Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Sat Feb 08, 2025 7:55 am



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar




Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Need help from anyone outside of district 35. 
Author Message
User avatar

Location: Belfair, WA
Joined: Tue Apr 5, 2011
Posts: 667
My district 35 legislators refuse to request an opinion from the AG on I-594 and the AG is using every excuse he can to avoid writing an one.

I want to approach Representative Jinkins to ask that she request an opinion. I would like to limit the opinion to whether or not the employees of commercial shippers like UPS and Fed Ex are exempt from the requirement to obtain a bkgd check prior to accepting transfer of a firearm to ship it. The new law exempts Post Office workers as they are federal employees.

All you need to do is write a letter. which I can help you do I think Jinkins will co-operate. Anyone want to help?

It can be anyone who lives outside of Mason County (district 35) and is interested in getting the AG to issue an opinion. Thanks.

Randy Bragge
ranb40@yahoo.com
(360) 440-5889


Sun May 24, 2015 7:59 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Idaho, Land of the Free
Joined: Wed May 1, 2013
Posts: 22314
Real Name: Vick Lagina
Interesting bit of politics going on here.

While I realize the intent and do not wish to denigrate or dilute your effort, further discussion is requested as I wonder about the efficacy of such efforts ahead of outright repeal of this unconstitutional measure (594). This effort, seems to me to be another step in legitimizing and entrenching that horrendous "law."

_________________
“I really don't care, Margaret." ~JD Vance


Sun May 24, 2015 8:07 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Belfair, WA
Joined: Tue Apr 5, 2011
Posts: 667
I'm trying to show how bad I-594 really is. The law currently says that all transfers "without limitation" require a bkgd check unless exempt. There is no exemption for commercial shippers in WA. If the AG says these people need bkgd checks, then this is one more reason to overturn the law.

Randy


Sun May 24, 2015 8:19 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Idaho, Land of the Free
Joined: Wed May 1, 2013
Posts: 22314
Real Name: Vick Lagina
Thank you for your reasoned response. I live in King county and if you will forward your letter template to me i will read it over with the intent of signing.
jim

(edit: or please provide an outline of points to address>?)

_________________
“I really don't care, Margaret." ~JD Vance


Sun May 24, 2015 9:39 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: White Center
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 6479
I am also willing to help. Please PM if I can assist with anything.


Sun May 24, 2015 10:11 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7252
594 provides an exemption where there is a state or federal exemption in place. I'd suggest you look at 18 USC 922 around the carrier provisions, I couldn't find anything in a 1 minute scan, but there must be a federal exemption in place already because FFLs deliver guns to contract carriers all the time.


Sun May 24, 2015 10:29 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Belfair, WA
Joined: Tue Apr 5, 2011
Posts: 667
I wrote to one of the Mason County Commissioners asking that they request an opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney. I got a reply saying my letter was forwarded to the PA. I got a reply from the PA's office saying they would look into it and get back to me. I was surprised I got that at all; I don't think I'll get anything else.

Here is the letter I wrote to the Commissioner.
Quote:
Below are the questions I hope can be answered in writing by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney.

1.How is a temporary transfer defined?

RCW 9.41.010 defines a transfer, but it does not define a “temporary transfer” as used in 9.41.113(f) when describing transfers between spouses, person at an established shooting range or while hunting.

Is there some sort of time limit involved or is it a question of intent? Since the RCW now say all transfers "without limitation", does this apply even to simply handling or cleaning a gun that belongs to another person?


2. How are the words “kept at all times” defined?

9.41.113(4) lists several exceptions to obtaining a background check prior to a transfer. One of them is 9.41.113(4)(f)(ii) “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;”

Does it mean the gun is kept at the shooting area permanently? Does it mean the owner of the gun is present while it is used by the person to whom it is temporarily transfer and takes it back prior to leaving the shooting area?


3. How are the words “while hunting” defined?

9.41.113(4)(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 and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,”

Does this mean the transfer and subsequent return of the firearm must take place in a Game Management Unit? Does the law currently allow the transfer outside of the GMU as long as the transferee is allowed to possess the firearm and intends to use it for hunting?


4. Are private shipping company employees who are not employed by the government required to obtain a background check prior to accepting a firearm for shipping as allowed by federal law?

9.41.113 says in part; “(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.” Section 4 describes several exceptions to the requirement, but does not make an exception for private shipping companies such as UPS or FedEx.


5. How is firearm possession by two or more unrelated persons who share a home or apartment and are not exempt from the background check requirement affected by RCW 9.41.113?

If the firearms are locked in a common cabinet or safe, or kept unsecured are the house occupants all considered to be owners of the firearms? Do they require a background check prior to occupying the house if they have access to the firearms stored there?


6. How are the terms "fair market value" defined?

9.41.113(3)(e) states; "The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm." I've encountered demands ranging from $20 to $100 from dealers if they are willing to facilitate the transfer at all.


I'm going to assume that the lawsuits will fail like the last one did. If the AG says the new law is as restrictive as I think it is, then we have a better case for overturning it in the legislature in the next few years. I-594 passed based on the lie that it just bkgd checks for gun sales when it obviously was much more than that.

Randy


Tue May 26, 2015 1:16 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: danoh, dennydp, JohnMBrowning, olydemon, scrid2000 and 42 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



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.097s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]