@50: why do you claim that others are unable to read, when the law clearly makes all transfers illegal, regardless of length of time, outside of _very_ narrow exceptions?
At a range, until a state supreme court judge interprets "and the firearm is kept at all times" to mean "the transferee's possession is exclusively at" or "while under the direct supervision of the owner" or similar, people shooting each other's guns at the range are in danger of criminal prosecution. Yet the fact that the other parts of section 3(4)(f) refer to how long the transferee possesses the firearm rather than the place the gun is kept at all times makes me think that kind of court decision is highly unlikely. You should really read what you're claiming others haven't.
Even if a judge ruled that way, the initiative still makes it a severe criminal penalty to go to my friend's house in Duvall and try their shotguns while clay shooting on their private land. Nor when a group of us go out to one of the many public outdoor areas where it is legal to shoot and want to try out another's gun. Nor does it exempt situations like the four years I lived with my girlfriend who wasn't yet my spouse; there were many times she was at home with the firearm and I wasn't. Nor would the hunting exemption have allowed me to do a high country buck hunt that required a few miles of hiking before being in the area where hunting was legal. If the owner had to carry both guns up that trail, there's no way I would have been invited. Finally, when I go out of town for a few weeks or have taken someone in my house who has expressed suicide ideation, the initiative makes it prohibitively expensive to store my firearms at another friend's house for responsible safekeeping.
As for any claim that those things aren't transfers? The exception of some specific types of temporary transfers proves the rule that temporary transfers including "letting someone use your gun for a few minutes" is made illegal.
@52: "[California] requires trigger locks[, background checks,] and a 10 day waiting period. How come the courts haven't struck that down?"
CA allows infrequent transfers, prior to their new law wording in 2010, it was infrequent loans up to 30 days. Now it is worded as follows: "Section 26500 [making it a misdemeanor to sell, lease, or transfer firearms without a license] does not apply to the infrequent sale, lease, or transfer of firearms." (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/…
As for the waiting period: "the Court concludes that Penal Code §26815(a) and §27540(a)‟s 10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment as applied to those persons who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the AFS, to those who possess a valid CCW license, and to those who possess both a valid COE and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system, if the background check on these individuals is completed and approved prior to the expiration of 10 days. " (http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/items/…
there's nothing requiring you keep a trigger lock on a gun; the only requirement on trigger locks is that any firearm sold must include a "firearm safety device".