Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: I-594 Prompts Museum to Return Guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    8

    I-594 Prompts Museum to Return Guns



    Wonder what other places will follow.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Wait a second, this story is impossible.

    Our know-it-all Primus said cops would NOT enforce this law. So what is the museum worried about?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Wait a second, this story is impossible.

    Our know-it-all Primus said cops would NOT enforce this law. So what is the museum worried about?
    What part of the law does this violate? Storage? Can you cite the section they say it violates?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What part of the law does this violate? Storage? Can you cite the section they say it violates?
    Why is the museum worried? Call them and ask.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-19-2014 at 01:17 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/N...283197591.html

    Read the freaking law!!...the museum clearly thinks the law will be enforced even onto them in spite of what Calkins, or any other I-594 suporter, says.

    From the bill/law.
    (17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.

    (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.
    Storage is not mentioned and is actually irrelevant. Who cares how you store the gun once you possess it, we are only concerned that you are cleared to possess the gun. The museum clearly does not trust Calkins, and his ilk, to abide by his "promise" to not enforce this law on persons "loaning" guns to each other.
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/N...283197591.html

    Read the freaking law!!...the museum clearly thinks the law will be enforced even onto them in spite of what Calkins, or any other I-594 suporter, says.

    From the bill/law.Storage is not mentioned and is actually irrelevant. Who cares how you store the gun once you possess it, we are only concerned that you are cleared to possess the gun. The museum clearly does not trust Calkins, and his ilk, to abide by his "promise" to not enforce this law on persons "loaning" guns to each other.
    Ok OC I'll try with you instead.

    What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.

    Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ok OC I'll try with you instead.

    What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.

    Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
    The museum likely hired a real lawyer to give them a written legal opinion about how the law should be enforced.

    You know, something every state official has refused to do.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ok OC I'll try with you instead.

    What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.

    Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
    The language does not mention storage (did a word search, no results). The museum is not in a position (financially) to challenge the law to keep some WWII guns until May of next year. Even if they wanted to, the decision would likely be long after the exhibit is over. They will not take any chances.

    The museum's lawyer told them w/o a BC they are in violation of the law as he/they read it. There is no other conclusion to be made unless a court says (rewrites) otherwise. The language is clear in spite of what Calkins says. A cautious citizen will read it and abide by the plain language in the law. Untill a timeframe for "borrow" which is not used in the law "loan" is, is defined then any "transfer" in the plain usage of the word (from A to B) must be applied.

    IANAL YMMV
    "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

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Why is the museum worried? Call them and ask.
    Maybe this part.................
    State Attorney General Bob Ferguson tells the newspaper that he can't interpret the law for specific situations.

    or this................
    State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said he had not formed an opinion on the initiative and could not interpret it for specific situations.

    “To date, there have not been any lawsuits filed against I-594, nor has our office received any opinion requests,” Ferguson said in a statement to The Bellingham Herald. The attorney general may issue an opinion on a legal question if certain state leaders or county prosecuting attorneys request one.

    “At this point we have no interpretations of the initiative to offer to the public beyond the text of the measure itself,”



    I guess we won't know what is legal until after we have been arrested. (channeling pelosi)

    This is like jumping out of a plane and then thinking about a parachute. How do you stop this runaway train until saner minds can appeal?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    To say not to worry about the law because "cops won't enforce illogical laws" has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. How obtuse and short-sighted can a person possibly be to make such an insanely ignorant statement? The law makes explicit statements and explicitly defines terms. There is no arguing that.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    To say not to worry about the law because "cops won't enforce illogical laws" has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. How obtuse and short-sighted can a person possibly be to make such an insanely ignorant statement? The law makes explicit statements and explicitly defines terms. There is no arguing that.
    It depends on what the definition of "is" is, Bob.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    As usual you are commenting on something that you have not taken the time to even read. From the article:
    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...es-5903332.php



    The museum is not concerned about their current possession of the firearms. They are concerned about the transfers that will have to occur when the exhibit ends.
    Which they have been advised will be required -- on a loan. Because under new law loan has been redefined as transfer.

    Prime Us for being screwed.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The law passed this month with 59 percent of the vote.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ok OC I'll try with you instead.

    What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.

    Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
    I'll leave this here... Pay attention to second part of my above post.


    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    As usual you are commenting on something that you have not taken the time to even read. From the article:
    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...es-5903332.php



    The museum is not concerned about their current possession of the firearms. They are concerned about the transfers that will have to occur when the exhibit ends.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I'll leave this here... Pay attention to second part of my above post.

    The implication is, the law will be vigorously enforced... because...

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The law passed this month with 59 percent of the vote.
    You do realize that's nearly a supermajority. Naw, you probably don't.

    Some people and organizations won't want to deal with all the legal BS, obviously this museum doesn't.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-19-2014 at 08:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Seriously, do people think these business are not going to have one of their lawyers also read the law? Primus did you really think that LE are the only ones paying any attention, and that businesses affected would not do everything possible to minimize liability and hold themselves accountable for what the law explicitly states?

    59%. How. Did. This. Happen.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post

    59%. How. Did. This. Happen.
    #grubertactics

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gruber+videos

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDom...layer_embedded
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-19-2014 at 09:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Seriously, do people think these business are not going to have one of their lawyers also read the law? Primus did you really think that LE are the only ones paying any attention, and that businesses affected would not do everything possible to minimize liability and hold themselves accountable for what the law explicitly states?

    59%. How. Did. This. Happen.
    Are you attempting to engage me in legitimate reasoned dialogue? If so I'll glaldly response with what is my humble opinion on the matter. If its an attempt to troll like several others keep doing then let me know I'll save my time responding with a full opinion.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.
    Mere possession? No violation. I-594 only criminalizes transfers without background checks. But you're incorrect about no transfers occurring. Under the definition of transfer found in I-594, a transfer occurs when possession changes, not just ownership. Courts have ruled in the past that access can equal possession. Everyone who has keys to any display case containing a firearm probably has possession. When the keys change hands, so does possession. Every time a transfer occurs, there must be a background check or it's a gross misdemeanor the first time and felonies every time after that.

    Every employee of the museum, from the director down to every janitor must pass a background check to be able to have access to the guns every time they gain or lose access, not just once upon being hired. Anyone employed by the museum who wouldn't be able to pass such a background check would have to lose their job or go to jail.

    If a display case is accidentally broken, everyone in the room potentially has possession dropped on them. Whether they want it or not. And don't forget, it's not just the person 'giving' the gun who breaks the law, but also the person receiving the transfer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
    Since I-594 redefines a transfer from change of ownership of a firearm to change of possession or ownership of a firearm, the museum would be unable to return the displayed guns to their owners after I-594 takes effect without the owners passing a background check. If they failed to pass the check for any reason (including clerical error) the museum would have to effectively steal the guns from the owners or outright purchase them (with the owners unable to refuse) -- the former is a class B felony, the latter would require that the museum pass a background check. How exactly you would have a business pass such a check is problematic, and the logical solution brings us back to everyone in the organization having to pass a background check or lose their job.

    Since either one of those situations would discourage anyone from loaning anything to the museum in the future, the museum is taking steps to prevent the situations from arising. And the public loses in the end because we lose a museum exhibit six months ahead of schedule.
    Last edited by Difdi; 11-20-2014 at 12:26 AM.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Seattle police officer James Ritter, who founded the Seattle Metropolitan Police Museum, said he doubted that returning a gun to its rightful owner would be considered a "transfer" under the law. Regardless, he said it was exceptionally unlikely that investigators would target museum exhibits for prosecution.
    Since he's a cop, it doesn't matter to him that he's wrong about what a "transfer" is. But he's right about one thing: the cops absolutely will decide for themselves who to target for enforcement. And that is more wrong than the law itself.
    Last edited by MAC702; 11-20-2014 at 01:39 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Since he's a cop, it doesn't matter to him that he's wrong about what a "transfer" is. But he's right about one thing: the cops absolutely will decide for themselves who to target for enforcement. And that is more wrong than the law itself.
    +1

    Minorities and low income will suffer the consequences of this rule more than anyone else.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    Minorities and low income will suffer the consequences of this rule more than anyone else.
    The system if full of racism, classicism, sexism, and a general animosity toward mere 'civilians.'

    Unfortunately, it means we'll get an over correction in the worse way when whites become a minority. It'll be well deserved, but just as wrong.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ok OC I'll try with you instead.

    What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.
    I'll put it in plain English. You cannot have possession of a firearm without there having been a transfer. Since transfer has been intentionally defined in the broadest possible terms, anyone who has taken possession of any firearm from any source without submitting to a background check, except in the case of the nearly impossible to comply with exemptions, needs to be concerned.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

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
  •