Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: A letter I emailed to Dan Satterberg about I-594

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    A letter I emailed to Dan Satterberg about I-594

    I emailed the below letter to Dan Satterberg. He is the king County prosecutor and self identifies as a "republican". He officially endorsed I-594. I dont expect anything other than a form-letter in return, but we will see. Any response he sends will be posted here.


    Mr. Satterberg,


    My name is Taran and I am a GOP PCO in the 43rd district. It is with a heavy heart and a very deep feeling of betrayal that I write this letter to you today.

    Myself, and several individuals I know are very disappointed with your decision to endorse I-594. As disappointed as we are with your decision to support this law, it is not the purpose of this letter to criticize your decision to do so. The purpose of this letter is to share some concerns that myself, and several of the republicans whom I have the honor of representing have with this (soon to be) new law. I hope to get some information and feedback from you regarding these questions and concerns and share the information with the members of my precinct.

    The alleged purpose of this law is to regulate sales between persons and entities other than licensed dealers. However, this law seems to criminalize behavior that has nothing to do with sales.

    I recently had a visitor stay with me and during his stay we went camping near the Mt. Rainier area. On our way to the camp site I stopped at the houses of a couple of friends to borrow a few firearms so I could take my visitor target shooting. On the way home from the camp site this visitor and I stopped at a lawful shooting area and spent a couple hours safely shooting firearms. When finished we cleaned up after ourselves, and picked up some other trash in the area. I then returned the firearms to their owners. I-591 appears to make this a felony. If I-594 would not criminalize this behavior please explain how it is exempt from the law. If the law does apply then please explain to me why this harmless, wholesome, and responsible activity should be a felony.

    Many of the republicans that I have the honor of representing are concerned that the simple act of letting another individual use their firearm at a lawful shooting area will now be a felony. As you may already know, it is common for people to go shooting with friends and/or acquaintances. During a day of shooting people often shoot each others firearms, this common and harmless activity appears to be transformed into a felony by I-594. With my reading of I-594 handing a firearm to another individual, even for a few minutes would fall under the definition of a transfer because the definition of a transfer not only includes gifts and sales but also loans. Is my reading correct?

    If my interpretation of the above scenario is correct, it would require that someone new to shooting who is interested in learning is now required to purchase a firearm before learning how to shoot. This makes learning to shoot cost prohibitive for a lot of people and seems to put a significant burden on the new shooters ability to exercise the right of self defense as affirmed by Article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. The law also places a burden on the rights affirmed by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution For The United States Of America. How can one be part of a "well regulated militia" if not allowed to learn how to use the common tools of defense?

    There are additional concerns/questions that have come up.

    Sometimes when someone is lawfully carrying a firearm they have contact with law enforcement. This can be in the form of a consensual encounter, investigatory detention, or an arrest. The contact may or may not have anything to do with the firearm. During such contacts, upon finding out the person is carrying a firearm, the officer sometimes seizes the firearm temporarily for "officer safety". If this contact ends with the person being "free to go" will the officer be able to legally give the firearm back to the person without performing the background check and FFL transfer? What if the person is arrested for something that has nothing to do with the firearm and would not make him a "prohibited person", when this person is released from jail, will his firearm be returned directly, or will it have to be done through an FFL?

    How does this law effect armed security guards? Under current Washington State law an armed security guard is required to carry a firearm that is owned by the company for whom they work. Most companies have a policy that requires the firearm to be stored on company property when the guard is off duty. A strict reading of this law would require that an FFL be used every time the firearm is picked up, or returned by the guard.

    Current law requires that courthouses provide a way for visitors to store their firearms while they are at the courthouse. The law gives the courthouse the option to providing a lock box for storage, or if the court does not provide lock boxes they must "designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping" Will this official be able to return the firearm to the visitor directly, or will it have to go through an FFL?

    If this law is about background checks, why is there not an exemption to CPL holders? They have already passed the background check.

    Please share your thoughts on these concerns. Your response or lack thereof will be shared with the people of my precinct and other people with similar concerns.

    I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.


    Respectfully submitted,

    Taran J. Covich, PCO 43-1271 (GOP)
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 11-08-2014 at 03:28 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    satterberg is a RINO. it baffles me why the republican party doesn't denounce him. or put a candidate up against him.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by bani View Post
    satterberg is a RINO. it baffles me why the republican party doesn't denounce him. or put a candidate up against him.
    1/2 the GOP are rinos .... sad state in the gop

  4. #4
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    I think you called it I-591 in one place... but other than that sounds good. I'm sure he'll laugh and be happy about making criminals out of any behavior that involves guns.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    I think you called it I-591 in one place..........

    You are right, I did. I am a bit disappointed in myself for not catching that while proof reading.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    You are right, I did. I am a bit disappointed in myself for not catching that while proof reading.
    Don't worry about that, the rest of the email was well-written to provide several examples of current practices that may now be felonies.

    I hope a few prominent cases of arrest for violation of I-594 crop up of people who endorsed this initiative. I think it would let a few of them see exactly what we* were trying to warn them about.

    *"We, as in "gun carriers" to exclude the Fudds that fall under the overly-broad term "gun owners".
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 11-08-2014 at 12:51 PM. Reason: Asterisk
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Port Angeles , Washington
    Posts
    39
    End-the-Fed, please share any response to your E-mail. That was a great post
    and I'm very interested in an official response.

    Thanks...................Jack

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Spooler41 View Post
    End-the-Fed, please share any response to your E-mail. That was a great post
    and I'm very interested in an official response.

    Thanks...................Jack

    So far I have not received a response. I sent it to the general email of the King County Prosecutor Office, and to his direct office email.







    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    So far I have not received a response. I sent it to the general email of the King County Prosecutor Office, and to his direct office email.
    he's not obligated to answer, and most likely won't.

    you want answers, you will need to write your state rep and have them get a WA AG opinion.
    Last edited by bani; 11-18-2014 at 02:50 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member TheGunMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee, WA
    Posts
    83

    Very Good

    Excellent Post. A question I was asked, is if you go to a Gun Dealer to buy a gun, is it illegal for them to let you hold a gun to check it out until they do a back ground check? This Law like so many is made without considering the consequences. Its like in my town they closed down the scape yard so now they scrap like washers, dryers ect. go up into the woods and dumped. Makes no cents.
    The Greatest Weapon is the Mind. The Second Greatest Weapon is my Hand, It controls my Guns
    NRA Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    USCCA Member
    NRA Certified Instructor
    01 FFL Dealer/The Gun Man
    Glock Armorer
    Tactical Instructor
    Ex Navy
    Heavy into the Second Amendment

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by bani View Post
    he's not obligated to answer, and most likely won't...........

    You are correct. When I sent it I thought that I might get a generic form letter or something back. I really didn't expect an actual reply, but was (and still am) hoping to be pleasantly surprised. I wanted to give him a chance to respond to the concerns of the people in my precinct.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  12. #12
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Too long.

    You 'explained' it to him. You didn't present a legal argument. It won't even be read past the first para. Sorry.

    Keep such things under 100 words, ask for something specific. "Can I legally do this...(activity)...after (blah blah date). Can I get an AG ruling on this innocent activity which now seems to be a felony?" (for ex.)

    FWIW

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGunMan View Post
    .............. in my town they closed down the scape yard so now they scrap like washers, dryers ect. go up into the woods and dumped........

    I was raised in an area where one could drive their trash to the landfill (we had no "transfer stations") and dump it without paying a fee (directly). To my knowledge the landfill was funded by charging fees to commercial users and also from the county's "general budget" (Taxes).

    I was still a young kid when the county announced that starting on such and such date fees would be charged for non-commercial users also. From what I understood the system of only charging direct fees to commercial users and not directly charging for personal users was going on for generations. When the fees kicked in people started dumping their trash on the shoulder near the gate. When I say people I don't mean a few here or there. I mean most of the people that took their own trash to the landfill dumped it outside the gate. About a week later the fees were "postponed pending further review".
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 11-18-2014 at 01:48 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Too long.

    You 'explained' it to him. You didn't present a legal argument. It won't even be read past the first para. Sorry.

    Keep such things under 100 words, ask for something specific. "Can I legally do this...(activity)...after (blah blah date). Can I get an AG ruling on this innocent activity which now seems to be a felony?" (for ex.)

    FWIW

    Thanks for taking the time to read it (or parts of it) and comment. Critiques and suggestions are always welcome. I knew before sending that it was rather verbose and hesitated on sending it because of its length. After thinking about it a while I decided to send it anyway. I decided that even though this letter is long and raises several points/scenarios, I could always follow up later with shorter versions that stick to just one of those point/scenarios.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Update:

    Last night I emailed the following to Dan Satterberg with the subject "Follow up":

    Mr. Satterberg,


    I am a Republican PCO for precinct 43-1271. On 11/08/14 I sent your office an email with the subject "A few questions". On 11/13/14 I sent the same email to you directly. The letter expressed several concerns that myself, and many of the republicans I have the honor of representing have with I-594. I was seeking information from you on these concerns. I have not received a response. Your lack of reply sends a message as loud and clear as any written response could have, perhaps even more so. I will be notifying the people of my district that you do not care about their concerns.



    Today I received the following response:

    I received dozens of messages about I-594 and did not directly answer hypothetical questions because I cannot give legal advice to individuals – it would not protect you or bind a prosecutor who might have jurisdiction. Having said that, the implementation of this law by my office will avoid the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.

    When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” and of people who gave their criminal friends guns to use in crimes.

    Sincerely,

    DAN SATTERBERG
    King County Prosecuting Attorney
    516 Third Avenue, W400
    Seattle, WA 98104
    (206) 477-1200




    If I decide to reply to him I will post it here.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 12-08-2014 at 04:32 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGunMan View Post
    Excellent Post. A question I was asked, is if you go to a Gun Dealer to buy a gun, is it illegal for them to let you hold a gun to check it out until they do a back ground check? This Law like so many is made without considering the consequences. Its like in my town they closed down the scape yard so now they scrap like washers, dryers ect. go up into the woods and dumped. Makes no cents.
    In NYC they just dump that stuff right into the roadways...I've had to dodge quite a bit of trash in NYC (not that the whole town is not on big trash dump).

    What consequences?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post


    Today I received the following response:
    <snip>d the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.

    When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” and of people who gave their criminal friends guns to use in crimes.

    Sincerely,

    DAN SATTERBERG
    Am I being brash if I call this guy a liar right now? Well, then I'm a brash SOB, 'cause he's a liar.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Update:

    Last night I emailed the following to Dan Satterberg with the subject "Follow up":

    Mr. Satterberg,


    I am a Republican PCO for precinct 43-1271. On 11/08/14 I sent your office an email with the subject "A few questions". On 11/13/14 I sent the same email to you directly. The letter expressed several concerns that myself, and many of the republicans I have the honor of representing have with I-594. I was seeking information from you on these concerns. I have not received a response. Your lack of reply sends a message as loud and clear as any written response could have, perhaps even more so. I will be notifying the people of my district that you do not care about their concerns.



    Today I received the following response:

    I received dozens of messages about I-594 and did not directly answer hypothetical questions because I cannot give legal advice to individuals – it would not protect you or bind a prosecutor who might have jurisdiction. Having said that, the implementation of this law by my office will avoid the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.

    When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” and of people who gave their criminal friends guns to use in crimes.

    Sincerely,

    DAN SATTERBERG
    King County Prosecuting Attorney
    516 Third Avenue, W400
    Seattle, WA 98104
    (206) 477-1200




    If I decide to reply to him I will post it here.
    Nice to see a pre-admission of selective enforcement.

    [sarcasm] Like drug laws, this can't possibly have a disproportional affect on minorities. [/sarcasm]

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Nice to see a pre-admission of selective enforcement........
    I was thinking the same thing. Another thought that quickly came to mind is that even if his office enforces it the way he claims there is no guarantee that his successor will do the same. There is no guarantee that a leo when upset with someone and finding nothing else to pin on them will not make an arrest under this law.

    Selective enforcement is not a good way to deal with bad law. The presumption of selective enforcement is even worse when endorsing an initiative that has yet to become law.

    I hope everyone remembers his endorsement of this law when he is up for reelection in two years. If he is unopposed in the primary (which is very likely) then a strong message can be sent by simply "writing in" something. This election I wrote in "John T. Williams" in two years if he is unopposed in the primary I will write in "Article 1 Section 24" or something else that sends a similar message. My hope is that someone runs against him in the primary, but I doubt that with happen.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    1/2 the GOP are rinos .... sad state in the gop
    With the prevalence of "lesser of two evils" thinking, there is zero incentive for either party to actually represent its constituents.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” ...
    Last time I checked, until I-594, this practice was not illegal. I suspect that many guns were transferred in this manner and no crime was evident from that transfer.

    Work to get that nitwit fired.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    With the prevalence of "lesser of two evils" thinking, there is zero incentive for either party to actually represent its constituents.
    No consequences ....

  23. #23
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Update:

    Last night I emailed the following to Dan Satterberg with the subject "Follow up":

    Mr. Satterberg,


    I am a Republican PCO for precinct 43-1271. On 11/08/14 I sent your office an email with the subject "A few questions". On 11/13/14 I sent the same email to you directly. The letter expressed several concerns that myself, and many of the republicans I have the honor of representing have with I-594. I was seeking information from you on these concerns. I have not received a response. Your lack of reply sends a message as loud and clear as any written response could have, perhaps even more so. I will be notifying the people of my district that you do not care about their concerns.



    Today I received the following response:

    I received dozens of messages about I-594 and did not directly answer hypothetical questions because I cannot give legal advice to individuals – it would not protect you or bind a prosecutor who might have jurisdiction. Having said that, the implementation of this law by my office will avoid the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.

    When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” and of people who gave their criminal friends guns to use in crimes.

    Sincerely,

    DAN SATTERBERG
    King County Prosecuting Attorney
    516 Third Avenue, W400
    Seattle, WA 98104
    (206) 477-1200




    If I decide to reply to him I will post it here.


    Satterberg is a jerk. Him and Don Pierce really believe that nonsense about "oh don't worry, 50% of the law will never be enforced."

    So then why were those parts included?!

    -Inheritance section
    -No use tax exemption
    -transfers instead of sales

    etc etc.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    my office will avoid the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.
    Which hypotheticals might those be, I wonder? While there was a fair amount of scare mongering, the truth is actually worse than almost all of it -- I wonder what part of the commonly understood plain meaning of the law as written he finds to be absurd or hypothetical?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Which hypotheticals might those be, I wonder? While there was a fair amount of scare mongering, the truth is actually worse than almost all of it -- I wonder what part of the commonly understood plain meaning of the law as written he finds to be absurd or hypothetical?
    Should ask him if you were to give your 5 year old nephew, who is on many mental medications for being hyper and to control his killing of animals, your 357 then would that violate the law?

    Or ask if you can sell your 357 to a felon who just got outta jail and is now looking for some "payback" if this would be illegal for you to do.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-08-2014 at 08:54 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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