Comments

1
I feel like there's no chance they win here. They have no real harm to point to, so I'm not sure how they have standing for this suit.
If this were a thing that were actually happening, they would have a specific problem to point to, not just saying that all these people "fear arrest".
I'm not sure it's an actionable case until someone takes an action for the state under the statute.

But IANAL, so if any lawyers can chime in?
2
Makes you wonder if those protest transfer events they held were part of this strategy...
3
"We're not trying to stop background checks."
YOU LIE LIKE A RUG, MAN.
4
@3 But how well does that rug tie the room together?
5
If "...a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand its scope..." is truly the threshold for the validity of a law, then I doubt we'd have many laws left on the books. Law is complex shit, and for good reason - shifty SOB's like the NRA live for loopholes.
Of course, these folks would probably like to whittle it down to just "eye for an eye", or #I4I.
6
The problem with 594 is not the background checks.Its everthing after that.If a wash. st. voter voted for 594 based on the media ads they were DUPED .It is the transfer part which responsible gun owners have a problem with.One example and I think it is the STUPIDEST one.I have one gun I go to the shooting range,if my wife wants to go and we both shoot with my ONE gun.I am required to leave it at the range PERMANTELY.This should go to the US supreme court and the transfer clauses struck down
7
I am a gun owner and I support background checks.I do not and will not OBEY the transfer part of 594.If my daughter comes over to my house and I show her my gun and hand it to her,she hands it back to me.We have just broken the law.There are other examples like this in 594.Background good,Tranfers totally stupid and will not be obeyed
8
@6: WRONG-O. I quote the I-594 text:

"This section [requirement for background check on transfer] does not apply to:

...

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;

...

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;" (source, page 9)

You can actually, under the terms of the law, make a temporary transfer of a firearm to your spouse whenever, so long as your spouse isn't banned from owning a gun. There's also a provision in there allowing you to make a temporary transfer of a firearm to a minor for "hunting, sporting, or educational purposes" so long as they're supervised by a responsible adult.

One, you need to educate yourself on what the law does or doesn't say before you go shooting your mouth off about it (no pun intended). Two, if you're against restrictions on transfers, you ARE against universal background checks. Suppose we get rid of transfer restrictions? Then any (non federally licensed) dealer could avoid having to run a check by just making a TRANSFER of the gun, rather than a SALE. Fuck sake, use the brain that God gave you.
9
@6, are you going to defend me against the British, minuteman? Or are you one of these anti-government militia kooks pretending (not very successfully) to be a human being here?
10
@7: Is your daughter under 18? If so, you're lying again.
Regardless, do you really think that the police will kick down your door because they heard you, in the privacy of your own home, handed a gun to your adult daughter and she handed it back to you immediately? If so, you may want to see a doctor about medication to lower your blood pressure.
11
@5 "Law is complex shit, and for good reason - shifty SOB's like the NRA live for loopholes."

The reason there are loopholes is because law is complex shit. Lobbyist often demand excess definition's and things to be spelled out in excruciating detail so they know exactly where the line is, how close they can get to said line, and start figuring out ways around said line.

If laws could be boiled down to something simple like in this case "A background check most be performed on a person purchasing a firearm." It would do wonders for closing loopholes.
12
These guys should get together and have a party with the stupids who are suing because iOS 8 uses up too much space. They could just, you know, share experiences of what it's like to be heading into court with, you know, no fucking case.

They could invite the people whose MP3s were not deleted -- but could have been! -- when they updated iTunes. Maybe start a club.
13
@8

To quote from the article transfer is defined as:

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.

Here you go, is this legal or illegal, and if illegal how many felonies would have been committed ?

I buy a new gun. I hand it to a friend to show it to him. He then hands it back to me.

14
You have just committed a Misdeamenor under 5942 misdemenors equal a Felony
15
Venomlash, you may have to retract that part about "the brain that God gave you".
16
I thought it would have been a Misdemeanor or the hand back to me as well.
17
Wroong, the transfer section applies to a transfer between my wife an myself,unless the gun is KEPT at a ESTABLISHED shooting range.This means that if my wife goes to the range and we both use one gun,that gun must be PERMANTELY kept at the range.That will not happen.My property is mine.This is not New Jersey and never will be
18
@17

You guys blow my mind. You say 594 does what everyone else tells you it doesn't do, then you say you refuse to obey the parts of 594 which nobody but you guys think it says.

You guys create the phantom, then you guys get all badass and say you're not afraid of no phantom.

You're right. There's no phantom. Nobody is going to try to enforce the thing which everybody keeps telling you the law doesn't say.

This shit is pure comedy gold. I can't wait until a lawyer tries to lay this out before a judge.
19
@18: the strategy is probably appeal appeal appeal till it gets in front of SCOTUS, where anything can happen: rights can be violated by re-counting votes, corporations can have individual rights, black can be white, up can be down.
20
I wonder if any of you sheeple have ever fired a gun.Yes most the tranfer laws wont be enforced because the police and deputies dont have time for asinine regulations.But they are the law,misquided as they are.One parting comment.I kind of doubt that very few posters here read the Full Ballot before you voted.To vote for something without really understanding it is irresponsible voting.MOLON LEBE
21
My neighbor buys a hot new car. I admire it, and he let's me take it for a drive. When I return, I hand him back his keys. It was and still is his car. I never owned it, not even for a moment. He did not transfer it to me.

The gun people have concocted a weird redefinition of the term Transfer, and I welcome this lawsuit as an opportunity for the courts to call BS on it.
22
@20 - I own a gun, keep it at home, have a concealed carry permit, and I voted for 594. You are an idiot.

Letting someone else handle your gun, or fire it at a range, is not a transfer. And doesn't mean the gun has to be kept at the range. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. And it is people like you, crying wolf over things that are NOT in this law, are what is going to make reasonable people ignore you when actual bad laws are proposed.
24
Jesus the gun nuts are a bunch of whiny babies. Maybe that's why they love guns. Makes them feel all tough 'n shit.
25
@20, it's "molon labe", not "molon lebe", and it's Latin for "I'm a 40-watt bulb".
26
@25: I was laughing to myself over that one.
27
@21: So to use your analogy, if I get a new pistol and I let a non-relative take it for the length of time that a test drive takes, it's not a transfer? If he shoots someone or brandishes it to threaten a person, I'm not liable? How long and/or where can I let it be in someone's possession before it's considered a transfer? Is overnight OK if he brings it back the next day?
28
@17: Dude, did you READ the section I quoted? Sure, the law specifically exempts temporary transfers involving guns that are kept at a firing range. But it ALSO exempts temporary transfers OF ANY SORT between spouses! And here you are yammering about people not reading before voting, and all the while you're incapable of parsing the words right in front of you!
Fnarf seems to be right; I fear the good Lord may have been unkind to you in between the ears.
29
"I-594 is also so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand its scope"

Listen you dimwitted gun nuts, listen carefully: You have *no* inalienable right to exchange or buy guns under the table. Period. If you don't get this, I can only hope you haven't reproduced by the time your gun under the pillow *accidentally* blows your head off.
30
C'mon, minuteman is a hack paid (poorly, I would guess) by Alan Gottlieb and his gun manufacturing paymasters. His profile was created yesterday. Do you really think a knuckle dragging moron creates a profile to comment on this type of post? Ugh, professional trolls suck even worse than the real, mentally ill kind.
31
The first mistake opponents have made is assuming that they are of "average intelligence". Minuterice above is a prime example.
32
I 594 suffers from the same problem as most initiatives. It is not introduced by a lawmaker and reviewed by committee staff for poor wording etc. It is not subject to committee hearings where opponents or people affected by the legislation can examine it for unintended consequences, over-reach, etc. There is no requirement for compromise and horse trading on language to mollify the opposition and pick up enough votes to pass. So you are left with vague, broad-reaching "transfer" language. If I loan my WW II rifle collection to a museum to display for as long as they want, is that a "transfer"? Do you do a background check on the non-profit corporate museum? It's officers? The curator? What about when they give it back in 3 months? What if its five years from now? Is that still "temporary"? What if I don't have a gun safe and I ask my father-in-law to store the weapon so it does not become property of a felon who burgles my house? He stores it for me for five years? Is that a transfer? What about when I reclaim it five years hence, or have him take it to the range once a quarter? The museum and the storage issue are real examples from real news pieces in the last three months. One poster above has said, "The law is complicated shit .." Exactly. Because the proponents of this initiative wrote it in a vacuum, none of those questions were addressed and no definitions were provided to prevent criminalizing rational or prudent behavior. The proponents of I 594 made the background check extend beyond just "sales" of a firearm because they did not want people trading a gun for cash in a parking lot, and five years later, when the felon recipient of that gun uses it in another felony, having the guy who sold it to him say, "I loaned it to him indefinitely, it wasn't a sale." It would be almost impossible to prove him wrong. The problem is the "transfer" language is so broad, with so few defined exceptions, that it catches a whole bunch of the law-abiding in its web. The museum decided to give its display of WW II guns back prior to December 1, 2014 until a registered gun dealer decided to step up and donate background checks for the transfers and even then some people wanted the guns back before December 1 to avoid going through that intrusive and time-consuming process all over again. There is no resolution to the safe storage dilemma other than to have the daughter-in-law by her own expensive gun safe, which she can't bolt to the walls, because she lives in a rental. You can come up with countless other real and hypothetical examples where this law over-reaches. What about when I hand the gun to the Fed X guy to have it repaired under warranty by the manufacturer? At least in the statutes of the five other states that have a "universal" background check, they put a time-frame in to define, "temporary". Those laws were put on the books by legislators, not zealots with enough money to qualify an initiative for the ballot.
33
@32: Well, if the GOP wasn't run by the NRA, maybe we'd have gotten something from the legislature, but when a small minority blocks action approved of by a large majority, the large majority often doesn't just sit around, but uses alternative routes to getting what they want. It wasn't this or nothing because those of us who support gun control made it that way, it's this or nothing because the lege is in the pockets of special interests.
34
@32, too bad our legislators were too chickenshit and/or beholden to a lobby to do as you described. So the people had to do it. Like the indoor smoking law a few more years back, those opposed wouldn't come to the table, there was no mediation and negotiation, so they ended up with a much stronger law than expected. Too bad, so sad. It's reasonable to 60% of the voters. If the opposers want to freak out and over react, call the wambulance to pick up some sore losers. They can lobby the legislature to fine tune it, as they should have done beforehand.
35
@33 So you're blaming the fact that democrats are so politically impotent (yet brilliant enough to not win elections) that the only course of action is to pass a terrible law that criminalizes normal offenses. Perhaps you need an education on how and when to vote as well as how bicameral legislatures work.
36
@32, Just like when a majority passes an Eyman Initiative. Same phenomena, with the same pitfalls.
37
@35: No, I'm pretty sure he's blaming the GOP for obeying the wishes of a very small minority (something like 85-90% of Americans support universal background checks) rather than serving their constituents. The legislature is supposed to enact the will of the people. When it doesn't, and the people pass referenda instead, you can point your finger squarely at the legislators who refused to do their job and address the issue themselves.
You've demonstrated a need for an education yourself, you know.
38
@35: What venomlash said.
@36: Fair, though the pitfalls here are not nearly as severe as the destruction of our social infrastructure and defunding of schools.
39
@37 So you do understand that a bicameral legislature has 2 houses only one of which is determined by population?
40
@39: Please briefly outline the difference between popular sovereignty and strictly proportional representation. I'm not going to have this discussion with you until I know you're decently familiar with the key terms involved.
41
@40: don't bother. He's completely wrong.

@39: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_…
You could be more wrong if you tried, but it'd take real effort.
42
State troopers literally said they wouldn't even considering enforcing the part of the law that **ONLY ACTIVISTS** interpret to mean that it's a felony to have some person standing next to you hold your gun. I'd argue the vast majority of people who believe the law functions this way don't think the entire law should be law and are very obviously trying to use this to wedge their way into becoming relevant. The funny thing is every statement they try and counter with only further proves there's nothing unconstitutional about this law and that they're just wasting everyone's time throwing a hissy fit that this law became law. I'm so so sorry you lost and now you fear the police are going to kill you if you lend your gun to grandma, I hope whoever feels that way gets the help they need to live a better less paranoid life.
43
@42, the problems is once its on the books, nobody knows how a future State Patrol will enforce it, or what some popularly elected D.A. will do. For that matter you don't know if the King County Sheriff or Seattle Police will enforce it today. Will they look at the same way as the State Patrol? You don't know until you get two people prosecuted (at their expense) in two different courts, that rule differently when applying a similar fact patter of conduct to the law and an appellate court resolves the conflict. The more vague the law, the more likely that is to happen, and the more "prior restraint" you get on a Bill of Rights activity. Its already happening with the museum returning WW II displays before the law went into effect on December 1, 2014.

The other issue that happens is that we get some new horrific crime happen and the public blood lust is so overwhelming that the State Patrol, under the direction of an elected Governor, and an elected Prosecutor part from today's reasonable interpretation by the State Patrol. The idea of the rule of law and a Constitution in particular, is to put some limits on the passions of a majority so someone doesn't get made a scapegoat. It doesn't always work (e.g. Japanese American interment in WW II, the Jim Crow South), but good, precise laws, at least put up an impediment. Vague laws make us all vulnerable to a mob or overwhelming majority mob depriving someone of their liberty, or even worse, their life.

@36. The end justifies the means?
44
We should all know we're deep shit when gun-toting 2 year olds already have established murder records.
45
The fatally shot mom back at the Wal*Mart in Idaho, and the Marysville police officer's 7 year old daughter aren't coming back.
46
Please someone wake me when the world regains its common sense.
47
@43- We know the enforcement will happen when someone commits a crime with a gun that they acquired through a sale/gift/loan with no background check. Like the vast majority of the laws in this world, until someone breaks it in a way that can be easily noticed it isn't enforced.

This isn't surprising, complicated, or a problem.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.