First 594 casualty

I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.

The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.


18 thoughts on “First 594 casualty

  1. And how would the law handle simple routine maintenance of the display. Would a background check be required every time an employee needed to handle one of the weapons (and a second one to return it to the display). As the museum is not a Gun store they would not have the exemption for FFL employees.

  2. Pingback: SayUncle » Unintended consequences

  3. Fort the individual, this law can only apply twice, when you acquire your firearm, and when you divest yourself of it (per gun, unless you do them all at once). I don’t get all the “handling” talk. I have plenty of guns, and I don’t throw parties or attend functions where other folks get to handle my gun(s). That said, I used to be an RSO at my club, and in THAT position, I had to handle guns which weren’t mine. So, tweak it to put R/O and RSO exemptions into it.

    Except for the sense of winning entitlement the anti-gunners got on Bloomberg’s nickel, I say quit gnashing our teeth. THAT results only in dental bills. When next we clash with the rich tyrant, probably in the Oregon Legislature, I say spend money, not chasing Bloomberg’s attacks, but chasing Bloomberg himself. Go after his securities dealings. A small victory there costs him way more than what he spends on his attacks on gun rights. Remember, the best game defense doesn’t put points on the scoreboard.

    • The law considers handing you firearm to a friend so he can look at it or take a few shots a “transfer.” Ever go to the range with someone you know and let them put a few rounds through it? You would be a felon under this law. That is the problem most people have with this law, it broadens the definition of “transfer” to coincide with the word “touch.”

          • Well, I HAVE read the law – something that I doubt you have done.

            The section you cite contains NO exception for a temporary transfer to a buddy at the range.

            Try again.

          • Sec 3 (4)(f)(ii) says 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;
            At least two problems: That could mean that it’s only range guns only (i.e., guns that are kept at the range at all times), or it could also include your guns that are temporarily loaned and returned. (Do you want to be the test case in order for the government to state CLEARLY that the more reasonable of the two is what’s meant, because in the government won’t “speculate” about anything until they have a case before them. That is the very definition of “chilling effect.”)
            Second problem: what’s an authorized shooting range? It’s not defined, nor is there a list of them. You might think it’s easy, but it isn’t, and what about traditional places, like well known BLM land spots, or abandoned rock quarries?

    • Rivrdog, when you say “the law can only apply twice” are you referring to the meaning of the law as deduced from reading the words, or are you referring to what you would hope it to mean?
      I haven’t read it (since I’m on the other coast, I’m an observer, not a victim yet). But I get the impression that many of those who are saying all these things base their comments on the words of the law, not on tin foil paranoid dreams. If you believe the analysis is wrong, it would be great to see a discussion of what words in the law lead you to that conclusion.

    • Spoken like someone who really hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.

      So, tweak it to put R/O and RSO exemptions into it.

      Sure, “we” just get the legislature to make that little change. Like that would happen. There’s this little thing called the <a href=""Washington Constitution that requires (Article II, Section 1 (c)):
      “… No act, law, or bill approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon shall be amended or repealed by the legislature within a period of two years following such enactment: Provided, That any such act, law, or bill may be amended within two years after such enactment at any regular or special session of the legislature by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house …”
      So all we have to do is get 2/3 of them to fix that right up.

      this law can only apply twice, when you acquire your firearm, and when you divest yourself of it

      Looks like you haven’t *read* the thing. At all. Do yourself a “favor”: read it.

    • The measure was clearly meant to harass gun owners, and so the word “unintended” is erroneous. It gives evil the benefit of the doubt (but there is no room for doubt here) calling it foolish or blundering rather than evil. It is, functionally, a defense of evil, “I didn’t mean to” or “That was a mistake” being common defenses after one is caught red-handed in some transgression.

      I said many years ago that ordinary criminals and government share a common goal, which is to lord over us and eat out our substance via intimidation. That is a common interest, or natural alliance, that cannot be ignored. Understand that, and things make a lot more sense, and in fact become predictable. You’re dealing with the criminal mind.

      All rationalizations, selling points or outright lies to the contrary, and without regard to who may or may not believe them or for what reasons, no government ever tried to disarm the citizens (or discourage the keeping and bearing of arms in any way) out of compassion for them. They do it for the same reason they do everything else they do, to increase and secure their power, reach and influence.

  4. Pingback: First Victim of the Washington State Transfer Ban | Shall Not Be Questioned

  5. I see a lot of “wasn’t designed to” and “they probably can” and “exceptionally unlikely” in that article, but not a single proponent of the law saying the museum would be legally in the clear. I wouldn’t be the guy standing in front of a judge trying to convince him that the text of the law carries less weight than what some activists claim they were trying to do.

  6. Question – does this mess apply on tribal lands? If you are in the parking lot of the Tulalip Cabela’s and buy a gun from a friend, on on the Rez in Yakima, then how does 594 apply? Does it apply? This isn’t to be confused with if you happen to be visiting Oregon, or if you have dual residency in another state as well, or course, which may open up a different can of worms.

  7. The question i have is; where and when, if anywhere or at any time, does the second amendment apply? Let’s say you’re standing in the United States, and you trade a gun for some cash…

    • Agreed, but we don’t yet have a strict scrutiny level of reading it yet. when we do, that will apply in one easy step. We have to get there, though, the way we got here – one painful inch at a time.

Comments are closed.