For my friends in Washington State, there are a couple of initiatives that you need to know about. They are “The Washington Gun Rights Initiative,” Initiative 591 and “Washington Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases,” Initiative 594. For those that do not live in Washington I recommend you also read this. I am from Washington and vote in Washington so I pay attention to what happens there. Initiative 594 is similar to initiatives and bills being pushed in a dozen other states, and it is not quite what the title would lead you to believe.
According to the title of Initiative 594, “Washington Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases” you would think this initiative just involved firearm purchases, whether done through a licensed dealer or between ordinary citizens. This is not the case, however.
Probably the largest change that Initiative 594 would bring about is a change in the definition of transfer as it relates to firearms. Currently, to transfer a firearm means to transfer ownership of a firearm to someone else, either by means of a sale, gift, or by inheritance. Firearms transferred as a gift (only allowed within families) or by inheritance do not require the services of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer. On page 6, paragraph 25 of the initiative (which I have read), the definition of transfer is expanded as the following; “Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Now, there are some exceptions to this, spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles may gift a firearm to one another.
The importance of the term “transfer” is seen in what is required to transfer a firearm. Anytime a firearm is transferred to another person a background check is required.
That may seem alright, until you look at how the term “transfer” is expanded and what is excluded. If you and a friend wanted to go to the local range and go target shooting, neither of you can shoot the others gun as this is now included in the expanded definition of “transfer”. If you wanted to shoot your friends gun you would first have to go to a FFL to have the firearm transferred to you.
How do I know this is correct? On page 7, under the heading “New Section, sec. 3” is the start of 3 pages of explanations of what does and does not constitute a “transfer”. For example, if the firearm is owned by a private shooting club and never leaves the club premises people at that range can use it and that is not considered a transfer. There is a specific exemption to loan a person “if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person whom the firearm is transferred to.” There is a caveat to this though, “the temporary transfer lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.”
Another exemption has to do with hunters. Say a friend from out of state comes to visit and do some hunting. You can loan your friend a gun to hunt, but only if “the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm.” So, if you loan a friend a gun for hunting and you give it to the friend at your house you have not met the exemption and have broken the law as it is not lawful to hunt at your house. Or, you loan the friend your gun and you ride in separate cars to the site of the hunt, you again do not meet the exemption and you have broken the law as it is not lawful to hunt from a road.
Another exemption has to do with inheritance. If you inherit any gun, except for a pistol, you do not the services of a FFL to transfer ownership. If you inherit a pistol, however, you have 60 days to either visit a FFL and have the gun transferred to you or you have to contact the department of licensing and report to them that you have a new pistol and that you intend on keeping it. This last part might make you wonder since we do not have gun registration in Washington. This law would invoke registration of handguns without people realizing what they are voting for.
Another new requirement for gun ownership in Washington provided in I-594, specifically in handgun ownership, is that to own a handgun you must have a concealed carry permit. In other words, in order to own a handgun you must be licensed by the state to do so. Now, some people may think this is a good idea and we can debate that later. The unfortunate thing here is that it is being slipped in the middle (page 10 of a 19 page initiative) in order to keep it from being noticed and debated.
Let’s take a look at who is supporting I-594; Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, Washington Cease Fire, United Methodist Church, Faith Action Network, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center, and Washington State Catholic Conference.
The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility is the sponsor of this initiative and it is interesting to see who is providing financial support. Of the $7 million raised, almost 50% ($3.4 million) has come from 6 people including the last mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg ($1 million). The other 5 people are Bill and Melinda Gates ($1 million), Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer and Nick Hanauer ($2.4 million).
(The following is paraphrased from
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Un...ive_594_(2014))
One of the organizations opposed to this initiative is the Washington Association of Police and Sheriffs, the largest law enforcement organization in the state. Their reasons for opposing this initiative include:
1. They do not believe that I-594 will keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. These people will continue to purchase guns on the black market.
2. The responsibility to enforce the law, investigating and arresting citizens who do not comply, will fall on already scarce resources.
3. THE RESTRICTIVE COMPLIANCE MEASURES FOR TRANSFERS AND LOANS OF GUNS WILL CAUSE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO UNINTENTIONALLY COMMIT CRIMES AND POSSIBLY BE CONVICTED OF GROSS MISDEMEANORS OR FELONIES. (emphasis is mine)
4. Debate exists whether I-594 would create a registry of guns and that, if it does not, the background checks are useless for enforcement - and if it does, it is an infringement of the privacy rights of gun owners.
I have visited the website of Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, and it is interesting that they say on the website that we need to pass I-594 before people get confused and vote against it. I think, based on reading it, that they need it passed while people are confused before they read it and understand what is actually there.
As for I-591, it is being put on the ballot to combat the repercussions of I-594. It will require background checks be performed as they are now, when buying a firearm from a person who has a business of selling firearms. It will not require background checks when you loan a gun to a friend for hunting or when you let someone shoot your gun at the local range. It will also prevent the confiscation of firearms from citizens (as happened during Hurricane Katrina) without due process.
It is interesting to note that the only organization opposed to I-591 is the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the sponsor for I-594.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Adog
Bookmarks