Tuesday, September 2, 2014

I-591 vs I-594

With no good reason for passing Initiative-591, and defeating Initiative-594, the gun lobby resorts to the well-worn but widely accepted NRA shibboleths; registry and confiscation.

Let’s get somethings straight. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric incorporated in Philip Watson’s 8/31/14 argument for passing I-591, the much needed Initiative-594 would not create or enable a gun registry, nor enable future confiscation of lawfully owned firearms. Firearms cannot be seized without due process, and I-594 does not change that. Law enforcement is not now permitted to “enter your home and search your bedroom...without a warrant or court order,” nor would they be so authorized under I-594, no matter what the object of the search. There is no sensible reason for not passing I-594, and no good reason to pass I-591, which would prohibit Washingtonians from determining their own future.
I-594 is straight-forward. “All firearms sales or transfers are subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by federal or state law.” This requirement applies to all sales or transfers in whole or in part in Washington, including sales and transfers at gun shows and online. There are numerous exemptions that serve to protect Second Amendment rights, including the fact that gifts between family members are exempt from the background check.

I-594 is a step forward in protecting us from gun violence by criminals and the mentally ill. I-591 is a leap backward.

Vote "YES" on I-594. Vote "No" on I-591.


svxr8dr said...

You are clearly misinformed about "transfers":

Vote NO on I-594 and stop the Puget Sound elitists from criminalizing law abiding gun owners.

Richard Badalamente said...

This cut and pasted directly from the WA State House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Bill Analysis for HI 594.
The following are exempt from the background check requirements established in the act:
gifts between family members;
antique firearms;
law enforcement and corrections agencies and officers, United States marshals, members of the armed forces or National Guard, or federal officials, if in connection with employment or official duties;
gunsmiths for the service, repair, or return of the firearm;
temporary transfers where the transfer is:
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the transferee, if the transfer lasts only as long as needed and the transferee is not prohibited from
possessing firearms;
between spouses or domestic partners;
at an established shooting range authorized by the local governing body;
at a lawful organized firearm competition or performance;
to a person under 18 years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under direct supervision of a responsible adult;
or while legally hunting if the transferee has completed all required training, holds
all required licenses or permits, and is not prohibited from possessing a firearm;
acquisition of a firearm other than a pistol by inheritance, or acquisition of a pistol by
inheritance within the preceding 60 days, after which time the person must either transfer
the pistol or notify the DOL that the person is retaining the pistol.

svxr8dr said...

here is the actual text: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf
Under I-594 can I as an adult cannot hand my rifle to my Father to shoot on public or private property that is not a range without an FFL. Plain and simple. Same would go for lifelong friends, or non cohabitating significant others.
The exemptions are very specific in transfers.
"(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents,
children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,
first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;"

Hence because I am an an adult I can not hand my rifle to my Father..the children/parent exemption does not apply. In fact I could not even store his firearms in my safe when he went on vacation or vice versa without an FFL and the waiting period and then again upon the return.

Exemptions are listed (a) thru (g)
In addition
(25) "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.

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
domestic partners; (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; (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;

Not once is shooting on multi use public land or private property exempted. It's not at a range (let alone what ever the hell an "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction" means.), it's not a competition, and it would not be an organized group.

svxr8dr said...

Every single specific exemption you listed would not include shooting on private property or on multi use public land...such as what I have been doing in Washington for over three decades. Not only that but I could not even store my Father's firearms in my gun safe while he went on vacation without an FFL and transfer (plus fee) for each and every firearms plus the 10 day waiting period and then repeat the process upon his return.

svxr8dr said...

In conclusion I will add that that it would not be felony if I (as an adult) were to hand my Father a rifle on private property....that would happen we he handed it back to me."…any person knowingly violating section 3 of this act is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of section 3 of this act. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of section 3 of this act."

svxr8dr said...

Go ahead and listen to Cheryl Strumbo herself state she doesnt want recreational shooting on public or private property. 47:44 roughly

svxr8dr said...

As I stated and your own link proves. I-594 criminalizes law abiding Washington State gun owners for common every day activities....No if's and's or but's about it. You can refuse to put up anything you like it's your blog. The truth how ever remains constant, and what I stated is the truth and you cannot deny it....hence you censor it.

Richard Badalamente said...


You and I will have to agree to disagree. I think the HI-594 exemptions are reasonable. If there are unintended consequences of 594, they can be fixed in committee. I don't believe, as you seem to, that most people who favor a more effective background check system are anti gun. We don't oppose law-abiding citizens owning guns. We oppose criminals, crazies, and idiots owning guns.

Walt Nurmi said...

And yet, criminals, crazies and idiots prevail in politics, causing thousands of deaths.

Walt Nurmi said...

Why do we need a committee to do something after the fact, when a initiative should cover the facts before it is presented. I oppose I-594, not for the well stated intentions but for the lack of clarity in it's potential limitations.

Retlaw Imrun said...

How would I-594 affect the guns bought or sold prior to enactment