IF 594 passes

[Seriona]

What exactly is in place that WOULD stop someone from selling their own firearm without using an FFL? It seems if it is passed, it would be completely impossible to stop this.

 

[Alpine]

What exactly is in place that WOULD stop someone from selling their own firearm without using an FFL? It seems if it is passed, it would be completely impossible to stop this.

Absolutely nothing. Many police acknowledge this.

The real ways it would be enforced would be by anti-gun deputy prosecutors trolling youtube and facebook and looking for videos of friends out target shooting where they hand each other guns, then get charged.

Also, widows and surviving family will be charged when they find guns and ignorantly attempt to "register" them but do so after the arbitrary 60 day mark and rack up a misdemeanor for first offense, felony for subsequent ones, all sequenced PER firearm.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

It appears to be an unfunded initiative. It creates "new crime" and will fund itself by prosecuting Citizens to pay for its needs. Self perpetuating tyranny.

 

[jt59]

I was thinking the same thing, except I think it's physical possession...if I gift something to someone now, or in 6 months if a law is passed, how will anyone know the difference.

 

[Seriona]

Absolutely nothing. Many police acknowledge this.

The real ways it would be enforced would be by anti-gun deputy prosecutors trolling youtube and facebook and looking for videos of friends out target shooting where they hand each other guns, then get charged.

Also, widows and surviving family will be charged when they find guns and ignorantly attempt to "register" them but do so after the arbitrary 60 day mark and rack up a misdemeanor for first offense, felony for subsequent ones, all sequenced PER firearm.

The Facebook/Youtube thing would be useless because I bet one could easily lie and it would be (technically) an invasion of privacy.

 

[Alpine]

Lie in what way?

Two people can't both own the gun, so unless they are immediate family which can be proven or disproven easily, at least one or both are guilty automatically.

 

[Seriona]

Lie in what way?

Two people can't both own the gun, so unless they are immediate family which can be proven or disproven easily, at least one or both are guilty automatically.

Just change where you live on Facebook and on Youtube, just don't say where you are.

 

[Alpine]

If there were any recognizable landmarks that wouldn't work. Also, if they questioned you to be sure you'd have to commit perjury.

But that's mostly irrelevant. The people caught by this likely won't know anything about it and will have no idea that 594 causes this.

 

[acmariner99]

I think even those who wrote this monstrosity know it is unenforceable. What concerns me is how it would be used:

1) Political weapon against gun owners - prosecute a few to make a point
2) Push reliance on government for those who may become victims of violence
3) Create a bunch of rules that either put compliant gun owners on a list for the next law or encourage them to voluntarily disarm

It comes down to how willing law enforcement will be to enforce the initiative if it passes.

 

[Spooler41]

If I-594 passes

I -594 will only be as effective as the persons who care enough to self report their transgressions.
I-594 is almost unenforceable.

.................. Just my opinion , Jack

 

[Whitney]

Respectufully Disagree

Lie in what way?

Two people can't both own the gun, so unless they are immediate family which can be proven or disproven easily, at least one or both are guilty automatically.

In the legal sense, yes more than one person can own the same gun. As an example all of my firearms are included in a family trust to which my spouse and children are the equal owners.

~Whitney

 

[Alpine]

In the legal sense, yes more than one person can own the same gun. As an example all of my firearms are included in a family trust to which my spouse and children are the equal owners.

~Whitney

And do you think that describes the common gun owner in WA? Or even a plurality among them?

 

[Whitney]

NO

And do you think that describes the common gun owner in WA? Or even a plurality among them?

While I agree with you that was not the stated question.

It is entirely possible for more than one person to own the same firearm.

~Whitney

 

[Alpine]

While I agree with you that was not the stated question.

It is entirely possible for more than one person to own the same firearm.

~Whitney

Sure. And that will be your burden to prove once a rabid prosecutor has targeted you using 594.

 

[Whitney]

Your making my argument for me.

Sure. And that will be your burden to prove once a rabid prosecutor has targeted you using 594.

It is for the exact reasons you have pointed out that makes this such a bad proposal.

The proposed law even states that you must "knowingly violatet it". What the hell does that mean?

"I" know I am not violating it in the example given because of my family trust. I have done my due dillegence how would you legaly hold me to the law?

Not trying to be argumentative with you, this is a real life scenario law abiding citizens may find themselves in.

Regarding the knowingly violate clause; I had the same conversation with Drew Hanson you are having with me. Finally I told him I did not believe ingorance of the law was a defense, He has not replied for going on six weeks now.

I would welcome discussion with rationale to repeal or overturn if this comes to fruition.

~Whitney

 

[Alpine]

Good discussion. While you may have done your due diligence you might have a he'll of a time proving that and face a prosecutor who will wring you through the system until the very last minute anyway, costing you time, anguish, money and unwanted public attention.

I also agree about the "knowing" standard being much lower than usual law and it will cause a lot of confusion and issues.

 

[Sparky508]

Waguns.org becomes Idahoguns.org and Seattleguns.org becomes portlandguns.org. $50 FFL transfer or $50 fuel bill?

 

[davidmcbeth]

What exactly is in place that WOULD stop someone from selling their own firearm without using an FFL? It seems if it is passed, it would be completely impossible to stop this.

Hey , stop pointing out the uselessness of gun laws !

Supposed to be a secret.

 

[Seriona]

If there were any recognizable landmarks that wouldn't work. Also, if they questioned you to be sure you'd have to commit perjury.

But that's mostly irrelevant. The people caught by this likely won't know anything about it and will have no idea that 594 causes this.

I believe Perjury by legal terms means you got caught lying under oath. But I get the point you are making. But once again, it would be so easy to do.

 

[Alpine]

I believe Perjury by legal terms means you got caught lying under oath. But I get the point you are making. But once again, it would be so easy to do.

To be sure they'd drag you into court and fight you the whole way that's where the perjury comes in.

Of course you could always plead the 5th but that would work in their favor if they convinced a jury or judge the video was shot in WA.