• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

IF 594 passes

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
What exactly is in place that WOULD stop someone from selling their own firearm without using an FFL? It seems if it is passed, it would be completely impossible to stop this.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
What exactly is in place that WOULD stop someone from selling their own firearm without using an FFL? It seems if it is passed, it would be completely impossible to stop this.

Absolutely nothing. Many police acknowledge this.

The real ways it would be enforced would be by anti-gun deputy prosecutors trolling youtube and facebook and looking for videos of friends out target shooting where they hand each other guns, then get charged.

Also, widows and surviving family will be charged when they find guns and ignorantly attempt to "register" them but do so after the arbitrary 60 day mark and rack up a misdemeanor for first offense, felony for subsequent ones, all sequenced PER firearm.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,241
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
It appears to be an unfunded initiative. It creates "new crime" and will fund itself by prosecuting Citizens to pay for its needs. Self perpetuating tyranny.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
I was thinking the same thing, except I think it's physical possession...if I gift something to someone now, or in 6 months if a law is passed, how will anyone know the difference.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
Absolutely nothing. Many police acknowledge this.

The real ways it would be enforced would be by anti-gun deputy prosecutors trolling youtube and facebook and looking for videos of friends out target shooting where they hand each other guns, then get charged.

Also, widows and surviving family will be charged when they find guns and ignorantly attempt to "register" them but do so after the arbitrary 60 day mark and rack up a misdemeanor for first offense, felony for subsequent ones, all sequenced PER firearm.

The Facebook/Youtube thing would be useless because I bet one could easily lie and it would be (technically) an invasion of privacy.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Lie in what way?

Two people can't both own the gun, so unless they are immediate family which can be proven or disproven easily, at least one or both are guilty automatically.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
Lie in what way?

Two people can't both own the gun, so unless they are immediate family which can be proven or disproven easily, at least one or both are guilty automatically.

Just change where you live on Facebook and on Youtube, just don't say where you are.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
If there were any recognizable landmarks that wouldn't work. Also, if they questioned you to be sure you'd have to commit perjury.

But that's mostly irrelevant. The people caught by this likely won't know anything about it and will have no idea that 594 causes this.
 
Last edited:

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
I think even those who wrote this monstrosity know it is unenforceable. What concerns me is how it would be used:

1) Political weapon against gun owners - prosecute a few to make a point
2) Push reliance on government for those who may become victims of violence
3) Create a bunch of rules that either put compliant gun owners on a list for the next law or encourage them to voluntarily disarm

It comes down to how willing law enforcement will be to enforce the initiative if it passes.
 

Spooler41

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
32
Location
Port Angeles , Washington
If I-594 passes

I -594 will only be as effective as the persons who care enough to self report their transgressions.
I-594 is almost unenforceable.

.................. Just my opinion , Jack
 
Last edited:

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Respectufully Disagree

Lie in what way?

Two people can't both own the gun, so unless they are immediate family which can be proven or disproven easily, at least one or both are guilty automatically.

In the legal sense, yes more than one person can own the same gun. As an example all of my firearms are included in a family trust to which my spouse and children are the equal owners.

~Whitney
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
In the legal sense, yes more than one person can own the same gun. As an example all of my firearms are included in a family trust to which my spouse and children are the equal owners.

~Whitney
And do you think that describes the common gun owner in WA? Or even a plurality among them?
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
While I agree with you that was not the stated question.

It is entirely possible for more than one person to own the same firearm.

~Whitney
Sure. And that will be your burden to prove once a rabid prosecutor has targeted you using 594.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Your making my argument for me.

Sure. And that will be your burden to prove once a rabid prosecutor has targeted you using 594.

It is for the exact reasons you have pointed out that makes this such a bad proposal.

The proposed law even states that you must "knowingly violatet it". What the hell does that mean?

"I" know I am not violating it in the example given because of my family trust. I have done my due dillegence how would you legaly hold me to the law?

Not trying to be argumentative with you, this is a real life scenario law abiding citizens may find themselves in.

Regarding the knowingly violate clause; I had the same conversation with Drew Hanson you are having with me. Finally I told him I did not believe ingorance of the law was a defense, He has not replied for going on six weeks now.

I would welcome discussion with rationale to repeal or overturn if this comes to fruition.

~Whitney
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Good discussion. While you may have done your due diligence you might have a he'll of a time proving that and face a prosecutor who will wring you through the system until the very last minute anyway, costing you time, anguish, money and unwanted public attention.

I also agree about the "knowing" standard being much lower than usual law and it will cause a lot of confusion and issues.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
What exactly is in place that WOULD stop someone from selling their own firearm without using an FFL? It seems if it is passed, it would be completely impossible to stop this.

Hey , stop pointing out the uselessness of gun laws !

Supposed to be a secret.
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
If there were any recognizable landmarks that wouldn't work. Also, if they questioned you to be sure you'd have to commit perjury.

But that's mostly irrelevant. The people caught by this likely won't know anything about it and will have no idea that 594 causes this.

I believe Perjury by legal terms means you got caught lying under oath. But I get the point you are making. But once again, it would be so easy to do.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
I believe Perjury by legal terms means you got caught lying under oath. But I get the point you are making. But once again, it would be so easy to do.
To be sure they'd drag you into court and fight you the whole way that's where the perjury comes in.

Of course you could always plead the 5th but that would work in their favor if they convinced a jury or judge the video was shot in WA.
 
Last edited:
Top