Washington State Background Check Law.

[Panzerkamfwagen]

In case any of you haven't heard, Washington State passed a "universal background check law," that, quite frankly is a really poorly written piece of legislation.

I'm just a dude pontificating on the internet, but, it seems to me that from the text of this initiative, it mandates background checks for the sale of certain nail guns that use .22 blanks, party poppers that use an explosive to fire their streamers, and flare guns that boaters are required to carry.

Based on how I'm reading the law, it defines a flare gun as a firearm. It mandates a background check for that flare gun. If a boat is in distress, it mandates that only the person who purchased the flare gun can use it to launch flares, because he's the one who purchased the flare gun.

Of course, if the writers of this law also left a rather gaping loophole in it, too, because, for the purposes of this law it defines a firearm as, "a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder." May is used to "express a possibility." So, if you render your firearm into such a state that there is exists no possibility of it firing a projectile, then it ceases to be a firearm for the purposes of this law. What's the easiest way to make a firearm have no possibility of firing?

That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Oh, and this initiative didn't prevent this robbery, but, it sure seems to be already inconveniencing law abiding people.

When I go grocery shopping tomorrow, if the store sells party poppers, I'm going to report them for violating this law. I've already written the county council and asked them to call for merchants to stop selling firearms.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Washington state seems to be like a weird 50/50 state. half hippie and half redneck. I guess the hippie half is voting more now.

 

[AceHero]

Washington state seems to be like a weird 50/50 state. half hippie and half redneck. I guess the hippie half is voting more now.

Thank goodness.

 

[nightflight]

Washington state seems to be like a weird 50/50 state. half hippie and half redneck. I guess the hippie half is voting more now.

I used to live there. The hippie half was moonbat crazy!

 

[FreedByte]

Washington state seems to be like a weird 50/50 state. half hippie and half redneck. I guess the hippie half is voting more now.

Honestly Washington State really doesn't make sense as a state. They should redraw the lines with western washington and western oregon as one state, and eastern washington and eastern oregon as one state. Like so:

 

[FreedByte]

I used to live there. The hippie half was moonbat crazy!

In what way?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I used to live there. The hippie half was moonbat crazy!

I was stationed at fort lewis for like a year. I took one trip to Seattle, and went to a coffee shop.. it is my experience there that I avoid most coffee stops. I've never seen such a bunch of pretentious jerks in my life.

Seoul also has a ton of coffee shops, but the koreans weren't a bunch a self-entitled jerks. lol

 

[AceHero]

Washington state seems to be like a weird 50/50 state. half hippie and half redneck. I guess the hippie half is voting more now.

Honestly Washington State really doesn't make sense as a state. They should redraw the lines with western washington and western oregon as one state, and eastern washington and eastern oregon as one state. Like so:

Um, no. I'd much rather the crazy right wingers just move over to Idaho. They'd have plenty of company there.

 

[FreedByte]

Um, no. I'd much rather the crazy right wingers just move over to Idaho. They'd have plenty of company there.

you can't force people to move

 

[AceHero]

Um, no. I'd much rather the crazy right wingers just move over to Idaho. They'd have plenty of company there.

you can't force people to move

Nor is it that easy to carve a state out of a couple of exisiting ones.

 

[FreedByte]

Nor is it that easy to carve a state out of a couple of exisiting ones.

True

 

[HorsieJuice]

In case any of you haven't heard, Washington State passed a "universal background check law," that, quite frankly is a really poorly written piece of legislation.

I'm just a dude pontificating on the internet, but, it seems to me that from the text of this initiative, it mandates background checks for the sale of certain nail guns that use .22 blanks, party poppers that use an explosive to fire their streamers, and flare guns that boaters are required to carry.

Based on how I'm reading the law, it defines a flare gun as a firearm. It mandates a background check for that flare gun. If a boat is in distress, it mandates that only the person who purchased the flare gun can use it to launch flares, because he's the one who purchased the flare gun.

Of course, if the writers of this law also left a rather gaping loophole in it, too, because, for the purposes of this law it defines a firearm as, "a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder." May is used to "express a possibility." So, if you render your firearm into such a state that there is exists no possibility of it firing a projectile, then it ceases to be a firearm for the purposes of this law. What's the easiest way to make a firearm have no possibility of firing?

That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Oh, and this initiative didn't prevent this robbery, but, it sure seems to be already inconveniencing law abiding people.

When I go grocery shopping tomorrow, if the store sells party poppers, I'm going to report them for violating this law. I've already written the county council and asked them to call for merchants to stop selling firearms.

Do you have any other, more neutral and detailed sources? I'm fully prepared to accept the idea that this is a poorly written law, but those two columns do not make a convincing argument. The first one about the stolen guns is just a giant straw man - and straw men arguments like that tell me that an author is either dishonest or stupid. The second column is about shooting ranges and educational programs trying to get some clarity about what is and isn't allowed. While it does sound like the wording could be confusing, it also doesn't sound like it's going to be that big of a deal, and either way, since it's the same author as in the first piece, i don't trust his description to be very accurate.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The point of the law is to prevent the possession of firearms by convicted felons. In that first article, it failed.

Go read I-594 for yourself and you can see how poorly written that it is. It defines flare guns and commonly used tools as "firearms" but does not define a firearm that temporarily cannot be fired as firearms.

 

[HorsieJuice]

The point of the law is to prevent the possession of firearms by convicted felons. In that first article, it failed.

I've never heard anyone claim that background checks would prevent weapons from being stolen. Have you? That's why it's a straw man argument. Background checks are designed to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring firearms through what would otherwise appear to be legal means.

Go read I-594 for yourself and you can see how poorly written that it is. It defines flare guns and commonly used tools as "firearms" but does not define a firearm that temporarily cannot be fired as firearms.

First, let's make sure I'm reading the right bill. This is what I found:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20594.pdf

I ask for verification, because this was a little trickier to find than I expected, and because the first couple hits I got turned up 404 errors.

But assuming that's the right bill, I don't really see what the problem is. If you think flare guns and nail guns ought to be exempted, push to get the definition modified. Other than that, it seems pretty sensible.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The point of the law is to prevent the possession of firearms by convicted felons. In that first article, it failed.

Go read I-594 for yourself and you can see how poorly written that it is. It defines flare guns and commonly used tools as "firearms" but does not define a firearm that temporarily cannot be fired as firearms.

Convicted felon should be allowed firearms as well. What if they reformed and have to move back into that crappy neighborhood? They need to protect themselves. Gun control laws are dumb.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't people understand?

 

[morningstar2651]

Convicted felon should be allowed firearms as well. What if they reformed and have to move back into that crappy neighborhood? They need to protect themselves. Gun control laws are dumb.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't people understand?

Felons can eventually own a firearm. They can petition to have their gun rights restored. Felons lose their rights when they commit a serious crime.

If someone has a history of violent crime, it might not be a good idea to allow them to purchase firearms.

Can a felon own a gun in the United States? - HowStuffWorks

(c) A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I've never heard anyone claim that background checks would prevent weapons from being stolen. Have you? That's why it's a straw man argument. Background checks are designed to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring firearms through what would otherwise appear to be legal means.

It's right there in the stated purpose of the law. The intent of the law is for it to apply to all transfers.

Except, of course, you can't penalize a criminal for failing to report his illegal activity.

The
people find that it is in the public interest to strengthen our
background check system by extending the requirement for a background
check to apply to all gun sales and transfers in the state, except as
permitted herein.

First, let's make sure I'm reading the right bill. This is what I found:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20594.pdf

I ask for verification, because this was a little trickier to find than I expected, and because the first couple hits I got turned up 404 errors.

That's the right initiative.

But assuming that's the right bill, I don't really see what the problem is. If you think flare guns and nail guns ought to be exempted, push to get the definition modified. Other than that, it seems pretty sensible.

Flare guns, nail guns, party poppers, and various sorts of fireworks are all apparently designated as firearms for the purposes of this law. So, if Bill Gates purchases a flare gun for his yacht, and then gives it to someone else to signal some sort of distress, that's an unlawful transfer.

Of course, depending on how you parse the definition of a transfer, that could create another loophole, too.

(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.

Intended delivery instead of actual delivery or just delivery? What does that even mean?

"Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or
projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

How about this one? An AR-15 receiver is considered a firearm by the ATF, but it is not a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired, so, it does not require a background check. So, if you render your firearm into such a condition that it cannot fire, does it cease to be a firearm for the purpose of this law? If I take apart a pistol, and sell the collection of parts that cannot fire, then have I sold a firearm? What if I sell the frame and the slide and barrel assembly in two separate transactions? If, in order to prosecute a violation under this statute, the police have to prove that every firearm sold or transferred was actually in a condition that it could be fired, then this really is an unenforceable law.

So, if Bill Gates hands a flare gun on his yacht to his wife, he's violating this law. If someone takes apart an actual [as defined by federal law] firearm and sells the pieces, he, apparently is not. Yes, it's that absurd.

When I make my grocery run today, if I see party poppers at the store, I'm going to report the store for unlawfully selling firearms.


I wrote my county council members and asked them to take enforcement action to halt the illegal sales of firearms.

 

[HorsieJuice]

It's right there in the stated purpose of the law. The intent of the law is for it to apply to all transfers.

This is how the law defines "transfers":

(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.

Having your gun stolen is not an "intended delivery" of it.

Flare guns, nail guns, party poppers, and various sorts of fireworks are all apparently designated as firearms for the purposes of this law. So, if Bill Gates purchases a flare gun for his yacht, and then gives it to someone else to signal some sort of distress, that's an unlawful transfer.

Like I said, if you think the definition is too loose, push to get it modified.

Though in the case of the flare gun, if it were used in an emergency situation, you'd have a strong case that the transfer was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Intended delivery instead of actual delivery or just delivery? What does that even mean?

That means that if someone stole it from you, you didn't intend to deliver it to them.

So, if Bill Gates hands a flare gun on his yacht to his wife, he's violating this law. If someone takes apart an actual [as defined by federal law] firearm and sells the pieces, he, apparently is not. Yes, it's that absurd.

Ok, you've made your case that it's poorly written and ambiguous.

Now, is it just the ambiguity that bothers you (in which case, you're ok with the concept of the legislation and you just want the language tightened up) or is it the whole expansion of background checks that bothers you (in which case, no amount of tightening would appease you)?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Having your gun stolen is not an "intended delivery" of it.

Right, but if it's stolen, and then resold on the black market, then I-594 has not kept a firearm out of the wrong hands. There haven't been any prosecutions, but possession of a stolen firearm is a crime. If someone is knowingly in possession of a stolen firearm, and the state tries to prosecute that case under this law, a lawyer could, perhaps, make a 5th Amendment argument, because this law is punishing someone for not providing evidence of a crime.

That's also why criminals can't get in trouble for not registering their guns.

Though in the case of the flare gun, if it were used in an emergency situation, you'd have a strong case that the transfer was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Not necessarily, because it depends on the type of emergency.

Once someone purchases a flare gun, no one else is allowed to touch it without a background check.

Now, is it just the ambiguity that bothers you (in which case, you're ok with the concept of the legislation and you just want the language tightened up) or is it the whole expansion of background checks that bothers you (in which case, no amount of tightening would appease you)?

It's both.

I don't believe that if a friend from Oklahoma with a concealed pistol license comes up here, I should have to drive for an hour and pay $30 to loan him a pistol to carry while he's up here and then drive for an hour and pay $30 to get it back, because that's what this law entails. Or, if I have a friend who is being stalked, and wants to borrow a pistol for a couple of weeks, that burden is absurd. If I want to try out someone else's firearm at the range, that burden is absurd. If I want to loan out a firearm at the range, that burden is absurd. I've been rated an expert shot with a pistol. If I want to teach a friend some techniques, I can't pick up his gun to do so. It also really can't prevent a straw purchase. If a felon wants a gun, it's probably pretty easy to steal one from the Seattle police department.

It's also how poorly written it is.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Right, but if it's stolen, and then resold on the black market, then I-594 has not kept a firearm out of the wrong hands.

I-594 is not designed to protect against weapons being stolen or being resold on the black market. It's designed to curtail weapons being sold through normal (i.e. otherwise legal channels) to people who aren't supposed to have them.

I don't believe that if a friend from Oklahoma with a concealed pistol license comes up here, I should have to drive for an hour and pay $30 to loan him a pistol to carry while he's up here and then drive for an hour and pay $30 to get it back, because that's what this law entails. Or, if I have a friend who is being stalked, and wants to borrow a pistol for a couple of weeks, that burden is absurd.

How can you verify that your friends are legally allowed to posses these weapons? Because they told you that they are?

If I want to try out someone else's firearm at the range, that burden is absurd. If I want to loan out a firearm at the range, that burden is absurd. I've been rated an expert shot with a pistol. If I want to teach a friend some techniques, I can't pick up his gun to do so.

According to how I read the law, temporary transfers at a range are exempt.