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.

Yesterday I was asked if I would be a speaker at the rally against I-594 on January 15th. I agreed and today they announced it.

Don’t let this stop you from showing up and supporting the movement to rid our state of this unconstitutional law. Confirm your attendance here.

I drove to Olympia today to participate in the rally against law created with I-594. We had a decent turn out. I didn’t stay for the entire thing but it seemed to go very well from what I could tell. People were participating with the speakers and the Washington State Patrol officers present looked bored:

I’m putting the rest of the pictures “below the fold” so that it doesn’t create long load times for the main page for the next week.

Continue reading →

Via Chris Knox who says, “A merrily upraised middle finger to #gunsense” and David Codrea (Activists defy new Washington gun law to demonstrate its unenforceability):

Totally coincidental and entirely appropriate, considering the email I received last night, this morning Oleg sent me this (the picture is of Barron):

He also posted about I-594 on his blog.

I would like to make a minor correction to his text. We didn’t lose any rights with I-594. We have specific enumerated rights, supposedly protected by the Second Amendment and the State of Washington Constitution, being infringed by I-594.

I want the perpetrators prosecuted.

I received an email from a reader with a attached document from the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife dated December 2 and addressed to “Hunter Education Instructors” with the subject of “Analysis of Initiative 594.”

The part of most interest to me is the following:

Although we are still evaluating I-594, it does not initially appear that student-to-student transfers of firearms would fall within the general WDFW exemption for law enforcement agencies. For students under eighteen, however, temporary firearms transfers for educational purposes are exempt if the student is under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult (such as a Hunter Education Instructor) who may lawfully possess firearms. Students eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption. However, regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range. If adult student-to-student transfers are not exempt, then adult students may, without triggering I-594’s background check/transfer requirements—

• Use inert firearms or air rifles (which do not meet the definition of a firearm); or
• Hand their functional firearms to an instructor who then hands it to the other student.

In summary, the transfer/background check exemption I- 594 applies to the following transfers of firearms to or from WDFW Hunter Education Instructors while in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program:

• Between WDFW employees and Hunter Education Instructors
• From one Hunter Education Instructor to another Hunter Education Instructor
• Between Hunter Education Instructors and NGOs
• Between Hunter Education Instructors and students

WDFW is the “State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife”. The volunteer instructors to WDFW are considered “law enforcement” or else they would not receive the the exemption described above. And notice that students are not allowed to transfer the guns between themselves. They must transfer the gun to an instructor who then transfers it to another student.

Private instructors, such as myself, would not have an exemption unless we were at an “authorized range” (“authorized” is undefined). We cannot do classroom work that involves gun handling at any location other than an “authorized” range. Even then it is in doubt unless we are using the guns that are “kept at all times” at the range.

So, now you have it. All those proponents of I-594 said we were alarmist and crazy for saying things like this would require a background check. Now we have word from the State of Washington that says, in essence, “You gun nuts were right about I-594 and the anti-gun people lied to get it passed.” But that is to be expected. Anti-Second Amendment people have long had a culture of deception.

Update: The complete letter is posted here.

Update2: It is important that you also read The Cluemeter: Washington State violates the Letter of Initiative 594. It appears that WDFW may have misunderstood the definition of “law enforcement officer” as it applies to I-594.

Yesterday I received an email from someone concerned about leaving someone alone in the car with a gun. Could that be construed as requiring a background check?

I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure the answer is no. “Transfer” is defined (Sec 2. (25)) 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.

So I think leaving someone alone in the car with a gun should be exempt.

Also, on Facebook this morning Joe Waldron (former(?) CCRKBA lobbyist) commented in regards to the flare and nail guns post:

The definition of “firearm” in I-594 is the same definition that has been law in Washington since 1994. They didn’t come after your flare and nail guns (or projectile fireworks) then and they’re not going to come after them now. Let’s not get distracted.

Let’s not jump the shark too many times, okay?

Via email from Kirk Parker we find still more absurdity in I-594:

The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.”

Notice the key words “or device” in the definition.

Walmart and many sporting goods stores sell 12-gauge flare guns used for signaling straight off the shelves.

These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.

I-594 requires background checks for these sales, loans and transfers.

Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.

These nail guns have actually been used in the past to murder people. I-594 requires background checks on these sales, loans and transfers.

I keep wondering about how the severability clause (Sec. 12) in I-594 is going to handle these things when the courts start stomping on this piece of trash. It says:

If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

The courts can’t rewrite the definitions of “firearm”, “gun”, and “transfer”, can they? Isn’t it limited to just striking certain portions of it? If so then how can the transfer restrictions, or even background checks, be retained? Doesn’t this increase the chances the entire thing must be thrown out? If the legislature wants to try and rewrite it with a 2/3 majority do we have enough votes to block the rewrite so the entire thing must be thrown out?

I-594 has a number of issues that are not clear. Perhaps the most vague is section 3. (4)(f)(ii) which is an exception to the requirement that background checks need not be done prior to a transfer:

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;

Emphasis added.

The question is what does “kept at all times” mean? Does this mean for the duration of the transfer or does it mean the gun stays at the range until the end of time? Well, we might be able to rule out “until the end of time”. But it could easily be interpreted as the gun belongs to the range such as a rental gun.

I think we can get a clue as to what was meant by this by the counter example in section 3. (4)(f)(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,

Emphasis added.

Notice the different language used. Had they intended for the first exemption to mean “the gun must not leave the range while in use by your friend” or something similar they would (should?) have used language such as:

if the temporary transfer occurs, and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

While one could argue that I am giving them too much credit for deliberate and clear use of the language I wonder what the courts will think. And keep in mind this is the age of Gruber and admitted deliberate deception by the authors of the law. The authors of I-594 have close philosophical ties to the authors of Obamacare. I strongly suspect they intended for it to be ambiguous so they could claim one thing before the election and another when it was being enforced.