Displaying arms at an art show as art pieces

AlexMayhem · Oct 28, 2015

Gents-

I create art from time to time and know the owners of a gallery that has always let me OC during the show. I primarily focus on social commentary and civil rights stuff, and for those shows I always bring a bunch of the WA State carry law brochures.

I have a show coming up at the gallery in which I intend to display some of the arms that I have painted as art (one rifle is multicammed, the other rifle is painted pearlescent with purple-blue hues depending on the light, a la Borderlands the video game.). My question is that would it seem unlawful in your minds for me to display those rifles, and let folks handle them unloaded with that recent possession initiative having passed? All art at this gallery is listed with a price, or it is listed as NFS (Not For Sale), and I'd be willing to sell either with the mandated background check if I could make enough to replace each arm at the cost of replacement - not for profit.

My intent is to allow the non-gun crowds that frequent the gallery to be able to see and handle arms, answer any questions they have about the law and their rights. However, I don't want prison time for doing so, which is why I'm asking your thoughts regarding the law.

Security for the show is of no concern - I will be OCing me carry piece, concealed carry with another, and the owners and some friends will attend to ensure that nothing goes missing.

golddigger14s · Oct 29, 2015

Feel free to use paragraph breaks.
You can let them handle them, but would need to do the BGC for a sale.

Difdi · Nov 1, 2015

golddigger14s said:
You can let them handle them, but would need to do the BGC for a sale.

Um, no. Handling would be a transfer.

Difdi · Nov 4, 2015

NavyLCDR said:
Um, no. Handling would not be a transfer. Thousands of guns in this state are legally handled every day in guns stores with no background checks.

Me walking into a gun store and handling a gun handed to me by the salesperson is no different than a person walking into an art gallery and handling a gun handed to them by the artist.

So, if you're correct about that, you CAN of course cite it?

Are you claiming that the artist in question is a federally licensed gun dealer who is repairing a customer's gun? Well, if that's the case then you're absolutely right, it's legal to hand that specific artist a gun.

Unfortunately, while I-594 makes that specific exemption for licensed gun dealers, it doesn't make such a distinction for those who are not. Additionally, I-594 DOES require a background check for loans of a gun, without specifying a minimum period of time for such a loan. So handing someone a gun is a loan is a transfer. And transfers require a background check or it's a misdemeanor the first time and a felony for every time from the second onward.

I do have a citation for you. I especially direct your attention to pages 6 and 7 of the linked document:

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

solus · Nov 4, 2015

Difdi said:
So, if you're correct about that, you CAN of course cite it?

Are you claiming that the artist in question is a federally licensed gun dealer who is repairing a customer's gun? Well, if that's the case then you're absolutely right, it's legal to hand that specific artist a gun.

Unfortunately, while I-594 makes that specific exemption for licensed gun dealers, it doesn't make such a distinction for those who are not. Additionally, I-594 DOES require a background check for loans of a gun, without specifying a minimum period of time for such a loan. So handing someone a gun is a loan is a transfer. And transfers require a background check or it's a misdemeanor the first time and a felony for every time from the second onward.

I do have a citation for you. I especially direct your attention to pages 6 and 7 of the linked document:

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

checking RCW 9.41.010 and not some silly final text of some want-2-b legislative bill which you cited...

i presume you were referring to section (25) transfer definition which by Black's dictionary means: "...the title to property is conveyed from one living person to another."

i understand RCW's definition but it says "..the intended delivery of a firearm to another person...." black's dictionary once again: " Delivery: In the law of sales. The tradition or transfer of the possession of personal property from one person to another."

now if you truly believe 'handling' a firearm meets section (25) transfer criteria (how bout 9.41.113?)...then every citizen in the Evergreen state would be barred from handling any firearm prior to purchasing said firearm from licensed dealer or private seller and apparently from your reading of the RCW said citizen is in direct violation and subject to immediate arrest.

ipse

ps: sorry LDCR i just read down a few post and just saw your same comments...

Difdi · Nov 4, 2015

solus said:
checking RCW 9.41.010 and not some silly final text of some want-2-b legislative bill which you cited...

Want-2-b? Um, that's the final text of Initiative 594 which was both passed and enacted. Last year. So it no longer wants to be law, it IS law.

solus said:
i presume you were referring to section (25) transfer definition which by Black's dictionary means: "...the title to property is conveyed from one living person to another."

i understand RCW's definition but it says "..the intended delivery of a firearm to another person...." black's dictionary once again: " Delivery: In the law of sales. The tradition or transfer of the possession of personal property from one person to another."

Black's legal dictionary is irrelevant when the text of the Initiative contains a definition of transfer that disagrees with Black's.

solus said:
now if you truly believe 'handling' a firearm meets section (25) transfer criteria (how bout 9.41.113?)...then every citizen in the Evergreen state would be barred from handling any firearm prior to purchasing said firearm from licensed dealer or private seller and apparently from your reading of the RCW said citizen is in direct violation and subject to immediate arrest.

I truly believe it because the text of the law SAYS SO explicitly. You can quote dictionaries all you like but they're not relevant unless the law cites them as the source of definitions within the law -- and the law does not. It really comes down to when you have committed a crime -- when you commit the illegal act, when the state notices, when the state arrests you or when the judge's gavel hits his bench after finding you guilty. If it's anything but that first condition, then nothing is illegal until you get caught.

NavyLCDR said:
Licensed dealers are exempt from RCW 9.41.113 both as sellers and purchasers:

Yes they are, in specific circumstances. But you apparently didn't read that far. The sort of loan you envision as being exempt from background checks is for you handing YOUR gun to a licensed dealer either as part of a sale to him or if he is going to be repairing/servicing YOUR gun. He can then hand it back afterward without needing a background check. If the guy you hand your gun to is not a licensed dealer, you are a criminal the instant you hand it to him, and he is one the instant he hands it back.

NavyLCDR said:
That being said, as you pointed out there is much more to legal interpretation of statutes than purely the words on the paper. There has not been a test case of the legal interpretation of transfer yet regarding the new RCW definition. The way I see this situation is that it would be a far reach to expect that a person would be prosecuted for allowing supervised persons to handle firearms displayed as art. It is a farther reach to expect that an artist would be convicted by a jury. Even further still that a conviction would be upheld on appeal.

After all, large retail sporting goods stores are violating RCW 9.41 every day all over this state every time they sell a plastic flare gun without a background check and nobody blinks about it.

So - would it be possible for an artist to be convicted of violating RCW 9.41.113 for letting supervised people handle firearms displayed as art? Yes, I believe it would be possible. Would that possibility be great enough to keep me from doing it if I were in that situation? Nope. I would not hesitate to let most supervised persons handle my unloaded gun.

Until there's a test case, enacted laws are imaginary? That's a...novel...view of legality. It's also extremely dangerous in a personal liability sense. People get convicted for doing things their Constitutional rights say they ought to be acquitted for all the time. All it takes is a prosecutor filing a charge that doesn't include a constitutional defense, or convincing the judge to reject the claim when such a defense IS allowed. You might get it reversed on appeal, but you might not. No matter what the result, you'll have legal costs you might not be able to afford and keep your house.

Volunteering to be a test case without a major organization backing your test is RISKY. Even with such a sponsor, do you really want to risk going to prison as a convicted felon?

solus · Nov 4, 2015

Difdi said:
Want-2-b? Um, that's the final text of Initiative 594 which was both passed and enacted. Last year. So it no longer wants to be law, it IS law.

then quote the bloody law instead of citing a two year olde wanta-2-b worthless scrap of gossip...

Black's legal dictionary is irrelevant when the text of the Initiative contains a definition of transfer that disagrees with Black's.

you are abosolutely correct...Blacks is irrelevant against the cited initiative text...cuz the initiative is a worthless scrap of gossip

I truly believe it because the text of the law SAYS SO explicitly. You can quote dictionaries all you like but they're not relevant unless the law cites them as the source of definitions within the law -- and the law does not. It really comes down to when you have committed a crime -- when you commit the illegal act, when the state notices, when the state arrests you or when the judge's gavel hits his bench after finding you guilty. If it's anything but that first condition, then nothing is illegal until you get caught.

now wait a moment you have not quoted the law...you have cited a worthless scrap of gossip. further, across this country, the definitions used within the legal arena mean the same thing...Black's is the go to book for quick, down and dirty meanings w/legal precedents listed.

Yes they are, in specific circumstances. But you apparently didn't read that far. The sort of loan you envision as being exempt from background checks is for you handing YOUR gun to a licensed dealer either as part of a sale to him or if he is going to be repairing/servicing YOUR gun. He can then hand it back afterward without needing a background check. If the guy you hand your gun to is not a licensed dealer, you are a criminal the instant you hand it to him, and he is one the instant he hands it back.

sorry when i visit a box store and request i be shown a firearm to see if fits my paw, or how heavy it is, or compare firearms, or any of other things i wish to investigate, does not mean i am buying any of them!!

Until there's a test case, enacted laws are imaginary? That's a...novel...view of legality. It's also extremely dangerous in a personal liability sense. People get convicted for doing things their Constitutional rights say they ought to be acquitted for all the time. All it takes is a prosecutor filing a charge that doesn't include a constitutional defense, or convincing the judge to reject the claim when such a defense IS allowed. You might get it reversed on appeal, but you might not. No matter what the result, you'll have legal costs you might not be able to afford and keep your house.

sorry didn't say that, what i stated was your cited wanta-2-b final text of whatever was imaginary.

Volunteering to be a test case without a major organization backing your test is RISKY. Even with such a sponsor, do you really want to risk going to prison as a convicted felon?

sure I would borrow someone's firearm in WA state w/o hesitation or fear of prosecution. oh wait a moment...i did do that already, yes i have and enjoyed every minute of it ~ thanks for asking.

ipse, ThD

Displaying arms at an art show as art pieces

AlexMayhem

Regular Member

golddigger14s

Activist Member

Difdi

Regular Member

Difdi

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member

Difdi

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member