Thursday, October 30, 2014

More I-594 lies

Barron sent me this:
So, the entire "Yes on I-594" crowd's collective pants spontaneously combusted.

Let's take these latest flat-out lies in order, shall we?

1. "No mandatory waiting periods"
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer may not deliver any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until the earlier of:
(1) The results of all required background checks are known and the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal or state law; or
(2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days.
Since under current Washington state and  Federal law the sale goes forward after five days, they lie. They will probably deny it, since you can still make the transfer immediately if you have a WA Concealed Pistol License and/or the "instant" check goes through instantaneously, but still, they have moved the end point.

2. "No registry of gun owners"
Not explicitly addressed.
Sales forms are filled out in triplicate, and sent to the local CLEO. ("Chief Law Enforcement Officer.")
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended.
And we don't know what rules the bureaucrats will adopt, do we?

But wait!  While Section 10 of the thing exempts non-dealers from state sales tax, background checks are subject to state use tax! And since they will know who the "transferor" was...

3. "No change to hunting laws or firearms safety training."
We've covered this one over and over again.
If the law says that a background check has to be made every time a firearms changes hands, with narrow exemptions,  then that impacts how forearms safety training can be conducted.

Since Section 3 (f) (ii) says
...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 ...
I suppose that means that my Friendly Local Gun Shop & Range will be able to continue to conduct training, with their guns. But we'll have to cease conducting Home Firearms Safety classes at Gun Shows, I won't be able to conduct a Basic or First Steps Pistol class, since even if this is done at a range, it usually involves handing the student's or instructor's pistol back and forth, demonstrating and adjusting grips, etc.

I'm not sure if this would also impact the Washington State Hunters Safety Field Skills Certification, I haven't taken it (exempt, military) so I don't know if the circumstances fall under this pile of crap law or not.

Speaking of hunting... Section 3 (f) (v) says
...while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm...
which means that I can borrow a rifle but I have to hand it back before I get within (IIRC) 150 feet of a road or creek or "No Hunting" posted fence line...

So, again, Ballot Initiative 594 is a poorly written, ill-defined, vague and contradictory pile of excrement. The more I read this garbage the harder it is to believe that it was so poorly done out of incompetence. Hanlon's razor (Wikipedia link) applies, I suppose, but then again, as constantly bombarded as we are with assaults on our gun rights, it is getting harder and harder not recite  
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.


Texas TopCat said...

Good comments. The problem is of course immediately important to people that live in WA, however, should it pass it will be used to set a president for the rest of the country. The "mommies" will be out to bully the rest of us.

NotClauswitz said...

Liars deserve no quarter! They should feel the pain of lying.

D.W. Drang said...

Texas Top Cat: Exactly. Expect to see it even if it does fail here.

It is my understanding that the one percenters back I594 already have similar legislation queued up in Nevada and (IIRC) Arizona.

Anonymous said...

D.W. Drang.

Yup. "They" are currently circulating a petition here in NV to have a similar initiative on the 2016 ballot. 101,xxx signature required. 27,xxx thousand from each of the 4 congressional districts. Hoping they can't raise the numbers to where they want them but you never know.