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.

As most people in the Washington State gun community know there is an I Will Not Comply! i594 event in Olympia December 13^th. I plan to attend as do others.

I understand the strong emotions I’m picking up from a bunch of people. I have a lot of them myself. Just last week I retrieved the last of the guns I had loaned out*. That transfer wouldn’t have been legal had I waited until I-594 went into effect. A lot of the innocent, everyday type of things we do with guns will soon be illegal. The Second Amendment is no different than the First Amendment. If there isn’t an victim then it cannot be a crime to exercise that freedom in that way. But we have vile enemies who want to destroy our freedoms. We must stand up to them.

But we must be careful how we do this. Think back (I know most people aren’t old enough to remember, so do the research or trust me on this) how the civil rights protesters of the 1960’s accomplished things. And think how some of them made things worse.

The civil rights activists following Martin Luther King were peaceful and only used violence or the threat of violence for defensive purposes. Their firearms were concealed and in their homes and vehicles. Their firearms were not on display unless there was a really good reason for it.

The civil rights activists following the Black Panther Party** model had many guns on display.

Which side do you think got the most sympathy from people who “didn’t have a dog in the fight”?

The attitude from people at a distance from “the trenches” were that the Black Panthers were a bunch of criminals. When J. Edgar Hoover said they were, “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country” it resonated with a lot of people.

Hoover certainly wasn’t friendly to King and company either. Conspiracy theories of the FBI assassinating King have a lot more credibility with me than those that someone other than Oswald murdered President Kennedy. But the big difference is how the majority of people respond to us. If politicians claim we are threat to society we want the majority of people to realize that politician is off their rocker instead of agreeing with them.

When we disobey a law, such as Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus, we want people to recognize the unfairness and irrationality of the law rather than thinking we need to be “put in our place”.

To that end present yourselves as calm, rational, peaceful people deserving of respect and trust. The media is going to be looking for the most outrageous examples to put on display. Do your best to give them nothing except those acts which will further our cause.

We want to create reflection upon what we are saying and doing rather than generating a reaction that results in broader support for repression.

*This gun was to a friend that had someone try to get in her apartment late at night. She lived alone, was unemployed, broke, and couldn’t even pay her rent at the time. I took her to the range, did a bunch of training, then loaned her a gun until she could afford her own. The transfer to her would not have been legal without a background check and fees under I-594. As this gun was rather old, I had purchased it second hand, I didn’t want it being in a registry, and I didn’t want to pay money to get my own gun back so I retrieved it.

I know she went shooting with in at least a time or two since I loaned it to her so I was very pleased to see it well cleaned and lubricated when I got it back.

Thanks E.

**From Wikipedia:

Originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.

…

Initially, the Black Panther Party’s core practice was its armed citizens’ patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality.

Is this a lawful treatment of even one small aspect of a constitutionally protected right?

Inspired by Burnt Toast. Image via Concealed Campus.

I think the writers of I-594 put some fatal flaws in their initiative by trying to cover “transfers” rather than just sales and in their definitions. Their definition of transfer:

“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.

I cannot find any exemption for manufacturers, shippers, wholesalers, and perhaps (it’s not clear to me on “dealers”) even retail personal. They do offer this (emphasis added):

All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.

The way I read the Federal law, and I don’t think there is state law or else they wouldn’t have needed I-594, is that they don’t have specific exemptions for manufacturers or shippers. In fact “prohibited persons” in those occupations are specifically disallowed so why would they be necessary?

A strict reading of the new law would seem to conclude that a background check and paperwork is required for each firearm transferred between these people. The Federal law on background checks avoided this problem by only requiring background checks on sales. The Feds do require Federal Firearm licenses for manufactures and dealers. The Feds do require background checks on employees who have constructive possession of firearms. But there is no specific exemption for background checks on each transfer between employees or employees of common carriers (shippers).

Compounding things further they even use an interesting definition of “person”:

“Person” means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.

So how do you do a background check on all these legal entities? There is no specific exemption for any of them in Federal law and I-594 doesn’t mention one in state law.

Hence, the law has a difficult problem. If they were to enforce the background check and paperwork requirement on each transfer then commerce in guns would grind to a halt, placing such a burden on the specific right to keep and bear arms that it fails any level of scrutiny. If they don’t enforce the law against “legal entities” and their employees then I-594 has serious issues with selective enforcement.

The Feds avoid this bag of worms by only requiring background checks on FFL sales and making it illegal to transfer guns to prohibited persons. By expanding background checks and associated paperwork to all transfers the authors of I-594 created a law that clearly infringes upon our specific enumerated rights at any level of scrutiny.

Update: As Lyle points out, Federal law specifically exempts private sales from requiring a background check. By I-594 own words private sales are not covered. The sales aspect of the law is, at best, ambiguous.

Update 2: I was unable to find a specific law or regulation that confirms the point Lyle made in my previous update. It appears that the ATF FAQ I linked to is derived from the things that are not prohibited rather than those things which are specifically exempted.

However, if the person you are transferring to/from is from out of state there is a specific Federal exemption:

§478.30   Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides: Provided, That the provisions of this section:

(a) shall not apply to the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or any acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence; and

(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

This may be result in another unconstitutional point of contention. I believe it is unconstitutional for a state to give non-residents rights it denies it’s own residents. However this doesn’t say the nonlicensee is exempt from background checks. It just says they may transfer it. But since there is no provision for a nonlicensee to do background checks they are exempt by default.

However there are exemptions for loan or rental of firearms:

§478.97   Loan or rental of firearms.

(a) A licensee may lend or rent a firearm to any person for temporary use off the premises of the licensee for lawful sporting purposes: Provided, That the delivery of the firearm to such person is not prohibited by §478.99(b) or §478.99(c), the licensee complies with the requirements of §478.102, and the licensee records such loan or rental in the records required to be kept by him under Subpart H of this part.

(b) A club, association, or similar organization temporarily furnishing firearms (whether by loan, rental, or otherwise) to participants in a skeet, trap, target, or similar shooting activity for use at the time and place such activity is held does not, unattended by other circumstances, cause such club, association, or similar organization to be engaged in the business of a dealer in firearms or as engaging in firearms transactions. Therefore, licensing and recordkeeping requirements contained in this part pertaining to firearms transactions would not apply to this temporary furnishing of firearms for use on premises on which such an activity is conducted.

This would appear to give the specific exemption from background checks and paperwork to many, if not all, legal entities engaged in loans and/or rentals.