Ridiculous WA State Gun Control Ballot Measure

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen come out of the anti-gun crowd's bag of tricks.

According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Ballot Initiative 594 could make the act of simply lending one’s gun to another person without a background check by a licensed dealer, at a firing range, for example, illegal.
The NRA contends that I-594, if passed, would make it that essentially each time a firearm changes hands, the transfer would have to be processed through a licensed dealer. As a result of the paperwork of almost every temporary transfer, the dealer to dealer must complete the Pistol Transfer Application. A copy of the application “which RCW 9.41.110(9) requires be sent to the Department of Licensing for inclusion in the state database of law-abiding handgun owners,” the NRA says.

I'm actually surprised that WACOPS is against this too. Happily surprised.

The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS) came out against I-594 in a statement over the summer, saying their membership opposed the 18-page initiative. WACOPS says I-594, although marketed as a public safety measure, “will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally. They will continue to ignore the law and engage in black market transactions.”
WACOPS also points to the deluge of background checks, investigations, and arrests law enforcement would have to engage in.
“The restrictive compliance measures for transfers and loans of guns will cause law abiding citizens to unintentionally commit crimes and possibly be convicted of gross misdemeanors or Class C felonies.”

This law will only effect lawful gun owners. It's absurd. Can't take friends or family to the range without paperwork. Can't let a buddy borrow a hunting rifle or shotgun. I can't imagine how they would even begin to enforce such nonsense. I'm thinking this would also make anyone wanting to shoot that was under 18 unable. 21 for handguns.

I can usually empathize with people that want certain restrictions, but I can't see anyone thinking this is actually going to help public safety. It just seems like a blatant screw you to gun owners/enthusiasts. I don't agree with it but certainly understand why people want background checks for ACTUAL firearm transfers between citizens. It is a little bothersome to know that anyone with $ can pick something up under the radar, but this is a needles encroachment on 2nd Amendment rights.

Link

America and their guns... sigh....

a reply to: misscurious

We are rather awesome aren't we?

I get that you don't like guns, but imagine this being something else. Imagine having to transfer ownership of a car or kitchen knife for someone else to use it. You amy disagree with owning guns, but do you really think it's going to solve any problems to inundate lawful owners with paperwork just to borrow a gun at the range? Should I really be getting in trouble when I (a lawful gun owner) allow a friend (a lawful gun owner) to shoot one of my guns when I'm with him at the range?

No disrespect but I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

I say good intentions, but poor execution in the idea.
I don't have anything against gun owners letting other people use their guns, been there done that.

originally posted by: misscurious
No disrespect but I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Then why comment?

a reply to: Domo1

I agree with you, this is needless.
I think it might be an issue in some stupid little definition, article, or word-choice buried in the legislation, some funny language that is a bit broad, and needs to be narrowed.

at a range it should be allowed, you should not be able to take a loaned gun home with you though.

a reply to: Domo1

I can see why wacops would be against it. It's unenforceable.

This would be a bad, bad law. Which few, if any, would comply with. I certainly wouldn't.

As a responsible gun owner, I would never loan out one of my weapons to a neighbour, friend, or family member.

If that weapon gets misused, I am responsible for it, and then have to turn around and live with myself knowing that someone might have lost their life because of my irresponsibility.

No thanks.

a reply to: CranialSponge

You wouldn't let your buddy shoot your gun at the gun range with you right next to him?

You wouldn't take your significant other to the range if they didn't own their own?

a reply to: Domo1

You wouldn't let your buddy shoot your gun at the gun range with you right next to him?

You wouldn't take your significant other to the range if they didn't own their own?

With me right next to them controlling the usage of that weapon is a different story.

But I would never loan out one of my weapons where I wasn't present to control the situation.

a reply to: Domo1

Instead of going overboard with this law, they should have made it so that you cannot loan out a firearm unless you are present at its time of usage.

But instead, they go to the extremes with this crap, completely killing the good intentions behind the idea.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I don't entirely agree, but I see your point. Lending a gun to someone can be a bit sketchy. There are people I wouldn't hesitate to loan out anything I own, and some that I wouldn't want to even handle when I'm present and have checked the thing multiple times.

I still don't think the responsibility should lie with the owner unless the owner knowingly allows someone that is not legally allowed to posses a gun a gun (awkward sentence, feeling lazy).

I'm all for laws. I like laws.

This is one of my favorite laws.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I say we should enforce the law.

a reply to: misscurious
Yep. It's our right to own them so that we can hunt, sport-shoot, protect ourselves from thugs, government included. We like being prepared. A gun is a very important tool to have, and anyone who has them should keep them locked in a safe and also use trigger locks.

I really, really want to believe what Breitbart and the NRA say. They've never said anything that wasn't true. Ever.

I am so confused though, when I read this:

According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Ballot Initiative 594 could make the act of simply lending one’s gun to another person without a background check by a licensed dealer, at a firing range, for example, illegal.

Then I see this:

Furthermore, the initiative would render it illegal to hand off a firearm to people outside a person's immediate family, though exceptions are mentioned, including situations in which people are at a shooting range or hunting.

Source

So I had to be sure that one of these sources wasn't lying to me. That never happens, sources don't lie. So I found the text of the initiative:

(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer
...
(4) This section does not apply to:
(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

But...the NRA said the exact opposite...

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: misscurious
Yep. It's our right to own them so that we can hunt, sport-shoot, protect ourselves from thugs, government included. We like being prepared. A gun is a very important tool to have, and anyone who has them should keep them locked in a safe and also use trigger locks.

Especially law enforcement. Those people shouldn't be running around with guns on their hips, they should keep them at the station under lock and key. I think statistics would back me up if I say that you are more likely to be shot by law enforcement than anyone else.

I posted about this last month-here on what you need to know about it. This needs more attention to know what is really going on. Such as but not limited to:

"It obviously concerns me when very wealthy people try to buy an election," he said. -the chairman of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Alan Gottlieb

The counter initiative is-

What is Initiative 591?

This initiative, by the chairman Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Alan Gottlieb, would prevent the state of Washington from adopting background checks that go beyond the current national standard. This campaign however, has only raised just over $1 million dollars.

Protects against illegal search and seizure

Wouldn't be surprised if Bloomburg is involved in this somehow, right up his alley. Be prepared because this sounds like just a tiny scraping of what we got shoved through here in NYS. Well ours made alot of us felons overnight but.. I have a feeling if they can't get major federal gun law changes passed they will roll out smaller increments nationwide 1 state at a time. Good luck to you's. Here in NYS we cannot even loan a round 1 round of ammo at a range or hunting because of the ammo law that was included in our (UN)SAFE ACT.

Yeah, I can just hear gang members and thugs saying to each other they can't loan their assortments of weapons without first complying with this new law, Yeah, that is going to help stop crime.

The anti gun crowd isn't doing these things to help anyone though, it is being done to eliminate any danger to those officials who willfully subvert a free country, and they do this out of guilt of what they do, because they know that these acts are evil. (not because anyone is actually coming for them armed, but guilt makes them fear this.)

When people do great evil, it is instinctive to feel guilty and run and hide from it, (a natural Darwin trait? yeah keep on believing that, see if it helps), and this is what people should watch for if they want to expose these scumbags.