Defying I-594
On video. You know, you don’t even have to through the dramatics of a sale. Just videotape yourselves handing a gun back and forth. At least, that’s my understanding of the law.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 5th, 2014 at 12:01 am
Wonder if any lawsuits will be filed regarding the law? Be nice as the goal of the measure is to kill shooting culture here in Washington.
December 5th, 2014 at 10:50 am
There is also a secondary goal of making pro-rights, pro-gun folks spend lotsa time, effort and money on fighting, challenging, overturning a law that took very little $$$ to put in place.
Bloomie can fight a war of attrition against gun owners until he runs out of money. How long until people with significantly less resources get tired of playing this game across 50 states? And anywhere the pro-gun side does not play, it loses.
December 5th, 2014 at 12:53 pm
I don’t live in WA, so I don’t really have a puppy in this fight (other than that a wrong that doesn’t affect me is still wrong), but I think it might be fun to try something else.
Take a group of about ten people to a range. (The range will have to be in on this.) Take about ten guns. When Shooter 1 shoots a gun, call the state to run a background check so he can hand it to Shooter 2. Then have Shooter 2 run a background check for Shooter 3, etc.
Coordinate this statewide for a weekend or two. See how much time and money it costs the state.
These things are budgeted. How long will it take to break the budget?
If the state doesn’t like it, what are they going to charge you with, conspiracy to obey the law?
December 5th, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Well the video shows one transfer, which is sufficient for the purpose and minimizes risk.
Under I-594, the first non-compliant transfer is a misdemeanor, and the second is a felony.
By filming just the one, if someone does decide to prosecute and thus expose the entire law to judicial review in the appeals process, the convicted is not permanently harmed in the exercise of their rights.
It would be really interesting to see a misdemeanor conviction make it all the way to the supreme court, however.
December 5th, 2014 at 5:58 pm
old 1811, To “run a background check” you have to fill out all the paperwork. This includes a 4473 and for a handgun the WA state registration. Then a FFL has to call it in and file the WA state registration form.
This costs the good guys a lot more than it does the State of Washington.
December 6th, 2014 at 11:57 am
If you make that film, the Law will know you are trying to make fools of them. They do not take kindly to that. Your only hope of emerging unscathed is some higher-up realizing that prosecuting, and getting it into the media, will make lots of people realize you’re making fools of them.
December 9th, 2014 at 1:49 am
The law says that you do not have to go through the transfer “… if the gun stays at the range.” This would be guns rented at the range or possibly if there are lockers or personal storage at the range.
As I read it, my wife and I cannot go to the range and legally use the same gun without the transfer. There are some other exceptions to the law, but it is still trying to put lipstick on a pig. (I apologize to all pigs. This law is that bad.)