Thank you for sharing your story. I hope it helps common sense prevail in this election.

Most people consider restrictions on felons owning guns to be reasonable (even I believe the NRA) and background checks are an essential first line of defense to ensure people who aren't allowed to own guns can't simply purchase them through a legal channel.

I don't see why this initiative is so controversial.

@2, read a bunch of the other sections not about purchase background checks. There are no provisions for temporary transfers in 594. If you were thinking about buying a pistol and your friend wanted to take you to a range to shoot their handgun, to be fully compliant with the 594 law you'd have to go through a background check for your friend to legally hand you the gun and then go through another background check when you returned it. If you wanted to return to the shooting range to practice with another pistol the following week, after returning the gun the week prior, you'd have to go through all the same steps again... because there is no provision for a prior check being valid for any length of time. For a recreational gun owner, it's about as annoying as having to go through a new driver's ed test and be issued a new drivers license for each car you drive.

That's related to what's on the page numbered as pg 8.
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/init…

FWIW, California has closed the "gun show loophole".

Solk512:









Here are some of the arguments being used by the anti 594 camp.



















1) It includes the formation of a handgun registry so that if a buyer gets a handgun the state keeps the record. The anti camp views this as the first step in the registration --> confiscation conspiracy.



















2) It criminalizes that occurs without a background check. You cannot, due example, lend your recently abused sister your handgun for defense from her estranged boyfriend unless you both go to a gun store and run a background check. Otherwise it's an illegal transfer. Same with lending a hunting rifle to an adult friend or family member. You can do these things at a gun store but not privately. They consider this undue burden.



















3) There is the militia argument. How can you say we have the ability to form a militia uninfringed when giving a weapon to another militia member can only be done with government approval?



















4) They say it will cost too much.



















5) They say we'll be forced to release violent criminals from overcrowded jails in order to find room for people convicted of family-family (see point 2) transfers.



















6) Too many people wear tinfoil hats.

Yikes. No idea why my post has that much white space. Sorry!

@2 It isn't, but gun aficionados see slippery slopes everywhere.

#3 that's untrue. I hadn't actually read the bill. Full disclosure, my comment above is based on the arguments put forward by the anti 594 editorial in the Sunday paper this week. But in reading the bill most of their arguments are completely false fear mongering (surprise!) Page 9, thanks again for the link, has the exemption for transfer at a gun range or shooting event. Yes the transfer technically has to happen at the range, but it's completely legal.
Transfers for hunting can occur. If it's too an adult you must be present. If it's to a child, a responsible and legal adult must be present.
Transfers can occur to your battered friend if you have reason to believe her life is in danger.
Transfer among immediate family is unencumbered as well.

@7, wait, what? Gun nuts are LYING? That's never happened before!

@7, the provision is for range guns.... as in guns that can be "rented" at the range. Hence the gun must stay at the range at all times.

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;

I think that this law would now allow a spouse to use the gun of the other spouse, e.g. a husband is gone but leaves his gun available for the wife for protection. Vote No on 594.

@7,
Even if you read "at all times" as a "range transfer"... that means that now you can't train someone how to shoot on a hunting trip with a rifle.

@7, and the transfers to family must be a bona fide gift. If your brother wanted $50 to sell you his old gun way under cost, that'd require a background check.

ChefJoe, raindrop, do you understand that even if those things were true, the harm represented by gun sales without background checks infinitely outweighs your right to share firearms? It's not even worth waiting for a better written bill - people will die who wouldn't have if the loophole was closed. Their right to live far outstrips your desire to pursue your hobby unfettered.

What ChefJoe, raindrop and other chicken littles fail to understand is that police will have zero interest in enforcing the law that way. Those cases won't make anyone's career. So they may be technically correct, but not realistically so.

Dear ChefJoe, raindrop and the rest of The Gun Fetish Death Cult: I couldn't give two fucks about your precious little metal penises.

Let's pass this initiative!!!

All the gun nuts who are nitpicking I-594 had the opportunity to file their own initiative that addressed both the gun show loophole and whatever concerns about sharing they have. But instead they've filed I-591, which allows easy access to guns for people that should absolutely not have them.

Why, it's almost as if they don't mind the gun show loophole! It'd be nice if they actually said so and defended it on its own terms (since it's indefensible), rather than concern trolling about ridiculous husband-and-wife scenarios that no one will ever be prosecuted for.

@17,
sure, like in DC politics... if only someone had proposed a more "compromisey" bill then government would pass these things efficiently.

I don't even own a gun, but I'm against 594's restrictions that would make it difficult for me to take training courses prior to buying a gun.

well, if the opposition to this initiative is as represented here (raindrop, ChefJoe), then i am DEFINITELY VOTING IN FAVOR !

thanks for making the decision easy, guys.

Chef Joe



I suppose I would have to query the writers. But I read the gun range transfer clause differently. I read it as the transfer can be done at a gun range or gunsporting event but the gun, while transferred must remain at the premise until returned to the owner.



J guess no, you can't train an adult on a hunting trip, but as others point out, there aren't likely to be a lot of folks policing this unless the person you're training shoots someone accidentally. You can train a minor though. That's in there.



And please...the sibling transfer? The "gift" is an unreasonable constraint? Yeah, if you want to sell it you're technically breaking the law. How about you "gift" it to your brother and sell him a toothbrush for $50 or have him take you to Cracker Barrel. Look at that, I made a loophole for you.

As evidenced by these comments, the arguments against this initiative fall into three categories:



1. hypothetical transfer scenarios

2. outright unthinking paranoia

3. the "threat" of mild inconvenience.



Hmm...yeah, I don't see those as compelling reasons to vote against a common sense initiative like this. Try again.

@21,
See, I view the idea of making a law about transfers and saying "don't worry, nobody will enforce it so strictly" like telling a gay man not to worry about a state's sodomy law because, really, who is going to enforce it.

@18,

"DC politics" doesn't have an initiative process where advocacy groups can directly write the laws without any vetting process by elected officials.

Are you concerned about the gun show loophole or aren't you? Because the very real damage this is doing doesn't seem to bother you more than entirely theoretical excuses you're coming up with to oppose I-594.

I say this as a former concealed weapons permit holder, hardly a lifelong advocate of confiscation.

@23,
I'm for closing a gun show loophole. I not for all the other stuff related to private party transfers not having a "minimum length window" so temporary transfers between collectors could occur without all the extra process. If you said "transfer for period longer than 1 week" I'd vote for this.

What's comical is that you're trying to make up arguments for me and then swatting them down.

This could have been filed as an initiative to the legislature which could have resulted in the legislature either adopting, letting it proceed to a gen election vote, or even proposing a more reasonable measure that would compete at the gen election vote.

Joe, you're a terrible troll. Try harder or give up.

@25,
you're a terrible contributor to the discussion. Or is that your best work?

Ok. I'm not on my phone anymore and my baby is taking a nap. So let's go back to the beginning Joe. Since you feel like we're making up arguments for you, we'll use quotes.



"There are no provisions for temporary transfers in 594. If you were thinking about buying a pistol and your friend wanted to take you to a rangeto shoot their handgun, to be fully compliant with the 594 law you'd have to go through a background check for your friend to legally hand you the gun and then go through another background check when you returned it."



This is untrue. Section (f)(ii) covers this. As this is written to cover transfers between individuals, I am doubtful the intent of this section is to allow the already legal rental of a firearm at a gun range.



"Even if you read "at all times" as a "range transfer"... that means that now you can't train someone how to shoot on a hunting trip with a rifle."



True in a very narrow scope. (f)(iv) Allows the transfer to a minor. So you can still take your son or daughter or your friend's son or daughter out to learn to shoot hunting. You cannot give your gun to another adult would-be-hunter unless that person has "training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting" and since in Washington state it is required for all hunters to have a license...and to get that license... "Hunter education training is required in Washington State for all hunters born after January 1, 1972."...well let's see. So it's already illegal for you to take your friend who is 42+ who hasn't taken a hunter education class or gotten his hunting permit hunting. If however you are compliant with current law, you can still take your adult friend hunting and let him use your guns. Or you can take him to a firing range as noted above.



"@7, and the transfers to family must be a bona fide gift. If your brother wanted $50 to sell you his old gun way under cost, that'd require a background check. "



Ok, again you're right here on absolute principle. But if your brother is willing to sell you the gun for way under cost, why the heck does he insist on $50 so that you're technically required to get a background check? Have your brother give it to you as a bonafide gift. And then interpret his statement of "Well if I was gonna sell it, I bet I'd want at least $50" to mean "Hey bro, give me $50 when you get the chance." Or if you want to be legal, go to one of the ubiquitous gun shops EVERYWHERE and spend the 10 minutes to do the background check if he really wants to sell it to you and won't "gift" it.



"I'm for closing a gun show loophole. I not for all the other stuff related to private party transfers not having a "minimum length window" so temporary transfers between collectors could occur without all the extra process. If you said "transfer for period longer than 1 week" I'd vote for this."



I like how now you've jumped to being ok with the law except for this "minimum length" issue "between collectors" and this arbitrary "1 week" issue. As if a crazy person can't do anything in a week with a gun...but I digress. First off, by collector, you're obviously not talking about antiques...since that's covered under 4(b) where we explicitly exempt from this law any guns made prior to 1898. So you must be talking about all the collectors of modern guns who will be inconvenienced from lending their friend a gun for a few days to take it out shooting. Specifically lending it to them on their private residence (not at a shooting range where it would be a non-issue) to use there or elsewhere. Presumably you are worried that if you come to my house to shoot guns in my backyard that there is a sheriff hanging around in the bushes just waiting for me to hand you my gun so he can bust us for illegal transfer.



Now if that were to happen, I would hope that any competent lawyer would argue that you letting him shoot your gun is not a transfer as defined as '"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."' If you come to my house and cook in my kitchen, I doubt anyone reasonable defines that as a gift or loan of my knives, stove and blender. Or if I am carrying around a box at a store, I do not get charged with shoplifting as, even though the box is in my control, few would argue that I have taken possession until I leave the store. The store does not deliver the goods to me until I leave the store having completed a transaction. These are the kinds of distinctions about "transfer" that would get argued in court if an officer was ridiculous enough to try and prosecute you for letting your friend shoot your guns in a controlled setting.

@27 Your shoplifting analogy is worthless, and the initiative says nothing about shooting being part of a transfer. It's as if 594 defines shoplifting as handling merch in a store before paying.

If an exemption is required to transfer (lend) my gun to someone for 5 minutes at a shooting range, which is about the average duration of such a "transfer", that implicitly forbids doing so anywhere else, for however brief a time. That means if someone comes to my house and wants to fondle a gun, we're afoul of the law. More to the point, if someone wants to meet me in the parking lot of a sporting goods store and inspect a gun they might want to buy before going inside to fill out the transfer paperwork, also illegal. It's hardly far-fetched that someone could witness that and call the cops under the proposed law.

Fuck a week, I'd have been satisfied if the text simply said "not exceeding one hour." Lacking that, any gun owner would be crazy to vote for it.

The largest law enforcement organization in Washington is very much opposed to this silly attempt at ending gun violence. Mr. Martinez is the definition of a person that is not thinking rationally and just wants to be upset at something over the death of his son. He was hugging the guy that enabled his sons death through providing funds to do so and ignoring every red flag that was put up. I am sorry for his loss but I will not listen to his illogical wailing.

Yes, just as any cop would arrest you for holding merchandise within a store, I'm sure they will be there at your house to arrest you when your friend is holding your gun. Similarly, how long do you plan to fondle your friend's gun in the parking lot? Long enough for the cops to arrive and ask you what you're doing? And who is calling the cops on you...the other folks going to the sporting store who probably think about the same as you, that looking at someone else's gun isn't worth calling the cops over.

You folks (I'm generalizing...maybe not you afterall) think open carry isn't alarming; that walking into McDonalds with a rifle should be A-OK and that folks shouldn't worry about that because you're responsible and it's your right. Well if that's how the folks shopping at Cabellas really feel, I doubt they're going to call the cops on you in the parking lot.

Laws are thankfully enforced by people who are required to make a case for reasonable suspicion. Would a reasonable person assume that you are conducting a "transfer" or just looking at a gun? Would a reasonable person assume you are kissing your girlfriend or assaulting her? Would a reasonable person assume you are over 21 while drinking a beer? Would a reasonable person assume that you've paid for goods when leaving a store? Cops aren't frisking people for receipts when they walk out of Nordstroms, I doubt they'll be sitting in the parking lot watching for illegal transfers (because seriously...the cops understand the spirit of the law and it isn't to catch people talking about or even handling each others guns in public/private places)

I love how some are claiming that the "police won't enforce the law that way" you are the same people that always crow about not being able to trust the police to do the right thing if left to their discretion. This law is lacking clear wording on many issues and until that is changed it is going to be a tool to arrest good people for absurd things.

Wait so let me get this straight. You think that I feel that I can't "trust the police to do the right thing if left to their discretion." So I would assume that...you do feel the police can do the right thing if left to their own discretion? So what are you worried about? I fully expect that police, and all of the ones I know are "pro responsible gun ownership", are going to enforce this law in a sane and rational manner.

You make it sound like once this law passes that police, who have been just ITCHING to arrest you for holding your friend's gun in the parking lot, are suddenly going to jump on you. Or that the poor police officer will suddenly be FORCED to arrest you even though he knows you aren't doing anything legitimately wrong (even if one could interpret the law in a way that makes the activity wrong).

But guess what, it's probably going to pass. So you'll get to see how many of your friends suddenly have their rights trampled by the sudden police gestapo. I'm guessing it's going to be a pretty small number.

Putting it another way...out in Centralia (or Battleground, or Longview, or Sedro Wooly etc) who are the cops? Mainly people who live in Centralia, et al. Demographics tend to clump together...so I'm guessing if all the folks in Centralia think it's fine to handle each other's guns, the cops probably think that's ok too. Now if a couple black kids show up in town and want to look at each other's guns...I'm betting the calls will get made and the cops will be right there.

@30 Nothing requires the cops to be staking out the parking lot, or your basement. Cops do actually investigate based on tips.

Ever heard of a thing called a cell phone? Someone with Fnarf's or Rujax's high regard for gun owners sees two guys handing a gun back and forth, calls the cops, and when they arrive, follows you into the store to ask if you've been "transferring" a gun outside. I don't think that's far-fetched. More like inevitable; not every time, but often enough to be worrisome.

I'm gonna bet you feel you have zero concern of this happening to you because you never engage in an activity that would be newly prohibited. As someone who's done the sporting goods store parking lot transaction a couple of times, and the five-minute "transfer" in a friend's basement many dozens of times, I'm less sanguine.

@32 this is most likely not going to pass, lots of people in areas outside of Seattle are voting no and to say that certain elements in law enforcement are not going to use this to settle personal affairs is silly. You obviously do not understand how laws are enforced, the officers personal feelings are worthless if he is truly impartial to enforcement of the law.

The guys killing each other like it's going out of style in the CD and South end every day aren't buying guns at gun shows, or getting background checks at gun shops. These straps are throwaways that have been on the streets for a long time, and will never go away since they're more abundant than high school diplomas. Pass this freakin bill already; it won't affect anything but at least we'll be able to pat ourselves on the back for a few days.

Absolutely not voting for this until they can be bothered to write a law that's more figidly defined.



Funny how everyone wants billionaire money out of politics unless it's Michael Bloomberg descending from his ivory tower to fund your pet cause.

I-594 is modeled after laws in affect in 8 other states. The whole transfer thing is to be enforced at the federal level by the same agencies....who have had ZERO range transfer issues. Not saying convictions...issues, nobody is being prosecuted what so ever. It's just paranoia fuel and distraction, no different than having I-591 created to confuse the public.

All 8 of the states with this law in effect have seen drops in illegal sales and gun violence. Is that not worth the same inconvenience of getting a drivers licenses and car registration?!?

@39 Source?

I don't think the idea is that transfers won't be policed, but in practice they will only be policed if there is a crime committed with a gun. Law enforcement does not have time to trace the ownership of every hunter's gun.

If a crime is committed and it is found that you "gave" your gun to your brother and he happened to write you a check for the retail price of the gun on that same day, you might have some 'splainin. to do.

And more to the point, if a crime is committed with a gun and it can be shown that you illegally sold the gun to the person who committed the crime, then fair cop. Don't do that. This is exactly the sort of black market deal we want to end.

@36 I'd rebut your point, but it's just so fucking stupid.

Whenever someone says they won't vote for I-594 because it makes informal transfers of guns illegal just ask the question: "In the 6 states with similar laws, how many people have ever been prosecuted for transferring a gun?" The answer is zero.

@43, oh, they won't prosecute so we should just vote for that to be a law.

How do bicyclists feel about the "vulnerable users law" and the number of times it's been used since enactment in 2011 ? Laws on the books can have a vocal minority to go ballistic to enforce them at the drop of a hat, perhaps in situations that aren't exactly cut and dry.

@41 you do realize that if you are found to have given or committed a straw purchase for a felon or crazy person you already can be charged with a crime and prosecuted right? Maybe Richard Martinez should argue for everywhere to be a gun free zone because that works so well. I-594 wouldn't have stopped Eliot Rodger from getting his guns but maybe his dad( You know the guy Richard was hugging) cutting off his credit cards would.

@44 you would have to be pretty paranoid to believe what you are writing here. Maybe this is why people think gun-rights folks are nutty.

@45 What the hell? Yes, if you "straw purchase" for someone you know to be a felon you could be in trouble.

However, currently, if you do a perfectly legal sale of a gun to some guy on the street then you have no liability whatsoever. The less you know about the buyer the better. You don't even have to exchange names.

This is exactly the point. Every gun sale should have a background check. You should have to affirmatively state that you know that the person you are selling to is not a felon. How do you know? You had a gun shop do the fucking background check.

What other old chestnuts do you want to try?

Why do gun aficionados always seem to be the least knowledgable about both current law and proposed law? Hmm....

And if you complete a sale to some guy on the street without asking if he's a felon or his name you can be prosecuted. Are you trying to tell me that if I just sell my guns to some dude without asking a few questions and plead ignorance at trial you are wrong. Why is it that people that have never sold a gun most likely seem to be keyboard lawyers more often than not?

I just want to say that i live in Spokane and my girlfriend's parents live in Bellevue. They are a hunting family and i am just getting started with hunting. I took hunter's ed, paid for my licenses, and am educated with firearms. This season i am going to be hunting on a property that doesn't allow rifles so i'll be hunting with a shotgun. Since i don't have a shotgun, my girlfriend's father loaned me one to use. With this initiative, i would need to get another background check (on top of the ones i got for my cpl), and then he would need to get a background check when i return it to him. What we are doing would be a class b felony if the initiative were to pass. I'm all for closing that loophole but if a criminal wants a gun, they're not going to care about breaking the law for not getting a background check. Just my 2 cents

If you sell a gun unknowingly to a felon you still get charged. Fact.

@45: If you KNOW that someone isn't legally allowed to own a gun, you can be punished for selling them one. If they're just some schmo off the street who gives you no reason to believe that they're banned from owning a firearm, you can sell to them without a background check and face no legal consequences.
The point is to no longer give irresponsible unlicensed gun sellers plausible deniability.

And people looking for unlicensed dealers will find them regardless. This is simply a money making scheme dressed up as responsible legislation supported by vanity activists and the occasional grieving parent. If you sell a gun that is used the the commission of a crime you will most likely be charged,civilly and criminally in most cases. Can't ever recall hearing about someone getting on the stand and saying " well I thought I could" and being exonerated.

@51 All I'm getting from this is that you definitely should be voting for I-594. It will bring actual law into alignment with what you believe to be the law. Where's the downside?

@50 Not true in any way. You can be either loaned a gun on a hunting trip or given a gun by a family member without a background check. So, yay, another supporter!

The idea of private face to face sales without government permission is part of the design of the Brady/NICS background federal law. The people calling it a "loop hole" are just telling lies.

The basic idea is that if there are private sales that for the most part are only about 1 or 2 percent of the sales, should there be a government break down and confiscation efforts, there would be no way to know 100% who had guns and who did not.

For people that make a business of selling guns without an FFL and for "straw purchases" there are plenty of tools already should the ATF be interested in enforcing them. However, as per our AG they do not consider the laws important enough to enforce.

We also at some point need to pare down the very large number of denied individuals to people that are currently dangers to themselves or others. If you look at the mass shooting not a single one of them would have been stopped by BC.

@55, the hunting trip requires both parties be present and have hunting permits, even if only one is shooting, right ?

Yep, your non-minor friend from Oregon can come by at deer season for a lesson and pay the $434 deer season non-resident hunting license fee (that's only $44 for you, the resident) so after you two hang out and you shoot nothing in the morning, you can let him take some target practice/try out your new rifle. Same price if you're showing the friend how to hunt... they can't be a spectator and handle your gun as a later part of the trip, they have to pay the full fee for a hunting license if they intend to hold your gun, I guess. Sounds awesome.

(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;

Ah yes, in the scenario where your friend wants to come hunting with you but promises not to shoot anything...then he's wasting his hunting permit fee just so he can shoot your gun. Of course, if he doesn't have a permit and is just hanging out and wants to shoot your gun in the afternoon, doubtless a forest ranger will be lurking in the bushes to bust you the moment you hand him your gun. God, how paranoid are you people?

There are so many firearms out there without a paper trail which predate this law, I do not see how this initiative can be enforced without gun registration similar to vehicle registration. And that is the next step. Yeah, I probably sound paranoid, but to the promoters of this law, registration would be a good thing. I guess I just don't trust my government. It is already a state and federal felony for felons to buy guns. This law will be about as useless as banning bayonet lugs, flash hiders and detachable magazines.







What really demonstrates the hypocrisy about this law, is that after the Conn. grade school shooting, not one additional dime was appropriated for mental health screening and treatment. Its about guns, not about the kids. As a people, we really do not care about domestic violence, drug addiction, and mental health care, or we would do something about the root causes of violence. But that would cost money. This is a feel good initiative. I would vote for it anyway, if it only required private sales to go through (free on-line) background checks. But will not do as much as would free addiction counseling to stop violence.

@58, "trust us, nobody would enforce a law too strictly... just pass it based on the part you like"

How about let's make a law that sex is only legal happen between married couples. It will slow the spread of STDs, HIV, and single-parent-induced poverty and associated issues (the guy from Freakonomics suggests crime rates are related to single-parent and abortion afterall). We should all support a law restricting sex to married couples for the good of society.

What, who would really expect the police to arrest non-marrieds for having sex ?

Look guys we get it - being able to practice your hobby with no inconvenience is worth more to you than the cost of a child's casket and a lifetime of heartbreak.

I am very sorry for the loss that Richard Martinez has suffered at the hands of a criminal.



This Initiative 594 is yet another play by the anti gun groups to attempt to deny law abiding citizens their rights.



To start with there is no loop hole in buying a gun over the internet. If you purchased a gun over the internet they will only transfer the gun to a licensed FFL dealer, NOT an individual. That dealer will then perform a Federal background check in accordance with existing law prior to transferring the gun to the individual. This is in essence the same exact procedure already in place for purchasing a gun. Second it is the exact same procedure at a gun show. A dealer will not sell you a gun until that dealer performs a Federal background check. The anti gun groups are trying to cloud the issue with smoke and mirrors.



As for individuals, it does not matter at all if an individual sells a gun at a gun show, or in a back alley or in the parking lot of restaurant. A criminal is going to steal, sell and buys guns without any regard for any laws. So what difference will it make to place more laws as a burden on law abiding citizens? Absolutely NONE... The anti gun groups only make themselves feel better that they have in essence punished law abiding citizens and have done nothing to curb any crime whatsoever.

@43, those other states have different laws that are not as poorly worded. E.g. OR's law only applies to private sales that occur at gun shows, CO's law allows loans to family members as well as any temporary transfer where the owner is present as well as letting someone else borrow your firearm for up to 72 hours, etc. Further, your claims sound like others I've seen - either you think it's okay for a law to be so poorly written that people break it all the time or you think it's okay for the law to be selectively enforced.

@20, if you read any of the other exemptions under that section, you can see that the range provision is worded differently than the others involving the length of time of the transfer. The rest specify that the transfer can only take place at or during some event, but the range one specifies the firearm itself must always be kept at the range.

@63: How to purchase a gun over the internet without being a licensed dealer:
1. Contact seller over the internet.
2. Arrange to meet with seller face-to-face.
3. Buy gun in person.
4. ???
5. PROFIT

Licensed dealers perform background checks at gun shows, sure. Unlicensed dealers do NOT. Gun shows serve to bring unlicensed dealers and prospective buyers together in large numbers, facilitating the reckless and untraceable sale of firearms to persons who perhaps shouldn't be trusted with them. Who's clouding the issue now?
The point is not to scare criminals away from buying guns. The point is to scare shady but plausibly-legal vendors away from selling indiscriminately.

@57 I think you're reading the "temporary transfer" section a bit too narrowly. You are crafting a hypothetical very carefully to run afoul of your reading of the law. Ultimately there is going to be some case law eventually which will clarify things. I think my reading is going to hold sway, but that will depend on the circumstances of the actual cases.

chefjoe loses more credibility. @24 s/he doesn't know any history. I594 was submitted as an initiative to the 2014 legislative session and received hearings in both houses.
"This is an initiative to the legislature. With your help, we gathered over 345,000 signatures in 2013 and submitted the initiative to the legislature on January 2, 2014. The legislature did not pass 594. It now goes to the people to be voted on this November."
Please review exemptions below and perhaps many of the previous comments are now ruled out of order for not being germane.
The following are EXEMPT (caps added by me) from the background check requirements established in the act:
Ÿ gifts between family members;
Ÿ antique firearms;
Ÿ law enforcement and corrections agencies and officers, United States marshals, members
of the armed forces or National Guard, or federal officials, if in connection with
employment or official duties;
Ÿ gunsmiths for the service, repair, or return of the firearm;
Ÿ temporary transfers where the transfer is:
Ÿ necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the transferee, if the transfer lasts only as long as needed and the transferee is not prohibited from possessing firearms;
Ÿ between spouses or domestic partners;
Ÿ at an established shooting range authorized by the local governing body;
Ÿ at a lawful organized firearm competition or performance;
Ÿ to a person under 18 years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational
purposes while under direct supervision of a responsible adult; or
Ÿ while legally hunting if the transferee has completed all required training, holds all required licenses or permits, and is not prohibited from possessing a firearm;
Ÿ acquisition of a firearm other than a pistol by inheritance, or acquisition of a pistol by inheritance within the preceding 60 days, after which time the person must either transfer the pistol or notify the DOL that the person is retaining the pistol.

@67 I think you've lost the credibility in listing the exceptions but leaving out the most restrictive and important parts because including them would prove chefjoe right. Let me fix the applicable ones for you:

- [and the firearm is kept at ALL TIMES], at an established shooting range authorized by the local governing body; (Translation: Range owned rental firearms can be transferred)
- while legally hunting [if the hunting is legal in ALL PLACES where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred] has completed all required training, holds all required licenses or permits, and is not prohibited from possessing a firearm; (Translation: no lending unless you are on hunting grounds at the point of lending and the point of returning)

Both of these gracious "exceptions" from committing a gross misdemeanor (or felony for second offense) are so narrow that they don't apply as exceptions to the most common forms of transfers that occur between responsible gun owners hundreds to thousands of times a day. That isn't just a burden. That's harassment.

In even naming these exceptions (which are forms of handing someone a gun temporarily), it sets precedence that the initiative is defining "temporary transfers" in that way. It makes no exceptions for these "temporary transfers" on private property either which makes most informal firearm training criminal acts.

Just a few weekends ago, I took one person new to firearms, and two other seasoned gun owners to private property I have access to for some shooting lessons/practice. I shared 4 different handguns and 3 rifles with them over the course of the session. Under I-594, every "temporary transfer" in that session would have required a drive to the nearest FFL. That alone would have made the session take DAYS since safe land to shoot on wasn't exactly close to populated areas where FFLs exist. The handgun transfers alone would add additional days because they have to go through the much slower process of being vetted by local law enforcement. Even ignoring excessive extra time required to stay within the law, the fees for that same responsible activity would have reached over a thousand dollars as each of my 7 total firearms would have had to be individually transferred to each person in turn and then back to me when done. 4 transfers X 7 firearms X $50 per transfer = $1400!

The groups pushing this initiative "promise" that is not what I-594 is about but yet refuse to acknowledge that the actual text conflicts with their "promise". I doubt their promise will hold up in court when the law is used to harass the first unsuspecting gun-owner by an overzealous prosecutor.

Shaneen Allen, Brian Aitken, and Bruce Abramski are all great examples of cases where the law was not written to make felons out of them but did (or almost did) anyway. Shaneen Allen didn't know her permit was not honored by a neighboring state and was honest to a police officer at a traffic stop about having a weapon and was therefore arrested for her honesty. Until public outcry reached a deafening level, the prosecutor was willing and ready to make an example of the single mother for her mistake. The judge over Brian Aitken wouldn't let the defense use (or tell the jury about) an "exception" in the law that should have kept him from being a felon (so I don't really trust these gracious "exceptions" as protecting me at all). Bruce Abramski was made a "paperwork felon" because the BATF was given power to enforce the Brady Bill (designed to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited people) and they overused their power to make buying a gun for a NON-PROHIBITED person a felony. This mirrors the type of power given to Washington's department of licensing in Sec 8 of the initiative: "The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended."

How did you calculate the necessary transfers? Are you worried about your friends passing a background check?

(4 transfers X 7 firearms X $50 per transfer = $1400!)
You don't know that the price would be $50, you don't know that each one would take days, as opposed to minutes. (The average background check takes 2 minutes, btw.)

There are more places in our state to get a background check than there are post offices!

http://fflgundealers.net/transfer/washin…
And you must also be saying that one less person at risk is not worth your "harassment"?
This example is full of extremes, and unknown variables, and key words used by the 594 opposition. Your out of state single mother example comes directly from the Second Amendment Foundation, for people who are not aware of it. How is that a useful example for us here?

70: How can you say that anyplace in WA is "remote from FFL's"? Someone can allege that, but when there are so many places that sounds like a red herring to me. There are 1525 locations.



Check this link for any zip code in our state. http://fflgundealers.net/transfer/washin…



So if someone is going to take training and does not already have a CPL, they will have to allow more time to adhere to a background check in advance. To work with a weapon that can injure, maim or kill someone-this is reasonable and to paraphrase Rick Steves, is an exercise in "pragmatic harm reduction".



I said nothing about "not going after a case". Your words.

@69 @71: I didn't say I was hours away from an FFL but between packing up all arms to be transferred, travel to FFL (30 minutes), paperwork, waiting periods (days for non-CPL holders), pickup of transferred items, re-setup, practice for first transferee, tear-down, packing up all arms to be transferred again ... (repeat times 4) ... yep DAYS. My nearest FFL open on weekends charges $50 for his services. So that's also $1400. There's one open on weekdays that's a bit closer and cheaper but having a job makes that not workable. All of this because some hoplophobes think I am itching to transfer one of my guns to a mass-shooter.

So because some of the people that join me don't have a CPL this is somehow reasonable? Even if they did, $1400 for the state's permission for this lawful activity is reasonable?

There is "zero" risk to anyone in this lawful and common activity between lawful gun-owners. There are no "extremes" in this example. I do this same thing monthly and sometimes get the opportunity to have other gun-owners join in every other month or so. I think you are completely missing the point in why I do this (and why people join me). Responsible and regular practice "is an exercise in 'pragmatic harm reduction'". You just can't see that through the blur of your "gun owners are bad people" lens.

Take that lens off for a second and open your mind. These types of responsible transfers happen hundreds to thousands of times a day in Washington (at gun ranges, on private property, and during training). They are NOT the source of gun crime and therefore should not be punished as if they are.

Since one of the major arguments against the opposition is that this law has no "intent" to make criminals out of otherwise innocent people (which was one of Washington's head prosecutor's response to the opposition also), the Shaneen Allen case is applicable because surely the law that almost made her a felon didn't have that "intent" either.

@71: My friends like to shoot out in zip code 98942, about an hour and a half round trip from the nearest FFL. Our state is much bigger than the area west of the mountains.

You dropped the cost argument. Did you decide to look at the costs and realize it wasn't something spurious? As for more time, that's hours, per transfer, for each gun used in a class. That's beyond reasonable, and supporting it shows that you aren't attempting to find a safe, solid ground, but to make gun ownership anathema.

Look, I get that you dislike guns. So make an initiative that requires background checks on sales or permanent transfers. Sure, many will oppose it, but it won't be the piece of shit that gets the huge opposition this one does because of 594's terrible statutory significance.

They were my words, speculating how you might justify language in the initiative that could be so broadly abused. How do you think such things should be handled, or should people just be made to fear teaching firearms safety?

@73 You don't know that anyone who supports I594 "dislikes guns". Plenty of responsible gun owners who are not felons support this measure. Practice and gun safety are good things. To the person who lives 90 minutes away, that is part of your tradeoff for living where you do. We all make tradeoffs, every day. Expanded background checks are not onerous for most people, and that is where your argument fails, by focusing on the outliers of a Bell curve.

I thought capitalism and the free market would dictate costs. Won't these costs go down with increased demand? (tongue firmly in cheek)

Why are you only focused on yourself and the private benefits/costs? This initiative and regulation is about public benefits, public good and public safety. To which you say as determined by whom? Exactly, I'd rather have it err on the side of public safety instead of erring on the side of "Everyone who wants a gun, gets a gun". (like getting a car on an Oprah show)

Private gun sales are not allowed in California, yet your son was murdered in California.. So, what is the point of trying to enforce useless gun laws that really do not protect anybody from criminals, as criminals will have many other easy means to acquire firearms. All this law will do is empower street gun dealers and other criminals who have a very easy black market to deal in and selling and buying guns on the street will be easier than selling/buying crack or meth. If you think you are honoring your son's memory by punishing law abiding citizens I think you are doing a much greater injustice. Considering, Chicago and California have much higher rates of gun violence, despite all the strict laws you have in place restricting gun sales, it makes me believe your efforts to force stricter gun control are not only ineffective, but counter-productive. Facts and figures speak for themselves.. Please leave Washington alone!! We don't need you to turn Washington into a basket case like California, New Jersey or Chicago or many other places in the country with draconian laws which do more to punish law abiding citizens than to protect us from criminals!

I'll be eagerly waiting for the "gun rights" folks to start posting their experiences with law enforcement knocking down their doors now that it's TECHNICALLY illegal for them to hand their friends guns in their backyard or living room. Yup, I'm sure the cops will be breaking down your door to take your guns anytime now...