What if there were a county in Washington State that publically announced they would not enforce the I-594 provisions (H/T to Say Uncle and Miguel) against people who were not prohibited from gun ownership?
Could people travel to that county, do a private sale, and return to, say, King County and be immune from prosecution by the tyrants in King County because the “crime” occurred in a county out of their jurisdiction?
If that were the case then wouldn’t it mean I-594 is essentially unenforceable everywhere unless there were witnesses or compelling evidence that such travel and sale did not occur?
I asked this question of a lawyer friend who said, in part:
I’m not sure that the King county courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the county borders. Of course, the King county prosecutor could always charge their residents with criminal conspiracy or racketeering (if they somehow discovered that an offense had occurred).
A couple of things I’ve been working on re: 594: I’m trying to get a model ordinance going at the county level that designates areas where shooting occurs (someone’s backyard for instance) as an “approved range” if no other zoning ordinance would be violated. I’m hoping to get this going in Whitman soon- maybe it will spread. If you know people who live in “good” counties that might be interested in taking this to their commissioners, send them my way.
If you are one of those people that live in a “good county” send me an email and I’ll forward it on to my lawyer friend.
The anti-gun people think they are clever and that we are just “stupid, uneducated rednecks.” I wonder how long they will hold onto that belief as we start “driving trucks” through their stupid law and laughing at them.
This is similar to the “we won’t enforce that” movement among CO sheriffs a while ago, right?
When someone complains about “Loopholes in the law” they are really complaining that someone else has better reading comprehension than they do.
I especially love using someone’s own words to destroy their position.
Along those same lines, I’ve been wondering what jurisdiction any court in the State of Washington has over the many tribal lands surrounded by the state of Washington.
Poiticians in Washington state have been collecting significant amounts of political donations from the tribes in return for transferring little parcels of territory from the state to tribal ownership. It doesn’t come back, even if the tribal smoke shop on that lot goes bust and eventually gets torn down. Little 10000 sq ft zones of not-in-Washinton, scattered all over the place…
I like the tactic. The offensiveness of the law is in the overly-broad definition of the word “transfer”, but they failed to define “authorized range” (no doubt on purpose: that which has no definition does not legally exist). Defining the phrase on our terms and making that definition overly-broad effectively renders the statute almost meaningless.
As a bonus, it uses their own tactic – controlling the language – against them.
I-594 still needs to be overturned or repealed, but this is a good stop-gap measure.
I’m in Clark County WA and much recreational shooting takes place here in the unincorporated areas of the county…all around La Center. Yacolt, Amboy, Mt Livingstone and Larch Mt. etc etc. Much of it on DNR land
I live in unincorporated Snohomish County and have a private, 70 yard range on my property. I’m also an NRA instructor – I wonder if I got my RO credentials if I could “approve” a range? I could travel about the great state, approving ranges right and left!
You should ask the state how a “recognized” range becomes recognized. The answer should be very interesting. It may well be that the answer is “there isn’t any way” — which would be very helpful information in the upcoming court cases.
Recognized by whom? It isn’t defined as official recognition. If it is recognized by people generally as a place to shoot, like Breckinridge or Kentucky in southern California that may be all it needs.
That’s my argument, anyway.