SBs and instructors who routinely offer loaner rifles to Appleseed shooters should cease doing so immediately due to the passage of I594. Under this new law, loaning a rifle to anyone not meeting the narrow and vague exceptions listed under the law can result in you being prosecuted. Under I594, loaning a rifle to a shooter is a transfer, defined as follows:
"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.
Before such transfer can take place, the recipient must report to a FFL and submit to a background check. When returning the rifle to the loaner (you), the loaner must report to a FFL and submit to a background check, even though it is your own rifle being returned to you. The first violation is a gross misdemeanor. The second violation is a class C felony. Care to be a test case?
SBs should include a warning to instructors to not bring loaner rifles to Washington AS events. Getting arrested at an Appleseed for violating this law wouldn't just be a serious problem for the loaner or shooter you loan the rifle to, it would be bad publicity for Appleseed. A note should be added to Eventbrite listings of Washington Appleseeds to advise shooters that loaner rifles will NOT be provided due to this idiotic law.
From now on, when participating in an Appleseed event in Washington, my loaner rifles stay at home. I suggest you do the same.
This is something I have been questioning for quite some time now.
Aside from the local laws involved what are the liability issues we (as the "Loaner") would/could face if a Rifle we loan has a malfunction and injures the Shooter?
I may be wrong but I believe this was discussed somewhere here on the forum. I just can't locate it right now.
I stopped "Loaning" about two years ago because of my concerns.
Now to add I'm from NEW YORK!
Ever hear of the NY SAFE Act?
It's destroying us.
I guess that says it all.
If you as an AS volunteer loan a rifle to an AS student at an AS event, IMO you are covered by our insurance should a question of liability for an injury arise.
It's not over yet. The page tracking the results for this initiative (http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-594-Concerns-background-checks-for-firearm-sales-and-transfers.html) says 100% but that's just referring to the summation of processed votes, not the completeness of the overall tally.
Rural counties are *much* slower to report. Not to mention that there are a huge number of voters that respond by mail (Including myself). If we look at the reporting page (http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html) as of 0800 PST the results are 12 hours stale. I can't say with confidence that our rural counties would swing us back the other way, but I've seen it happen before.
It's far too early for Chicken Little to make an appearance.
And Fred, regarding liability at a shoot for loaned firearms; to me the "opinion" has the opposite effect of reassurance. I've only loaned my rifles to previous acquaintances at events and, barring explicit confirmation, that's unlikely to change.
EDIT: typo corrections
One more item to be aware of as SB or instructor: Under I594, a transfer also includes an instructor taking a shooter's rifle to diagnose or fix a malfunction, do a sight adjustment or clean/lube it even if the "transfer" is just for a few minutes. Unless you are a licensed gunsmith, you can't take the rifle and work on it, adjust sights or clean it--handling a shooter's rifle is a transfer. You've just violated the law. This is going to be a tough issue for us in Washington, since we aren't going to be able to handle a rifle that doesn't belong to us.
The best we can do is supervise a shooter while s/he works on their sights or rifle malfunction, or lubricates it, etc. On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing.
Quote from: Fixer on November 05, 2014, 12:03:04 PM
It's not over yet. The page tracking the results for this initiative (http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-594-Concerns-background-checks-for-firearm-sales-and-transfers.html) says 100% but that's just referring to the summation of processed votes, not the completeness of the overall tally.
Rural counties are *much* slower to report. Not to mention that there are a huge number of voters that respond by mail (Including myself). If we look at the reporting page (http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html) as of 0800 PST the results are 12 hours stale. I can't say with confidence that our rural counties would swing us back the other way, but I've seen it happen before.
It's far to early for Chicken Little to make an appearance.
And Fred, regarding liability at a shoot for loaned firearms; to me the "opinion" has the opposite effect of reassurance. I've only loaned my rifles to previous acquaintances at events and, barring explicit confirmation, that's unlikely to change.
With a margin of 60% to 40% it is highly unlikely there are enough mail in ballots out there to make a big enough swing to overcome the vast population difference in the urban counties. Don't forget, many of those mail in ballots are coming from those counties, not just the ones outside the Puget Sound basin. If my warning turns out to be a "Chicken Little" reaction, I will cheerfully eat said chicken and smile while I do it.
Kenjo,
Where are you getting your information? This is a direct quote from the text of the initiative (emphasis mine):
"Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check."
Source: https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/OnlineVotersGuide/Measures?countyCode=xx&electionId=54#ososTop
Quote from: Fixer on November 05, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Kenjo,
Where are you getting your information? This is a direct quote from the text of the initiative (emphasis mine):
"Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check."
Source: https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/OnlineVotersGuide/Measures?countyCode=xx&electionId=54#ososTop
I'll highlight the parts you left out:
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (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; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearmAre your loaner rifles
kept at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body.... What does "kept at..." mean? If the event is held on private property, does it qualify as "an established shooting range authorized by the governing body..."? Not likely. Also, last time I checked Appleseed is not a competition, so it wouldn't qualify.
If you choose to interpret the law differently, more power to you. Do you have faith that your prosecuting attorney and judge will agree with your interpretation? Are you willing to be a test case? If so, may the force be with you and I hope for the best for you. As for me, I'm done with providing loaner rifles. If a shooter comes with a rifle with crappy sights or rifle so dirty or broken that it doesn't work, well, that's too bad. I'll work with the shooter with lousy sights to teach them the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship and let them do the best they can with what they have. If nothing else, they can still dry practice! Meanwhile, I'll make darn sure they hear the history and, hopefully, acquire an appreciation for our marksmanship history and what they need to do to help save our sinking ship.
I fully appreciate where you're coming from. My "Where are you getting your information.." question was not meant to be inflammatory. I didn't "leave (anything) out" intentionally, that's the text as quoted from the source I provided. I don't see the verbiage you quoted anywhere on that page. Presumably it's from the full content of the initiative?
If so, that's an egregious simplification in the official Explanatory Statement.
The bit about Appleseed being a competition doesn't matter. The comma separation makes them three discrete items.
Am I willing to be a test case? You bet I am. I can't espouse Freedom and Liberty with the caveat "But only one weekend a month!"
Expansion of government aside, I doubt the legality:
There are two prohibitions on registration. The first is in the 1986 FOPA http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926):
Quote:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
The second is in the Brady Act, Section 103(i):
Quote:
No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may (...) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.
Let's just hope that both of us are blustering about something that will be ultimately unnecessary.
If you get called on it, Challenge in court. Hopefully you get a judge that's been to an Appleseed, he sees how idiotic it is to require nics check every time you want to use your own rifle to teach someone to shoot and you're standing right there the whole time, and some common sense can be injected. Or move to Alaska, we'd love having ya on the line! ;)
It's a crappy, overbearing, backdoor law to fix a non existent problem. I'm angry that we couldn't drum up enough support for Liberty and Freedom to stand against this tyranny and I pray that it is overturned. That said, I agree with Fixer. This doesn't apply to what we do:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20594.pdf
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners; doesn't apply
(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; most WA ranges are designated ranges so we are exempt
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; I could argue that since we shoot 'for score' we are a competition but since (ii) applies we shouldn't have to
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or Youth loaners are okay even if (ii) didn't apply
(v) 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, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; ordoesn't apply
So, the worst case scenario is a DAR in WA state where the temporary transferee isn't a youth. Since the first offence is a misdemeanor I'm willing to be a case study.
The text I quoted is from the actual text of the initiative on the state's website, listing the initiatives (attached). I can't find the web site now, so I attached the copy I downloaded when it was first published. Yes, the ballot description left out a few details. The proponents sold it purely as a background check on sales and the compliant media didn't examine it very closely. As to our ranges being "established gun ranges", etc., I don't know what that means. The Stevenson range might be considered an "established" range, but as far as I know there is no written authorization from the county commissioners. The Castle Rock range was on private property, therefore not qualifying. Other vague wording, such as the firearm being "kept" at an established range...does that mean only for the duration of the loan, or does it refer to a range that stores firearms on site. There are too many aspects of this law that are vague enough that an interpretation could go in your favor, or against it. As I said, you are free to interpret the 18 page law as you wish. Bear in mind that the King County prosecutor and governor actively supported I594 and participated in the victory party. How do think they will interpret it?
If you are willing to risk your rights and family's financial security to be a test case (I sincerely hope you do not) that is your choice.
Thanks, Kenjo, I am sure the reason the whole eighteen pages of the intiative weren't on the ballot, nor in the pamphlet was to fool the voters into thinking this initiative would save a future victim. I am also sure that it won't be overturned unless in court, I can only make political statements from 1775. Don't fire unless fired upon.
Years back, MD passed similar poorly written laws regarding transfer of rifles and magazines over a certain size. We adhere to the mag restriction still, but someone had the smarts to write the state AG to get an opinion on the rifle transfer question. Suggest someone in WA should do the same. Any rationale AG will understand likely issue an opinion in favor of your position.. My 02.. BeSwift
Quote from: BeSwift on November 05, 2014, 09:30:07 PM
Years back, MD passed similar poorly written laws regarding transfer of rifles and magazines over a certain size. We adhere to the mag restriction still, but someone had the smarts to write the state AG to get an opinion on the rifle transfer question. Suggest someone in WA should do the same. Any rationale AG will understand likely issue an opinion in favor of your position.. My 02.. BeSwift
A good discussion group to get into regarding gun rights in Washington is wa-ccw@yahoogroups.com. There is lots of discussion going on there about the next steps. The Second Amendment Foundation is investigating the various legal avenues to challenge this law. It should, and will, be challenged and overturned, at least the most obvious infringements and "cruel and unusual punishments" involved, but those questions will likely be decided in court. The same folks who rammed through I594 are already talking about "the next step." It's going to be a long fight.
one of my better thoughts as I mulled the mess today, was that I and my loaner rifle are going to be border crossing more often, and the other was that it was good to be rid of the king, old King George the Third, since England is much stupider than real Americans. One would have thought the Constitution of the United States ruled, but then no one really can read ancient English. They are all texting.