Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: HB 1839 - A late comer to the party

  1. #1
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    HB 1839 - A late comer to the party

    This appears to have been slipped into the process Feb 22 and has moved forward, through Rules and is headed for the floor...

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...1839&year=2013

    Comments?
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    This appears to have been slipped into the process Feb 22 and has moved forward, through Rules and is headed for the floor...

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...1839&year=2013

    Comments?
    I'm looking at my CPL and I don't see an issue date. I see an expiration date. How are they going to determine issue date? By math? Or do the ones issued after June 2011 look different?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    I'm looking at my CPL and I don't see an issue date. I see an expiration date. How are they going to determine issue date? By math? Or do the ones issued after June 2011 look different?


    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...87#post1802787

  4. #4
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    HB 1839 - A late comer to the party

    Sounds like it exempts a person from a background check if they have a cpl issued after July 2011. That would mean if they do pass the universal background checks that we could sell to those with cpls without doing a check and remain lawful.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Sounds like it exempts a person from a background check if they have a cpl issued after July 2011. That would mean if they do pass the universal background checks that we could sell to those with cpls without doing a check and remain lawful.
    I'm confused, wasn't that exemption already added to HB 1588?

  6. #6
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    I'm looking at my CPL and I don't see an issue date. I see an expiration date. How are they going to determine issue date? By math? Or do the ones issued after June 2011 look different?
    I presume that they may look different, but the math thing would work too....expiration June 2011 + 60 months...

    But I am not sure we are asking the right questions....like the police exemptions....Officer in good standing? what if he's under investigation?...what if he's on administrative leave for anything? ....still exempt under this language?

    The Police exemption was part of a negotiated issue with 1588 when they didn't like the original SAF/Gottlieb amendments that also appear.....where? In either of the bills.....

    I think we have fallen behind the curve on both of these bills....we'll have to see what happens:

    First - If they clear the House and get passed over to the Senate and then...

    Second - does anyone have enough energy left to fight them as they are marshalled through the Senate process.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  7. #7
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Sounds like it exempts a person from a background check if they have a cpl issued after July 2011. That would mean if they do pass the universal background checks that we could sell to those with cpls without doing a check and remain lawful.
    Yes, another interesting take on this is the fiscal note, which if it amounts to anything can be a deal breaker all by itself. The folks that did the analysis on cost, indicate that it will be "nill". But they really aren't sure....

    What about the surge on current CPL holders that will fly to get their CPL renewed instead of paying a fee, submit to a check and all the rest until their current CPL expires...then the pay background check fee's and still pay the renewal fee, etc...there is some potential to budget impact to local gov't and licensing that is oddly, being muted....

    uummm...Ok, who took my aluminum foil?
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    A few years ago the ATF/FBI made it possible that if you had a CPL you would be exempt from undergoing the NICS background check and could fill it out on the new 4473 and walk out, no more needless delays for license holders that had already undergone a background check.

    The state of Washington needed to meet a couple of administrative things to be in compliance. The state drug their feet.

    This bill would bring Washington into compliance!

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html
    Live Free or Die!

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/1998/10/103098-openletter-ffl-washington-brady-law.html




    Department of the Treasury


    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

    Assistant Director

    Washington, DC 20226
    October 30, 1998

    OPEN LETTER TO ALL WASHINGTON FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES

    Permanent Provisions of the Brady Law

    The purpose of this letter is to advise you of your responsibilities under the permanent provisions of the Brady law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(t). On November 30, 1998, the interim provisions of the Brady law will cease to apply, and the permanent provisions of the Brady law will take effect.
    The permanent provisions of the Brady law provide for the establishment of a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that licensees must contact before transferring any firearm to unlicensed individuals. While the interim provisions apply only to handguns, the permanent provisions of Brady will apply to all firearms. In addition, under permanent Brady there will no longer be an exemption for the redemption of a firearm from pawn.
    Notification from the Attorney General

    On October 30, 1998, the Department of Justice published a final rule in the Federal Register, announcing the establishment of the NICS as of October 31, 1998. Accordingly, licensees will be required to comply with permanent Brady as of November 30, 1998. Copies of the Justice Department’s final rule are available onDOJ’s Home Page on the Internet at http://www.fbi.gov/programs/nics/index.htm, and DOJ is mailing copies of the final rule to licensees.
    Initiation of NICS Checks

    To request a background check for a long gun transaction or a pawn redemption for any firearm you must contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s NICS Operations Center by dialing 1-877-FBI-NICS (1-877-324-6427). Your call will be answered by an automated menu that allows you to select from several customer services including initiating a NICS background check.
    To request a NICS check for a handgun transaction, you should continue to contact the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction of the purchaser’s residence, in accordance with State law requirements.
    Transfers Subject to NICS Check Requirement

    As of November 30, 1998, you will be required to initiate a NICS check prior to transferring a firearm to anyone who is not a licensee. The following steps must be followed prior to transferring a firearm:

    1. Have the transferee complete and sign ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record.
    2. Verify the identity of the transferee through a Government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver’s license).
    3. Contact NICS through either the FBI or the chief law enforcement officer. If you contact the FBI you will get either a “proceed,” “denied” or “delayed” response from the system. If you get a “delayed” response and there is no additional response from the system, you may transfer the firearm after three business days have elapsed. Of course, you must still comply with any waiting period requirements under State law.
    4. If you have initiated a NICS check for a proposed firearms transaction, but the transfer of the firearm is not completed, you must retain the Form 4473 in your records for a period of not less than 5 years. If the transfer is completed, the Form 4473 must be retained for at least 20 years.

    Alternatives to a NICS Check

    The Brady law provides that certain permits may qualify as alternatives to a NICS check. Although concealed weapons permits issued in your State after July 1, 1996, qualified as alternatives to a background check under the interim provisions of Brady, these permits will not qualify as an alternative to the NICS check required by permanent Brady. However, concealed weapons permits issued after July 1, 1996 and prior to November 30, 1998, will be “grandfathered” as Brady alternatives for the duration of the permit, not to exceed 5 years from the date of issuance. Of course all such transactions must still comply with State law. Please note that permits issued on or after November 30, 1998, will not qualify as alternatives to the NICS check.
    If you transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person pursuant to this permit alternative, you must comply with the following requirements:

    1. Have the transferee complete and sign ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record.
    2. Verify the identity of the transferee through a Government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver’s license).
    3. Verify that the permit was issued after July 1, 1996, and prior to November 30, 1998, and within the past 5 years by the State in which the transfer is to occur, and that the permit has not expired under State law.
    4. Either retain a copy of the transferee’s permit and attach it to the Form 4473, or record on the Form 4473 any identifying number from the permit, the date of issuance, and the expiration date of the permit.

    Final Regulations and Forms 4473

    On October 29, 1998, ATF published final regulations implementing the permanent provisions of the Brady law. ATF has also modified ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, to reflect the changes in the background check system. A copy of the final regulations and a small supply of Forms 4473 will be mailed to each licensee under separate cover before November 30, 1998.
    Questions

    If you have any questions, please contact your local ATF office. Questions regarding long gun transaction operational issues should be directed to the FBI at 1-877-444-6427. Questions regarding handgun transfers should be directed to the local agency performing the background check.
    Jimmy Wooten
    Assistant Director
    Firearms, Explosives and Arson
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Thanks Nick,

    You are enlightening as always....if I wanted to re-submit my CPL for re-newal in 18 months instead of waiting, can I just go down to the office and do that?...or do I have to surrender my current CPL.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Thanks Nick,

    You are enlightening as always....if I wanted to re-submit my CPL for re-newal in 18 months instead of waiting, can I just go down to the office and do that?...or do I have to surrender my current CPL.
    You can only "renew" up to 90 days in advance. $32

    You can get a replacement for a "lost" license at any time. $10 (not sure if this would qualify as being issued after the date)

    or you can get a new license $52.50....

    The last one I renewed I went in 91 days in advance, they would not renew it, so I had to come back the following day. I think if this bill passes the next logical question is replacing a "lost" license sufficient to meeting the new law?
    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    You can only "renew" up to 90 days in advance. $32

    You can get a replacement for a "lost" license at any time. $10 (not sure if this would qualify as being issued after the date)

    or you can get a new license $52.50....

    The last one I renewed I went in 91 days in advance, they would not renew it, so I had to come back the following day. I think if this bill passes the next logical question is replacing a "lost" license sufficient to meeting the new law?
    Good question. I would think so, as it would obviously meet the date requirement. It would be surprising if they had a different procedure for issue for "lost" vs "renew" since its a moment of opportunity to do another check (someone may have been convicted in the interim issue period of something), but then it's gov't....but the reissue fee seems to indicate otherwise...
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Good question. I would think so, as it would obviously meet the date requirement. It would be surprising if they had a different procedure for issue for "lost" vs "renew" since its a moment of opportunity to do another check (someone may have been convicted in the interim issue period of something), but then it's gov't....but the reissue fee seems to indicate otherwise...
    I'm guessing that a "replacement" license would merely have the same information on it as the "lost" one. Same issue and expiration date. Just issuing a new piece of paper once the existence of the original is verified.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    The last one I renewed I went in 91 days in advance, they would not renew it, so I had to come back the following day. I think if this bill passes the next logical question is replacing a "lost" license sufficient to meeting the new law?
    Don't know about a replacement, but a renewal works if it was done after July 22, 2011.

    EDIT: deleted the barking up the wrong tree nonsense.

    EDIT: Wondering what was so special about the date, City of Hoquiam has this: http://cityofhoquiam.com/pdf/2011_co...stolpermit.pdf
    Upon the passage of Washington State Substitute House Bill 1923 under Chapter 294, Laws of 2011, state law now requires the denial of a concealed pistol license application when the applicant is ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law.
    Prior licenses are not grandfathered.
    Last edited by mikeyb; 03-12-2013 at 05:14 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    The last one I renewed I went in 91 days in advance, they would not renew it, so I had to come back the following day. I think if this bill passes the next logical question is replacing a "lost" license sufficient to meeting the new law?
    I admit that I have not researched the question, but is a renewal after July 11, 2011 an "issue" for NICS Brady-waiver purposes? A cursory read on the Brady chart site (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html) leads one to believe that it is. However WA dealers appear to be still requiring NICS checks, even for holders of permits "issued" after July 22, 2011 (e.g, renewals).

    Anyone researched this?
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Oops!!!!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 03-12-2013 at 04:22 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post

    My CPL was renewed 9/8/2011 and I still got the old format, so I'm guessing the seller will still be required to run an NICS check if this bill goes into effect.

    EDIT: Wondering what was so special about the date, City of Hoquiam has this: http://cityofhoquiam.com/pdf/2011_co...stolpermit.pdf
    Only the agencies using the internet to issue are using the new format. See the link and read it post #3

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Only the agencies using the internet to issue are using the new format. See the link and read it post #3
    I forgot to read it the first time, I just looked at the pretty picture.

    If the bill passes, permits issued after July 22, 2011 are exempt from NICS check because that was done when the permit was issued. As I understand it, the law changed when WA fell into step with federal law on July 22, 2011. One of the changes was it disallowed anyone with a Domestic Violence Assault conviction from having a CPL. WA law previous was to prohibit anyone that had a DVA conviction after 1993.

    After reading the fine print, if you've had your license renewed after July 22, 2011, you're GTG.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.070
    (2)(a) The issuing authority shall conduct a check through the national instant criminal background check system, the Washington state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045 to possess a firearm, or is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law, and therefore ineligible for a concealed pistol license.

    (b) The issuing authority shall deny a permit to anyone who is found to be prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law.

    (c) This subsection applies whether the applicant is applying for a new concealed pistol license or to renew a concealed pistol license.
    Last edited by mikeyb; 03-12-2013 at 05:16 PM.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I admit that I have not researched the question, but is a renewal after July 11, 2011 an "issue" for NICS Brady-waiver purposes? A cursory read on the Brady chart site (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html) leads one to believe that it is. However WA dealers appear to be still requiring NICS checks, even for holders of permits "issued" after July 22, 2011 (e.g, renewals).

    Anyone researched this?
    Yes it would be a waiver... however, our state law needs to be updated to allow dealers to not do a background check. That is what this bill is...
    Live Free or Die!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •