 |
 |
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:06 am |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forum rules
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 24 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Need help obtaining AG opinion on I-594.
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Location: Edmonds Joined: Fri Jun 7, 2013 Posts: 288 
|
Stokes wrote: I'm not sure you actually understand the mechanics of gun sales. They don't magically appear in stores or police departments without a shipping company. Glock doesn't own a pick up truck that they use to deliver to Washington.  |
| Tue May 26, 2015 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter   Location: Oly Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012 Posts: 1343
|
My apologies... I was multitasking and it wasn't working out....
I see where you're saying all the shipping would be done by USPS. From wholesaler/manufacture, and then from supplier to LEO. All done by USPS, so no need for UPS or FedEx on that. But, this is assuming that USPS employees are exempt from 594, or RCWs in general. Correct? Does a mailman qualify as a 'federal official'? 44 USCS § 3315 It would seem that under RCW 9.41.113 (4)(d) would make it OK for anyone to deliver to a cop shop, but unless the mailman was actually a federal official, I don't know if it'd be legal for him to deliver to a dealer. So, getting the cops on board angle doesn't really work. |
| Tue May 26, 2015 3:09 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Graham Joined: Sun Sep 4, 2011 Posts: 2222
|
The problem is the State's use of the word 'Transfer'.
Quote: (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. There can be no doubt that the carrier is part of the delivery process. However, if the recipient is an FFL, then under RCW 9.41.113 nothing happens. It is exempted. So trying to say that the carriers can't deliver is a non-starter. Working to block the Carriers won't accomplish anything, but tie up court time, and reflect poorly on the Pro Gun movement. I think time would be better used, outlining all the various 'transfers' that could be considered by the wording of the law as it now is, and petitioning the court for clarification on what exactly is covered and what is not under the law. For example, 03FFLs were specifically left out of the wording...does this mean that 03 to 03 transfers, lawful under Federal Law, can not take place in the State of Washington without a background check? If they say "no", this just confirms that the state is overriding federal law and it build the 2A case against them. If they say "yes", then we now know that 03 to 03 is open and clear. Same action with CPL to CPL...which I believe this State now is in compliance with 27 CFR 478.131. from the 4473 wrote: EXCEPTIONS TO NICS CHECK: A NICS check is not required if the transfer qualifies for any of the exceptions in 27 CFR § 478.102(d). Generally these include: (a) transfers where the buyer has presented the licensee with a permit or license that allows the buyer to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, and the permit has been recognized by ATF as a valid alternative to the NICS check requirement; (b) transfers of National Firearms Act weapons approved by ATF; or (c) transfers certified by ATF as exempt because compliance with the NICS check requirements is impracticable. See 27 CFR § 478.102(d) for a detailed explanation. If the transfer qualifies for one of these exceptions, the licensee must obtain the documentation required by 27 CFR § 478.131. A firearm must not be transferred to any buyer who fails to provide such documentation. 27 CFR § 478.102(d) wrote: (d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if— (1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that— (i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm; (ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and (iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information available to such official includes the NICS; (2) The firearm is subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act and has been approved for transfer under 27 CFR part 479; or (3) On application of the licensee, in accordance with the provisions of § 478.150, the Director has certified that compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section is impracticable. Quote: § 478.131 Firearms transactions not subject to a NICS check. (a)(1) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer whose sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm is made pursuant to the alternative provisions of §478.102(d) and is not subject to the NICS check prescribed by §478.102(a) shall maintain the records required by paragraph (a) of this section. (2) If the transfer is pursuant to a permit or license in accordance with §478.102(d)(1), the licensee shall either retain a copy of the purchaser’s permit or license and attach it to the firearms transaction record, Form 4473, or record on the firearms transaction record, Form 4473, any identifying number, the date of issuance, and the expiration date (if provided) from the permit or license. (3) If the transfer is pursuant to a certification by ATF in accordance with §§478.102(d)(3) and 478.150, the licensee shall maintain the certification as part of the records required to be kept under this subpart and for the period prescribed for the retention of Form 5300.35 in §478.129(c). (b) The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other recordkeeping requirements contained in this part. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1140–0045) [T.D. ATF–415, 63 FR 58280, Oct. 29, 1998, as amended by ATF–11F, 73 FR 57242, Oct. 2, 2008] So please do tell me why I, as a CPL holder, must have yet another background check which I am specifically exempted from under several Federal Laws? Oh and on a tangent..... and there was some bullshit about we needed 594 because there was no STATE law forbidding the private sale of a firearm to a criminal..... Quote: RCW 9.41.080 Delivery to ineligible persons. No person may deliver a firearm to any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony, punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. There already was a law on the books. In fact it is STRICTER than 594's would be in a single case. And existed prior to the introduction of 594. And after reading this one...I have ceased to give a fuck anymore. Quote: RCW 9.41.0975 Officials and agencies—Immunity, writ of mandamus. (1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability: (a) For failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful; (b) For preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm; (c) For issuing a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person ineligible for such a license; (d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person eligible for such a license; (e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license or alien firearm license; (f) For errors in preparing or transmitting information as part of determining a person's eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or eligibility for a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license; (g) For issuing a dealer's license to a person ineligible for such a license; or (h) For failing to issue a dealer's license to a person eligible for such a license. (2) An application may be made to a court of competent jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus: (a) Directing an issuing agency to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license wrongfully refused; (b) Directing a law enforcement agency to approve an application to purchase wrongfully denied; (c) Directing that erroneous information resulting either in the wrongful refusal to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license or in the wrongful denial of a purchase application be corrected; or (d) Directing a law enforcement agency to approve a dealer's license wrongfully denied. The application for the writ may be made in the county in which the application for a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license or to purchase a pistol was made, or in Thurston county, at the discretion of the petitioner. A court shall provide an expedited hearing for an application brought under this subsection (2) for a writ of mandamus. A person granted a writ of mandamus under this subsection (2) shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. So if the State, Local Government, or the employees there of, make any errors...and we can not hold them accountable. And we must petition the court for the error to be corrected: Read prove the State/Local government was in error.  That's NOT how it's supposed to work! The Government works for US! So at this point... I'm like Phil Collins....I don't care anymore. And yes this is the entire song...and I never realized until just now how spot on it really is to this situation. Quote: Well you can tell ev'ryone I'm a down disgrace Drag my name all over the place. I don't care anymore. You can tell ev'rybody 'bout the state I'm in You won't catch me crying 'cos I just can't win. I don't care anymore I don't care anymore I don't care what you say I don't play the same games you play. 'Cos I've been talking to the people that you call your friends And it seems to me there's a means to and end. They don't care anymore. And as for me I can sit here and bide my time I got nothing to lose if I speak my mind. I don't care anymore I don't care no more I don't care what you say We never played by the same rules anyway. I won't be there anymore Get out of my way Let me by I got better things to do with my time I don't care anymore I don't care anymore I don't care anymore I don't care anymore Well, I don't care now what you say 'Cos ev'ry day I'm feeling fine with myself And I don't care now what you say Hey I'll do alright by myself 'Cos I know. 'Cos I remember all the times I tried so hard And you laughed in my face 'cos you held all the cards. I don't care anymore. And I really ain't bothered what you think of me 'Cos all I want of you is just a let me be. I don't care anymore D'you hear? I don't care no more I don't care what you say I never did believe you much anyway. I won't be there no more So get out of my way. Let me by I got better things to do with my time I don't care anymore D'you hear? I don't care anymore I don't care no more You listening? I don't care no more No more! You know I don't care no more! _________________ What is a Waterbouget? It is that yellow thing in the middle, below my user name. |
| Tue May 26, 2015 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
 Location: Belfair, WA Joined: Tue Apr 5, 2011 Posts: 667
|
H2obouget wrote: So please do tell me why I, as a CPL holder, must have yet another background check which I am specifically exempted from under several Federal Laws? If the way you interpret federal law is correct, then 9.41.113 should not apply to CPL holders who transfer a gun. Do you think it is worth getting an AG opinion on the matter? Randy |
| Tue May 26, 2015 4:38 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Graham Joined: Sun Sep 4, 2011 Posts: 2222
|
Yes...that was the point.
The same with 03ffls. _________________ What is a Waterbouget? It is that yellow thing in the middle, below my user name. |
| Tue May 26, 2015 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
H2obouget wrote: Oh and on a tangent..... and there was some bullshit about we needed 594 because there was no STATE law forbidding the private sale of a firearm to a criminal..... Quote: RCW 9.41.080 Delivery to ineligible persons. No person may deliver a firearm to any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony, punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. There already was a law on the books. In fact it is STRICTER than 594's would be in a single case. And existed prior to the introduction of 594. .080 is toothless. How do you prove someone had reasonable cause to believe something? |
| Tue May 26, 2015 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Admin   Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52068 Real Name: Steve
|
Everyone, please stay on topic. This is about getting an AG opinion.
_________________ Steve Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation Patriot & Life Member, Gun Owners of America Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition Member, NAGR/NFGR Please support the organizations that support all of us. Leave it cleaner than you found it. |
| Tue May 26, 2015 10:12 pm |
|
|
|
 Location: Arlington, Wa Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 Posts: 935
|
Anything ever come from this?
|
| Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
Location: Belfair, WA Joined: Tue Apr 5, 2011 Posts: 667
|
Nothing. I was not able to find anyone who was able to get their Senator or Representative to ask for an opinion from the AG and actually get one. Last I heard the AG was refusing to write an opinion just in case the people who sued him over the initiative appealed their loss. Anyone know if the SAF has appealed yet? All I've been able to see is this; https://www.saf.org/?p=6334
I wrote to my county commissioners in Mason County and she got in contact with the local prosecuting attorney back in April; nothing yet. I really don't think anyone wants to have anything to do with new law as long as law enforcement is ignoring it for the most part. Randy |
| Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 24 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|