Skip to comments.Washington, State of, Initiative Measure No. 594 filed June 17, 2013
Posted on 10/27/2014 9:32:07 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
Initiative Measure No. 594 filed June 17, 2013 AN ACT Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales and transfers; amending RCW 9.41.010, 9.41.090, 9.41.122, 9.41.124, and 82.12.040; adding new sections to chapter 9.41 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; creating a new section; and prescribing penalties.
(Excerpt) Read more at sos.wa.gov ...
I-594 is a slippery slope law aimed at statewide registration of legal firearms. Proponents say it is only about background checks. If that were true it would not be 18 pages long.
I-591 was written to counteract written to counter act I-594 and actually qualified for the ballot first, that's why it has a lower number. But, 591 has a fatal flaw; it is tied to federal legislation and the state should no be subjected to what comes out of Washington DC when and activist President and activist judges get their way. It is fatally flawed even though it was written with good intentions.
Read the initiatives and make your own decision - I am negative on both.
Hell would freeze over before I voted to allow my name on a national database of gun owners. That’s all I-594 is about. NRA is dead against it. If you’re a gun owner in Washington State don’t be fooled by the double-speak of the liberals sponsoring this measure.
I was thoroughly confused reading I-594 verbage. Like you said, it is too long and confusing. I think it is intentionally written to confuse voters.
Anti-gun warchest now up to $10 million.
I haven't been able to find an answer on the “Gun Show Loophole”. I thought the only gun shows in WA require you to pass the background check to join the group, and then you can buy and sell at the gun shows.
You can buy and sell over the internet (well - sort of a Craigslist for guns). But, it is still illegal to sell to someone that can't have a gun for whatever reason. Not that that stops some sellers - but someone like that isn't going to regard some new law either.
Most of the sellers on the gun web sites say things like “Will need to show me your ID and CCW permit...” etc. to confirm that they are selling to someone legally.
The new law would make it a felony to let my son use my shotgun at the trap range! (Would constitute an illegal “transfer”). The law DOES say it would be okay if my spouse or “significant other” uses it at a “registered” gun range. (No such thing as registration of gun ranges in Washington state. Yet.)
See my post 6 for some explanations. Some cop/lawyer group did a layman’s explanation on some website - but mine are from the actual law. (It is long - but take the time, and realize that a “transfer” means not just selling, but loaning a gun - even at the shooting range! (”Here son, why don’t you try mine - it has less kick.” would be a felony.)
Oh, by the way, I think it is two felonies like this (maybe just one), and you would be illegal for you to own a weapon, and they would confiscate them.
594 WOULD allow letting a legal hunter use your gun while in the process of hunting, not even in your family.(!?)
It would NOT let your daughter (or anyone else) use your gun for protection unless the danger was “imminent”. (Does that mean that only as the guy is attacking you can toss her a gun?) I know it sure doesn’t mean “Here honey, borrow my gun until you get your alarm system put in on your new house.”
You can gift a gun to a close relative without a background check, but you can’t sell or trade one to a close relative without the check (and fee).
Bill Gates and I think Balmer too. IIRC it was Balmer that supports this bill, and he is right now in some difficulties as he is buying a Sherman tank, and says the rules he is running up against in the sale are unfair!
oops - it is Paul Allen that is trying to buy the tank. He only chipped in half-a-mill to the I-594 campaign. (All those MS billionaires smell the same).
“...it is tied to federal legislation and the state should no be subjected to what comes out of Washington DC when and activist President and activist judges get their way.”
I’m sorry for my previous statement - you are correct - it would be tied to any national laws that might come up. BUT - are there national laws that get bucked by the states? I guess I can think of the legal pot in WA and CO, but the no gay marriage laws sure have been shot down.
While 591 is not a good law, it may be the only way to challenge 594, and bring them both to the courts.
Got my ballot a week ago, and the two gun initiatives are still blank.
I've read each one several times, and I'm still scratching my head trying to make sense of the language.
Each one appears to have carefully camouflaged ulterior motives, and I can't decide how to vote.
I completely missed the part in 591 about including FUTURE federal laws.
If true, that's a definite “NO.”
On 594, I lack the fear of registration that many Freepers have, and I actually support background checks on all buyers.
But the unintended consequences of 594 (or, more likely, the INTENDED consequences) are just anti-gun opportunities waiting to be abused.
And, the fact that 594 was crafted and backed by anti-gun billionaires (just for us, not for them), means they have deliberately designed it to be the first down step on a long icy staircase.
So, probably “NO” for me on 594, too.
The school is roughly 50 miles north of Seattle near a large Indian Reservation.
The perp was a well liked teenage Indian boy who used his Father's .40 caliber handgun.
He texted all his friends to meet him for lunch, then walked in from behind them and opened fire.
Head shots on all 5 friends, I think, 1 dead, 3 critical, one shot in the jaw, so, we are talking permanent brain damage and facial disfigurement.
The perp then killed himself.
I haven't seen polls on the gun initiatives, but this certainly can't help the pro-gun vote.
“...who used his Father’s .40 caliber handgun.”
Under the new gun law, I am guessing that would somehow be considered an illegal “transfer”, and the father would also have a felony.
Not sure on the entire story of this young boy (14 years old), but he was a hunter, and parents had recently bought him a rifle. All of his friends and others say he was a good kid (freshman homecoming king), good grades, etc.
When I was 14 (many years ago) I had access to my guns and my family’s guns all the time. While I did plot revenge on some of my school enemies - never once did I consider using a gun. Homemade bombs, snares in the woods, pits with sharpened stakes - yes. But never considered a gun. Never did make any bombs (well, not for revenge anyways), or the other things. But I did think them out!!
Same story with me.
I grew up next to the Everglades and the great grassland areas in south Florida.
Every one of my friends owned guns, and when we got old enough to drive we went “hunting” every weekend, which means we shot at birds and rats and fish in the canals.
Anyway, the idea that any of us would have taken a gun to school and shot other kids would have been incomprehensible in those days, and for me, still is today.
We Register Cars, Motorcycles and Trucks in this Country and some how, some way, 40,000 People Die in Vehicle related Accidents every Year.
How can that be? LOL
Imagine a crack dealer trading some drug for a couple of stolen guns and the addict saying it's time for a background check ... that ain't gonna happen either.
But what would happen is that if I loaned you a shotgun for a hunting trip, the loan would have to be recorded (unless we want to chance arrest) and the gun would have to be kept in storage for 30 days for a registration check. Then when you bring it back, the exchange would have to be recorded and another 30 day hold performed.
All transaction records are required to be kept on premises at a FFL location. Not in safe storage, not in a vault offsite, but at the dealer location - PERMANENTLY. If an when that dealership goes out of business, for whatever reason, the records become the property of the government. If that isn't national registration, what is?
Thanks for the clear explanation.
The unexamined, unpublicized consequences of 594 appear to be very serious.
Nonetheless, I do support universal background checks for criminal convictions, mental illness, and illegal immigration.
If 594 were a “clean” bill and dealt just with that one issue, I would probably vote “YES.”
But, since 594 also deals with many anti-gun issues, I will vote “NO” or leave it blank.