone still inserts range owned firearms into it. So ya see, even when we do "read the law" as TfflHndn recommends, we still can't agree on what it says. AAArrrrrgggggghhh!

 

[k22fan]

I stand corrected. Like I said I haven't looked at this stuff for awhile. The local range is asking for donations of beater firearms for hunter safety training so they will have guns that meet the requirement of always being kept at the range. They don't want loaners because they would have to be transferred across an FFL's books moving into then back out of club possession.

Other than lack of enforcement, I don't see how TfflHndn can argue transfers at a range are OK at any time. At any rate, If the AGO can not get the suit dismissed because plaintiffs lack standing they will be legally required to argue the law is not ambiguous whether or not they know that to be false. When you read this stuff it might be wise to keep in mind the other side is forced to argue the law is clear and easy to understand.

 

[ChiefStealth]

(snip)Other than lack of enforcement, I don't see how TfflHndn can argue transfers at a range are OK at any time.

There is a specific exception for a "temporary transfer" at an established shooting range. That's what (4) (f) (ii) is all about. You and I are at a shooting range. I temporarily transfer my gun to you. The gun stays at the range while you shoot. When you are finished shooting, you give the gun back to me. Temporary transfer over. No background check needed for this type of temporary transfer at an established shooting range. The firearm only needs to be at the range during the time of the transfer. The firearm doesn't need to stay at the range always, and forever.

 

[k22fan]

Unless an organized competition is under way the new law does not say you are O.K. so long as the the gun is returned before leaving the range. It is the exemption for hunting that says the transferee must return the firearm before departing the hunting area.

[...] (f) (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range [...]

It could be that some day a judge will rule you are correct. In the mean time, considering violations are felonies and Washington has a mandatory 5 year sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, I think it is prudent to obey the letter of the law.

 

[ChiefStealth]

I can certainly understand how these laws can be interpreted in different ways. Which, I think, is what Lobo was saying. If we, the law abiding citizens, cannot read and understand the law so that we can comply, how can our friendly, helpful LE personnel enforce the law effectively?

 

[quneur]

(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...

This another beef I have with I-594. (f) (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs...

When the language says, 'if the transfer occurs', which specific transfer does it relate to? There are only two options:
(a) any transfer between anyone at the range or
(b) only those respect to (f)(i), between spouses or domestic partners (these transfers are already considered in 9.41.113 (4)(a) so its redundant).

If (a), the language would be, 'if a temporary transfer'.
If (b), the language would be the same but would mean any transfer who is not a domestic partner or spouse would be illegal.

One word can change a sentence. If you look at the language of RCW 9.41.113 (4)(c) (i)&(ii) which is also on I-594:

(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

(ii) relates to (i) specifically. The only reference I have to go by is the language of the author(s) of I-594.

Those who argue for (a) where transfer can be between anyone at the range then why write in (f)(i) since anyone would also include (f)(i)?

 

[elm_creek_smith]

92% of Americans support universal gun background checks.

My Constitutional rights should not be subject to the whims of the majority, through polls or otherwise.

The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone.

How many of those denials were in error? And, how many of those people denied firearm purchases were prosecuted for illegally attempting to purchase a firearm?

 

[LostintheOzone]

I'm in WA. I'm a vet, a taxpayer, a voter and a CPL holder. I read the law several times. I'm going to have to side with those who look for the intent rather than take every word literally. The law is poorly written (that alone was enough not to vote for it) and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I will continue to use my firearms to train other people. It isn't a loan or a transfer of property. For it to be a loan I think it would have to leave my sight and the immediate area for more than a day. For it to be a transfer I think money or some other compensation for the firearm needs to be made.

This law has generated a lot of paranoia for gun owners in WA. Eventually legislation will get a law that everyone can deal with. Right now LEO and prosecutors don't even know how to proceed. Remember that the chief prosecutor and local sheriff is an elected official in WA. I'm sure none of them want a bunch of bad press over a poorly written law that hasn't been vetted by the legislature or by the courts. Remember that there is a cost to taxpayers to prosecute someone. If a decision goes against a prosecutor that is tax dollars spent for nothing. A few hundred thousand here and a few hundred thousand there, it all adds up after awhile. A local prosecutor just spent several hundred thousand to prosecute someone and he lost. Bad call.

I may be in the minority here but I'm too old to sweat the small stuff anymore. Plus I have the resources to defend myself in court if I have to.

And just for fun here is a list of people and orgs that supported this ***. Don't forget to vote.

Supporters

Officials
Sergeant Dave Hoover[9]
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg (R)[9]
Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe (D)[9]
Regina Malveaux, Executive Director of the YWCA of Spokane[10]
Bill Hanson, former Executive Director, Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs and former President, Washington State Patrol Troopers' Association[9]
Don Pierce, former Bellingham Chief of Police[9]
Assistant Chief Nick Metz, Seattle Police Department[9]
Former Thurston County Sheriff Dan Kimball[9]

Former officials
Former Gov. and U.S. Sen. Dan Evans (R)[11]
Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-8)[12]

Organizations
Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility[8]
Washington Cease Fire
United Methodist Church
Faith Action Network
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center
Washington State Catholic Conference[13]
Everytown for Gun Safety[14]
Sammamish City Council[15]
Kirkland City Council[16]