I-594 questions

Text of I-594 here.

Video of testimony here.

I’ve been going over it a bit. I’ve got a few questions that might be good to ask its supporters.

A person wants to take an adult friend to do some casual training and firearms familiarization, planning on loaning her a variety of guns and ammo during the afternoon. They want to go to a nearby parcel of public land that has been legally and safely used for recreational shooting for decades. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt them from having to run a background check every time they handed a gun back and forth? Considering a vast amount of training is done this way, it seem important.

A friend discovers her violent ex-husband just got released from jail, and she calls you at 10 PM Saturday night, fearing he might show up at her door any time. She’s a decent shooter, but due to finances she doesn’t already own a gun. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt you from having to run a background check to loan her a gun for a month until she can get the money together to buy one?

Sec 3(4)(f) states that [requiring background checks] shall not apply to a list of specific activities, such as”: The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
Why are no other family members included?

(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;
Why is there no section listing such shooting ranges, or providing for how an existing range can become authorized?

(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;
Why isn’t training for self defense, hunting, or recreation included?

(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;
Why only minor children, not other family members or adult children?

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;
Can you clarify exactly when it would, or would not, be legal to borrow a gun to hunt with?

More generally, what section allows for temporary transfers for training for recreation, self defense, or hunting with privately owned guns without requiring a background check every time a gun changes hands?


8 thoughts on “I-594 questions

  1. I wonder what “fixed ammunition” is. I also noticed that Gyrojets aren’t covered. 🙂

    Re the friend who is afraid, how about section 4(c)?

    • Nope. 4(c) only applies to *imminent* harm. As I understand it something possible in the next month isn’t imminent, legally speaking. It’s more like “they are threatening you and in your face RIGHT NOW!” Of course, in that case pulling the trigger makes more sense than loaning it to them, but that’s just me.
      Given the context, I’m assuming “fixed ammunition” means conventional brass-cased cartridge ammo, as opposed to being muzzle-loading or a BP cap-and-ball revolver. Buuuut that is just a best guess.

    • I certainly don’t know “fixed ammunition” as a standard term of the art. And of course that’s interesting, because it means that any prohibitions that include that term are void, since they don’t refer to anything known. I did notice a reference to “metallic” ammo somewhere, which implies that you could use shotgun-type cases, or caseless ammo.

      Meanwhile, on the subject of “authorized” shooting ranges, I wonder if this is a variation on the notorious Teddy Kennedy plan (taxing ammo at thousands of percent). After all, “sure you can have your guns, but sorry, there aren’t any authorized ranges and no method for establishing one, so you can’t teach shooting. But that doesn’t infringe on your rights, does it?” And slowly the number of shooters will dwindle. It’s possible the bad guys are just stupid and this is just sloppy wording, but it is also possibly they are being cleverly evil here, just as Kennedy was.

      • The Washington State constitution Article 24 is pretty clear, and there is solid case-law supporting it. Interpreted that way. it would be struck down by the state courts, but that’s still a several-months process at best, more likely a couple of years to get standing, get a court date, present evidence, and get it appealed and applied state-wide.
        Sometimes I think these things are subtle and nuanced and sneaky and evil in the way they have all these things that sound reasonable, but set up a wicked little trap with their devious moves. But it’s stupid things like “fixed ammunition” that make me thing we are dealing with a committee of IQ90 people that managed to pass the Bar Exam on their 12th try, and they are just so slow, ignorant, and blinded by ideology they actually think this stuff is constitutional, possible, and will work.

      • More likely they view the Constitution the way Nancy Pelosi does: “are you kidding?” Or the way James Clyburn does: “”There’s nothing in the constitution that says the Federal government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do.”
        The possibility that something might be unconstitutional, or that this is even a question, just doesn’t exist in their dysfunctional brains.

  2. A couple of quick things. The video of testimony (linked to above) has some good things.
    37 min” talks about tax (transfers are “exempt from sales tax”… but not use tax)
    47 min Hunting exemption discussion
    55 min Transfers – handing a gun to another person
    102 min US V Haynes mentioned
    Marty Hayes, Waldron, Boyd Kneeland, Phil Murrey, Barron Barnett hit the stage at various time, some of them below:
    112, 118, 124, 126, 129, 131, 136

Comments are closed.