• 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.

A letter I emailed to Dan Satterberg about I-594

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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:

bani

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
29
Location
Redmond
satterberg is a RINO. it baffles me why the republican party doesn't denounce him. or put a candidate up against him.
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
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.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
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:

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA

bani

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
29
Location
Redmond
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:

TheGunMan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Wenatchee, WA
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. :confused:
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
.............. 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:

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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. :confused:

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? :banana:
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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]
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top