I-594 Prompts Museum to Return Guns

Primus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Primus said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

MAC702 said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1

Minorities and low income will suffer the consequences of this rule more than anyone else.

sudden valley gunner said:

+1

Minorities and low income will suffer the consequences of this rule more than anyone else.

Click to expand...

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.

Primus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lammo said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is already in plain English, some simply refuse to understand it.