In the recent past there have been various attempts at introducing universal bkgd checks for gun buyers in WA State. It started out with HB 1588; this bill had more than one revision. At one time concealed pistol license holders were exempt and the buyer was to request a bkgd check from the police. Turns out that some county sheriffs will not supply a bkgd check (I called to ask) and a CPL costs $60. Eventually the bill became Initiative 594. It failed to get through the House Judiciary Committee even though the Chair was supportive. It’s due to appear on the November ballot. The text is here;
http://ift.tt/1pnWCOr
The Washington Association for Gun Responsibility is the major force behind the bill. http://ift.tt/1kIx2zW I communicated with them occasionally when they were trying to push HB 1588 and I-594 through the House in Olympia. I support bkgd checks for all (not a popular position with many gun owners) but not the way the WAGR wants to do it. I found the WAGR to be as arrogant as the NRA and just as aggressive in hitting up people for money. They were reluctant to admit to any errors made (such as I-594 is not a registration scheme) and seem to be loath to hear input from WA residents.
I-594 requires that a anyone who receives a firearm (with some exceptions) obtain a bkgd check from an FFL (federal firearm licensee) prior to the actual transfer. An FFL is not allowed to use NICS unless making a sale from their inventory, so they are required to follow all federal regulations when facilitating the transfer including keeping a record of the sale. I-594 defines a transfer as “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.” This means if I hand one of my guns to a person to let him or her try it out at the range, I’ve transferred it to them.
There are some exceptions to transfers requiring a bkgd check. Antique firearms are exempt, as are transfers between immediate family members (as defined) which are a bona fide gift, temporary transfers to prevent imminent death, LEO on duty, gunsmith receiving guns for repair. An exception is also made for guns stored at established shooting ranges, at organized competitions, for training children and for those who inherit. I’m not certain why transfers to kids are allowed with fewer restrictions.
I-594 allows an FFL to charge a “fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred….”. Kind of a broad statement; previous versions had a dollar amount. As far as I can tell there is no requirement that the FFL actually facilitate the transfer at all. I know one FFL that charges $100 for a transfer that is not a sale from his inventory or a consignment. For some people this initiative is just a way to prohibit private sales or at least make them much more expensive.
The way this will most affect me is during my volunteer work at the local gun club. When I work as a range safety officer I typically bring a few guns along to shoot. I frequently offer new shooters the chance to shoot some of my firearms if they are not comfortable with whatever their spouse/friend bought to the range. If I-594 passes I will not be able to do this legally unless I’m permitted to store my guns at the club (not currently allowed by club policy). The club sponsors family fun days so that persons who want to learn more about firearms can come by and shoot. Club members supply their personal firearms. This will also be prohibited unless we turn the event into a competition.
I-594 is aimed at law abiding gun owners and future gun owners. It does nothing to improve reporting of data to NICS. Ask just about any legal gun owner what kind of threat it is to let a friend try a few rounds through their gun and you will probably get a funny look from them.
Not all of the WA police are pleased to see the initiative on the ballot. http://ift.tt/1qlVOHQ . I’ve also read that WACOPS does not support I-594.
The initiative is getting lots of press, good and bad. I think it won't pass in November.
Ranb
http://ift.tt/1pnWCOr
The Washington Association for Gun Responsibility is the major force behind the bill. http://ift.tt/1kIx2zW I communicated with them occasionally when they were trying to push HB 1588 and I-594 through the House in Olympia. I support bkgd checks for all (not a popular position with many gun owners) but not the way the WAGR wants to do it. I found the WAGR to be as arrogant as the NRA and just as aggressive in hitting up people for money. They were reluctant to admit to any errors made (such as I-594 is not a registration scheme) and seem to be loath to hear input from WA residents.
I-594 requires that a anyone who receives a firearm (with some exceptions) obtain a bkgd check from an FFL (federal firearm licensee) prior to the actual transfer. An FFL is not allowed to use NICS unless making a sale from their inventory, so they are required to follow all federal regulations when facilitating the transfer including keeping a record of the sale. I-594 defines a transfer as “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.” This means if I hand one of my guns to a person to let him or her try it out at the range, I’ve transferred it to them.
There are some exceptions to transfers requiring a bkgd check. Antique firearms are exempt, as are transfers between immediate family members (as defined) which are a bona fide gift, temporary transfers to prevent imminent death, LEO on duty, gunsmith receiving guns for repair. An exception is also made for guns stored at established shooting ranges, at organized competitions, for training children and for those who inherit. I’m not certain why transfers to kids are allowed with fewer restrictions.
I-594 allows an FFL to charge a “fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred….”. Kind of a broad statement; previous versions had a dollar amount. As far as I can tell there is no requirement that the FFL actually facilitate the transfer at all. I know one FFL that charges $100 for a transfer that is not a sale from his inventory or a consignment. For some people this initiative is just a way to prohibit private sales or at least make them much more expensive.
The way this will most affect me is during my volunteer work at the local gun club. When I work as a range safety officer I typically bring a few guns along to shoot. I frequently offer new shooters the chance to shoot some of my firearms if they are not comfortable with whatever their spouse/friend bought to the range. If I-594 passes I will not be able to do this legally unless I’m permitted to store my guns at the club (not currently allowed by club policy). The club sponsors family fun days so that persons who want to learn more about firearms can come by and shoot. Club members supply their personal firearms. This will also be prohibited unless we turn the event into a competition.
I-594 is aimed at law abiding gun owners and future gun owners. It does nothing to improve reporting of data to NICS. Ask just about any legal gun owner what kind of threat it is to let a friend try a few rounds through their gun and you will probably get a funny look from them.
Not all of the WA police are pleased to see the initiative on the ballot. http://ift.tt/1qlVOHQ . I’ve also read that WACOPS does not support I-594.
The initiative is getting lots of press, good and bad. I think it won't pass in November.
Ranb
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1qHWgkP
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire