All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Friday, January 2, 2015

New firearm regulations from I-594

Two new sections of Washington state firearms regulations RCW 9.41 are key to knowing the onerous changes 594 is laying on us.  594 wasn't about saving people's lives; it was about complicating gun ownership.

"All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.  -- New section RCW 9.41.113 (1)"

The key word in that section is transfer.  Normally, if I was selling a firearm, I would expect the transfer to occur when I exchanged the firearm for money.  If I was just handing my firearm over to someone else to look at and hand back to me, I wouldn't consider that a transfer.

This is not so in Washington state anymore.  Initiative 594 caused the state definition to change: "'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.' --  RCW 9.41.010, section (25)" 

If someone else merely handles your firearm in Washington state, you are both guilty of a misdemeanor or felony (see RCW 9.41.115).  The clear intent of I-594 is to impede common interest in firearms through trickery.

~~~~~~~~

I-594 supporters tried to conceal a provision of 594 -- the requirement the state maintain a database that is tantamount to mandatory registration of all firearms (not just pistol) transfers.  The requirement that all purchasers be approved via background check, and recorded in the state database, as required by I-594 Section 5 c (2) (a) and (b).  This constitutes an entirely separate requirement, therefore violating the single subject law on initiatives, as required by the Washington State Constitution, Article II, section 19. 
Article 2 of the Washington State Constitution describes the whole legislative process; Section 19 defines the limit of a single bill: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."  Initiative 594 describes itself as "AN ACT Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales and transfers."

I-594 treats more than one subject; I-594 violated the single subject rule, and thus the election result on I-594 is invalidated by sloppy initiative writing.  Washington State requires clarity.  Had the People really known what they were voting for, there is no doubt the result would have been different. 
~~~~~~~~

Our state's firearms laws used to be based on the principle that individual people have the right to run their own lives. Now, personal "rights" are subject to review and permission from a bureaucracy.  That sort of filter would catch criminals, but by definition criminals don't obey the law.  No bureaucracy is perfect, so only the law-abiding will be "caught" and found guilty of crime.

There are more subtle changes than just those mentioned above.  Please protect yourself from the spider's web.  Download and study a copy of the entire state firearms regulations. Then write your state legislator and demand action on removing I-594.

What other people read on this blog

Effing the ineffable - Washington State elections sometimes have been rigged.

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
-- Joseph Stalin