I have been thinking about this recently and haven't found any discussions on this. I would still be against the initiative, regardless of any exemptions. But, If an exemption was made, in I594, for transfers between current Washington CPL holders, would your opinion of the bill be different? Why wasn't this exemption included in the first place?

Welcome to WaGuns, Lucas!

To answer your question . . . no, having a CPL exemption wouldn't change my opinion on 594. That's because 594 criminalizes so many "transfers" that are completely innocent, including sharing guns at the range, or handing your gun to a buddy AT YOUR HOUSE to show it to him. Simply handing a gun from one person to another will be illegal under 594. You shouldn't need a CPL to do any of the above activities.

If 594 was written more intelligently and was TRULY about gun sales, and if it included a CPL exemption, then I would at least think about it.

Thank you very much for the welcome! I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I also believe the bill was written poorly and in favor of opening channels for more anti-gun legislation. If passed, the next thing on the pro-gun agenda should be (if a repeal on unconstitutional grounds doesn't happen) to get the ball rolling on an amendment to put in the CPL exemption.

Here's some fodder for educating the undecided. Please share widely. I hope to have another one uploaded this evening, so if you subscribe o the channel you'll get those updates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-UIjGHHDVI

Remember people are starting to receive their voter's pamphlet and ballots soon. They will start voting and sending in those ballots any day. It's important to reach people who don't understand the issue and set them straight before they follow some half-baked idea or deceitful propaganda.

I figure if it is law, they will start writing more things into it like a registration requirement in order to meet the intent of 594. If you do not have that component, how do you know who the owner was, and if it has changed hands without the check? Like I said before, to control freaks, 594 is a gateway drug.

Did anyone happen to look at the front page of this Sunday's paper (about lead exposure)? If not, you should.

Maybe it's just me, but I think the timing of having such a HUGE multi-page piece on lead, and the dangers of lead at a gun range on the front page of this last Sunday's paper strikes me as rather odd. The article is fricken huge. I think it's a "seeding" of "guns are BAD" tactic in the lead-up to the I594 vote.

Funny that they don't mention boo about shotguns, - it's all about handguns.

No way, the media playing ball with liberal democrats? Purely coincidental.

Actually..... if we ever got the CPL/dealer background check situation fixed up, you could argue that a state CPL give you a federal exemption (if it is in 18 USC 922 etc). Anyone who has a "federal exemption" is exempt under 594. Go read it.

I'm not finding that, please point me in the right direction. 594 exempts per 18 USC 922(a) only. For instance, (b) discusses collections, but (a) is dealers only. So not only does 594 NOT exempt State CPLs, it exempts ONLY "dealers", not necessarily the other types of FFLs.

(a) No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business, as follows:
(1) If the applicant is a manufacturer—
(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year;

(B) of firearms other than destructive devices, a fee of $50 per year; or

(C) of ammunition for firearms, other than ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $10 per year.

(2) If the applicant is an importer—
(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year; or

(B) of firearms other than destructive devices or ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices, or ammunition other than armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $50 per year.

(3) If the applicant is a dealer—
(A) in destructive devices or ammunition for destructive devices, a fee of $1,000 per year; or

(B) who is not a dealer in destructive devices, a fee of $200 for 3 years, except that the fee for renewal of a valid license shall be $90 for 3 years.

So.... federal law is silent on private sales, it says where you buy from a dealer, or across state lines, here is what applies.

However, there are specific federal exemptions: licensed persons (FFL01), licensed persons (FFL03) buying C&R.

And.... certain state permits exempt you from the FEDERAL background check requirements. For some reason this has still not been fixed in WA, but the ATF lists it:
https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/fi ... rmit-chart

"Notwithstanding the dates set forth below, permits qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for no more than 5 years from the date of issuance. The permit must be valid under State law in order to qualify as a Brady alternative."

That smells very close to being a SPECIFIC FEDERAL EXEMPTION.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.

594 may have inadvertently opened WA to CPL exemption. that language never existed before in the RCW, and 594 adds it.

That's IF the State get's off their ass and cleans up the language for us to finish being a POC State with the Feds.

Are you admitting that you supported a "flawed" law?

Show me a "perfect" law....

So the POC/CPL issue existing before 594. If 594 exempts CPLs & C&R FFLs (for C&R guns) (which may or may not have been deliberate) that's not a bad thing, because they should have been specifically exempted in the first place.