• 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.

WA House Republican's Amendment to 594 reform bill bans Open Carry for self-defense

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
The problem was that the amendment technically restricted open carry when it comes to self-defense temporary transfers if the transferee does not have a CPL, which many open carriers do not.


UPDATE: I got in contact with an associate who works with the Representative and they told me this was not the representative's intention and they'd be taking a closer look and potentially fixing the language in the amendment.

There is a bill to reform 594. HB 1731.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1731&Year=2017

One of the Amendments to it by Representative Taylor would change the self-defense section of 594 that allows for "temporary transfers" to specify that transferee may only keep the firearm on their person (outside of a home or business) if they have a valid CPL).
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Amendments/House/1731-S AMH TAYL ADAM 145.pdf


Here is his proposed Amendment to 1731 that would alter 594:

SHB 1731 - H AMD 84
By Representative Taylor

On page 7, line 27, after "(e)" insert "A temporary transfer of
possession of a firearm if the transferee acquires the firearm for the
purpose of self-defense, the transfer lasts only as long as necessary
for self-defense purposes, and the transferee keeps the firearm in the
transferee’s home or fixed place of business, or if the transferee
possesses a valid concealed pistol license, on his or her person, for
the duration of the temporary transfer;

(f)"
Currently it reads:
(4) This section does not apply to:
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such
transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately
necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Currently the law doesn't specify how the firearm is to be kept or carried for the duration of the self-defense scenario and thus other state law and the lack of it (that allows open carry) applies.


Here is his office phone and email, maybe we should call/email and let him know it's not right to take away self-defense from a class of people?
http://davidtaylor.houserepublicans.wa.gov/

david.taylor@leg.wa.gov

Direct Line: (360) 786-7874

I have a call out to his office to see if he can explain this.
 
Last edited:

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
The operative word is "or" in the amendment, so the amendment doesn't really change the law.

So the law, if passed, would be:

(4) This section does not apply to:
<snip>
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

(d) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if:
(i) The temporary transfer is intended to prevent suicide or self-inflicted great bodily harm;
(ii) the temporary transfer lasts only as long as reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm; and
(iii) the firearm is not utilized by the transferee for any purpose for the duration of the temporary transfer;

(e) A temporary transfer ofpossession of a firearm if the transferee acquires the firearm for thepurpose of self-defense, the transfer lasts only as long as necessaryfor self-defense purposes, and the transferee keeps the firearm in thetransferee’s home or fixed place of business, or if the transfereepossesses a valid concealed pistol license, on his or her person, forthe duration of the temporary transfer;

(emphasis mine)

It doesn't really change the law; it just makes it easier in the event of a temporary transfer in a life or death instance, if one has a CPL, they flash that and LEOs will be "we're good." Transfers of this type are already exempt in section (c). New section (e) is just basically redundant and trying to clarify a moot point.

I don't really care what they change in the 594-passed language, it's a s**t section that is unenforceable and ignored by most gun owners- based on the lackluster number of background checks performed for private party sales and transfers.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
if one has a CPL, they flash that and LEOs will be "we're good."
Why should having a CPL have any bearing on a legitimate defensive gun use? Either the shoot was lawful or it wasn't. This just seems like a bad gotchya way to make what could be a good shoot into a bad one.

As to the redundancy, I disagree. The presence of the word "and" adds an extra condition that must be met for transfers outside of homes or businesses.
On page 7, line 27, after "(e)" insert "A temporary transfer of
possession of a firearm if the transferee acquires the firearm for the
purpose of self-defense, the transfer lasts only as long as necessary
for self-defense purposes, and the transferee keeps the firearm in the
transferee’s home or fixed place of business, or if the transferee
possesses a valid concealed pistol license, on his or her person, for
the duration of the temporary transfer
;
It changes the self-defense loan carry methods from unrestricted (by this section of the law) to restricted by this section of law. Previously this section of law was silent on how the firearm was to be kept or carried for the duration of the self-defense situation. Now it is adding conditions and they are required, not optional. The "or if the transferee possesses" section is not a fork in the sentence, it is actually adding a new conditional requirement for any temporary self-defense transfer that occurs on public property and does not allow for any kind of public temporary self-defense transfer that does not meet that requirement.

Essentially this amendment goes from having 594 be silent on how carrying during temporary self-defense transfers occur to now mandating that they only occur in the home or at businesses, and only in public if you have a CPL.

Prior to this the self-defense temporary loan carry methods were governed by the existing body of law which allows for CPLs or open carry in Washington. Even the horrible people who wrote 594 didn't try to micromanage the terms and conditions of the temporary self-defense transfer situation, likely they knew if they did that it would be fodder for the anti-594 crowd. They must be jumping with joy to see a Republican from Ellensberg proposing this. Remember how they tossed REPUBLICAN prosecutor Dan Satterberg's party affiliation around constantly during the 594 campaign?


The proposed amendment doesn't state that "it would be a good idea for someone, outside of a home or business, to have a CPL for this type of transfer." It says that IF they have a CPL then they can keep the firearm on their person. That's it. Is there a way to shoot a gun without having it on your person? No. If this Amendment were to pass, the only self-defense temporary loan exception carry methods that would be allowed outside a home or private would be to people with CPLs.

How would this work in real life?

5-10 years from now, some friends, among whom 1 or more are carrying and the others are not, get into a robbery situation in public or get mugged in the bus tunnel. One of them goes down and tries handing his gun to an uninjured friend. The friend who he hands it to is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a gun but uses the firearm to neutralize the threat. When the police come, they find out who fired what and the sequence of events and say "well, you stopped a crime but technically you shouldn't have had a gun because you have no CPL and the law's the law.Next time pay money to us to exercise your civil rights and get the government permission slip that we charge you for. Oh, but that will be after you serve your time and petition to get your firearm rights back because you are going to jail."

I can easily see that in King County. How do I know that? Because now, even when homeowners in their own homes use a firearm for self-defense, the local media and police make a big deal out of announcing whether charges will be filed against them or not for defending themselves. We already have our local media, judges and prosecutors leaning in the direction of any firearm use being bad until it's proven not to be.
 
Last edited:

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
You're ignoring section (c). The amendment adds a pointless section (e). Section (e) does not nullify section (c).
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
C is silent on carry methods. The new section would impose restrictions on carry methods.

C is not directly permissive for any carry type preferred, it is merely silent and through silence it indirectly permissive in conjunction with other WA law.

If the amendment passes that becomes a new restriction on top of other WA law and it will override C's silence on carry methods.
 
Last edited:

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
C is silent on carry methods. The new section would impose restrictions on carry methods.

C is not directly permissive for any carry type preferred, it is merely silent and through silence it indirectly permissive in conjunction with other WA law.

If the amendment passes that becomes a new restriction on top of other WA law and it will override C's silence on carry methods.
That's not how the law is read or written. The law will explicitly need to repeal one section for another to take it's place.

Section (c) applies to everywhere. Section (e) will apply to specifically homes and places of business, but it does not exclude section (c) from applying, either. The law would have to eliminate (c) or specifically address the restriction of (c), which this amendment clearly does not. Like I said earlier, it's a s**tty section and ignored by most gun owners.

Furthermore, to your original point, it does not prevent open carry as a means of self defense. In no uncertain terms does this amendment preclude open carry as a means of defense, nor prohibit open carry.

This is an investigative tool only. On the occasion where this situation would arise, the transferee shows the police the CPL, and that portion of the investigation is closed. If the transferee doesn't have a CPL, police will need to run a background check on the person to determine if they are a LAC. And that equals lost time and money.

As stupid as this law is, it's one more charge/conviction for gang-bang shootout suspects.


When you read 9.41.113 (if amendment passed), instead of reading "a, b, c," use the modifier "or" instead.

(4) This section does not apply to:
A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;

OR

The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;

OR

A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

OR

A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if:
(i) The temporary transfer is intended to prevent suicide or self-inflicted great bodily harm;
(ii) the temporary transfer lasts only as long as reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm;and
(iii) the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not26 prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

OR

A temporary transfer ofpossession of a firearm if the transferee acquires the firearm for thepurpose of self-defense, the transfer lasts only as long as necessaryfor self-defense purposes, and the transferee keeps the firearm in thetransferee’s home or fixed place of business, or if the transfereepossesses a valid concealed pistol license, on his or her person, forthe duration of the temporary transfer;


OR

Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;

OR

A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;

OR

The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or [see? it's already included in the language of the law]

OR

A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
The new section is a poorly-worded restatement of C with additional conditions for different carry methods depending on different locations.

C is silent on carry methods. Can you show me where C positively allows types of carry in a way in which the new section would not cancel out? It doesn't. The new section applies conditions for possession outside the home where this bill and even this section of law was silent on it. I understand that the different letters can each be independent exclusions but for C to be an exclusion that is not bound by the new terms under the new section, then C would have to be modified also to state that explicitly.

I spoke with someone at the legislature who returned my call on this today, and after I walked them through it they got it. Washington law already specifies when CPLs are needed for lawful carrying or not, this amendment is unnecessary as all it does is create a narrow carve-out to be yet another time/place where an expensive government permission slip is required for a type of possession outside a home or business. Also, it is not merely an investigative tool as failing to meet the requirements under the section will result in the criminal penalties of that section of the law.
 
Last edited:
Top