Hb 1588

More "feel good" stuff with no teeth. If you are a gunsmith you fall into the dealer coulmn, if you have a C&R / CPL your SOL.

Now you will have to pay a fee to exercise your right as a private buyer. ??????

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1588

~Whitney

I wonder if an individual who donates a firearm to someone, and accepts a cash donation in return, is required to do anything under 1588/.

This would effectively enhance the non existent registration in the state since we know the DOL keeps a record of every transaction.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I wonder if an individual who donates a firearm to someone, and accepts a cash donation in return, is required to do anything under 1588/.

Click to expand...

I could just see it...a future Seattle gun buy-back failing because of the need to run a background check every time they give out an Amazon gift card...

Whitney said:

More "feel good" stuff with no teeth. If you are a gunsmith you fall into the dealer coulmn, if you have a C&R / CPL your SOL.

Now you will have to pay a fee to exercise your right as a private buyer. ??????

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1588

~Whitney

Click to expand...

How does this proposed law affect Gunsmiths? They already are regulated the same under Federal Law.

A CPL has never been a substitute for a background check, possession of one just provides a waiver of he mandatory waiting period. CPL holders still have to fill out the forms and wait for the NICS check.

What I see this law doing is either eliminating private sellers from Gun Shows, making them a get together of Licensed Dealers and Jerkey sales people, or the show promoters will have to make provisions to have Law Enforcement man a booth to provide the necessary checks. Kind of like the "waiting room" area at Cabela's.

Like it or not, I think this law has a pretty good chance of being enacted.

Difdi said:

I could just see it...a future Seattle gun buy-back failing because of the need to run a background check every time they give out an Amazon gift card...

Click to expand...

They are part of the State, they would be exempt from it.--gun buybacks ought to be a no questions asked.

FFL 01 exemptions

amlevin said:

How does this proposed law affect Gunsmiths? They already are regulated the same under Federal Law.

A CPL has never been a substitute for a background check, possession of one just provides a waiver of he mandatory waiting period. CPL holders still have to fill out the forms and wait for the NICS check.

What I see this law doing is either eliminating private sellers from Gun Shows, making them a get together of Licensed Dealers and Jerkey sales people, or the show promoters will have to make provisions to have Law Enforcement man a booth to provide the necessary checks. Kind of like the "waiting room" area at Cabela's.

Like it or not, I think this law has a pretty good chance of being enacted.

Click to expand...

Just making an observation that while gunsmiths are a type 1 FFL. If you have a type 1 FFL you are exempt from NICS check of private sales. USC 18 has some vague language regarding what is considered "conducting business", suffice to say if you are a part time weekend smith you could be at risk.

If you are a type 03 FFL and are engaged in transactions with another 03 FFL this bill will punish you for it. FFL type 03 is licensed by the Fed to engage in commerce but this bill makes it unlawful. How about internet sales to 03 FFL's which is also perfectly legal. For all the collectors out there, B.O.H.I.C.A. I do not think it is really enforceable, rather it creates a system that promotes disregard.

Then there is the whole privacy issue and what to do with the state generated permission slip after the block is checked.

What happens to my permission slip if NICS returns anything other that "proceed with sale" ?

So now I am thinking I should go get my 01 FFL I can make all the private sales I want with no NICS check.
That is in fact what the bill says.

This bill is supposed to be targeting "certain people", such as felons, minors, and involuntarily committed persons.
I'll buy you a steak dinner if you can convince me background checks of private sales (execept 01 FFL's) prevent sales to those "certain people".



~Whitney

I hit this one at some length here. I'd appreciate it if someone wants to fact-check me, lest I mislead by my ignorance. I also wrote my representatives last night.

Nics

Venya said:

I hit this one at some length here. I'd appreciate it if someone wants to fact-check me, lest I mislead by my ignorance. I also wrote my representatives last night.

Click to expand...

I will post the citation if I can find it.....

CPL only provides you same day possession where you would otherwise wait. You still get run through NICS.

~Whitney

Qoute my own qote ????/

Whitney said:

I will post the citation if I can find it.....

CPL only provides you same day possession where you would otherwise wait. You still get run through NICS.

~Whitney

Click to expand...

I stand self corrected.
[h=2]Permanent Brady Permit Chart[/h]Washington Concealed pistol license issued on or after July 22, 2011 qualify.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html

~Whitney

That caveat is worth noting, however; I hadn't realized that. Thank you.

Beretta92FSLady said:

They are part of the State, they would be exempt from it.--gun buybacks ought to be a no questions asked.

Click to expand...

- At very least, they need to run the firearms after being received and if stolen return it to the rightful owner. Running numbers and returning the arms should be managed by a third party, like a gun shop, not the state or the police alone (since both can be shady).

Given the list of sponsors, I would expect this has a good chance of passing. As such, it is very important for everyone to speak out early and often about this.

From the summary page is a link to comment on the bill, it makes it very easy. Once you make your comment, you sign up with some information and your comment goes to your representatives based on address.

I entered the following comment:

This sets up a defacto registration and creates a hardship for those private citizens wishing to buy, sell, or bequeath a firearm. Requiring fees to excercise a right is clearly an infringement on that right and as such is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 24 of the state Constitution. Criminals, by definition do not follow the law and this would have little if any impact on the illegal acquisition of firearms. With no real benefit, and several negative impacts on law abiding citizens, this is an ill conceived, knee-jerk reaction to current events. Time and resources would be better spent addressing issues such as mental health and strict enforcement of existing gun laws. I strongly urge you to oppose this bill.


Our only hope is to be vocal and fight everyone of these so-called "sensible" ideas that chip away at the ability to exercise our rights without intrusion and registration.

This will only affect law abiding citizens, and will do very little to prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns.
- (preaching to the choir i know) - Criminals and crazies don't follow the law, and wont follow this law either, so what changes the manner in which they transfer guns among each other?? - absolutely nothing. They are simply levying laws against the good people in order to tighten their grip as a government.

Batousaii said:

- At very least, they need to run the firearms after being received and if stolen return it to the rightful owner. Running numbers and returning the arms should be managed by a third party, like a gun shop, not the state or the police alone (since both can be shady).

Click to expand...

They are running the firearms, and making an attempt to find the owner, if the firearm is found to be stolen.

A few years ago I had a handgun taken from me by SPD. They run a background check before returning it.

911Boss said:

Given the list of sponsors, I would expect this has a good chance of passing. As such, it is very important for everyone to speak out early and often about this.

From the summary page is a link to comment on the bill, it makes it very easy. Once you make your comment, you sign up with some information and your comment goes to your representatives based on address.

Click to expand...

I agree.....The majority of co-sponsors are dem's...but there are a number of rep's... I would expect that this will pass out of the Judiciary committee that has control of it since I counted at least 6 members of the committee as sponsors...ie. I don't know if it will migrate to another committee first, but eventually it ends up on the 'Rules" committee, where it sits until they call it up to the Floor for a vote....and then passed over to the Senate side and starts over.

For this bill too, when you follow the link to the page, scroll down and look at the Fiscal Analysis...that will tell another part of the story...how much does it cost? How much does it generate....

I contacted all my reps and sen today about this, everyone else should do the same.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Beretta92FSLady said:

They are part of the State, they would be exempt from it.--gun buybacks ought to be a no questions asked.

Click to expand...

"(2)(a) No unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person unless the purchaser has undergone a background check in accordance with the provisions of this subsection

(g) For the purposes of this subsection (2), "unlicensed person" means any person who is not licensed as a dealer under this chapter."

I don't see how a police officer would not be an unlicensed person under this bill when the bill explains quite clearly that the only people who are not unlicensed are dealers. The police need specific exemptions for other stuff in the RCW, I don't see why they wouldn't for this.

The work-around is easy enough, have a licensed dealer process all the purchases. Another option would be to have the purchaser documents pre-filled out and just process them over and over again, once for each gun, all with the Sheriff there to sign off on them.

Also, the bill explicitly states "sell". So apparently gifts are okay. And yes, I know that even if gifts are not a violation you could not skirt this law by selling someone a pack of gum for $1200 while they "gift" you a Kimber.

Just noticed something else. As currently written even if someone passes a background check if you sell them a firearm you would still be committing a misdemeanor if the person is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law. So basically if there is any mistake in the check, or if information is just lacking, like a felony conviction not on the persons record properly because it happened in the 60's, you would be committing a misdemeanor.

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/feb/09/wash-state-nears-deal-on-gun-background-checks/

Not going to quote it all but 1 line got to me.

Hope, a Seattle police officer, said the private transactions are occurring all the time and are attractive for criminals who can avoid a background check. He noted that when his employer recently held a gun buyback program, some people were on the streets buying weapons from people who were waiting in line.

"That's exactly what we want to go after. We don't know who's buying the gun," Hope said.

Click to expand...

Looks like Seattle's pissed of that they're catching flak for the buy back and that it was taken over.