Be careful who you hand your firearm to.


bofh

Banned
I am not sure why you have to link to another firearms discussion forum if you just can post the video that is posted there that you are referring too.

 

SR9

New member
The answer is, you never loan your firearm to anyone. My gun has never been in anyone else's hands since I've owned it. I bought it new. If you want to look at a gun, go buy your own. I did.
 

bofh

Banned
The answer is, you never loan your firearm to anyone. My gun has never been in anyone else's hands since I've owned it. I bought it new. If you want to look at a gun, go buy your own. I did.

The OP and the video is about a "West African Soldier" handing a full-auto AK 47 to a monkey. Apart from the issues that the video could be fake and any views gets the YouTuber paid, this post was meant as a joke.

Since you took this more serious, here is a more serious response to your post. I do hand my firearms to other people at the range, such as to new shooters that I introduce to firearms or to friends, the same way I am shooting other people's firearms at the range if they let me. I am part of a healthy gun culture.

Now, your post uses the term "gun" in singular form. Do you have only one gun? In this case, that would be the explanation for your attitude. I always carry a loaded firearm. I loan the ones that I do not carry, or swap my Glock 19 that I am carrying out with my Glock 26 if someone wants to shoot my Glock 19 for some reason. Usually, though, people want to shoot my Glock 20 (10mm) or my rifles.

The common response to people looking for buying a handgun is to go to a range that rents handguns. While there are some ranges that rent handguns, they usually only have a small collection of top sellers and larger caliber fun guns. There are even less ranges that rent out rifles. When it comes to accessories, you are lost. Shooting a firearm at the range that a friend owns is a good opportunity to try out different firearms and firearm setups/accessories.

By the way, my outdoor range rents full-auto ARs and AKs, as well as a bolt-action .50 cal Barrett.
 

alternety

New member
bofh - clearly you don't live in Washington. Handing your gun to someone else is an offense here since last year's referendum vote and resulting law. As I recall, doing it twice is a felony. Billionaires spared no dollars (or for some, endorsements), pimps were hired for massive TV advertising of professional quality. Media doggedly pushed their agenda. And they won. With no apparent meaningful resistance by the NRA. The whole thing was pushed as a (warning - hideous phrase coming) "common sense" move to insure proper background checks. If, unlike the common unwashed masses (excluding the clueless unwashed anti-gun people), someone actually read the document, they would be appalled. Aside from criminalizing allowing someone else to hold your gun, if I die, my wife has a short time (days) to register as the owner of all my guns (which have not really supposed to be "registered" or they will be confiscated. Right; common sense. As far as I know, no one has been charged for violating any of the nasty parts of the law. I believe there is some reluctance on the part of rational LEOs to participate in this stupidity. There are a number of issues; confiscation of private property, probably search of the home, registration of firearms, and the insane - you can't let someone else use/possess your gun. I am sincerely hoping this will be contested in cour,t if someone is affected by the law, on constitutional grounds. Hopefully the NRA will spend some of its' money then. Yeah, I know - rant only moderately related to the post. But the video is probably what the antis think of us. The whole thing, not just the mention of letting other people hold their guns, is really annoying for this state. And Bloomborg (surely some of you are Star Trek fans) and friends are doing it again in NE states and others.
 

bofh

Banned
bofh - clearly you don't live in Washington. Handing your gun to someone else is an offense here since last year's referendum vote and resulting law. As I recall, doing it twice is a felony. Billionaires spared no dollars (or for some, endorsements), pimps were hired for massive TV advertising of professional quality. Media doggedly pushed their agenda. And they won. With no apparent meaningful resistance by the NRA. The whole thing was pushed as a (warning - hideous phrase coming) "common sense" move to insure proper background checks. If, unlike the common unwashed masses (excluding the clueless unwashed anti-gun people), someone actually read the document, they would be appalled. Aside from criminalizing allowing someone else to hold your gun, if I die, my wife has a short time (days) to register as the owner of all my guns (which have not really supposed to be "registered" or they will be confiscated. Right; common sense. As far as I know, no one has been charged for violating any of the nasty parts of the law. I believe there is some reluctance on the part of rational LEOs to participate in this stupidity. There are a number of issues; confiscation of private property, probably search of the home, registration of firearms, and the insane - you can't let someone else use/possess your gun. I am sincerely hoping this will be contested in cour,t if someone is affected by the law, on constitutional grounds. Hopefully the NRA will spend some of its' money then. Yeah, I know - rant only moderately related to the post. But the video is probably what the antis think of us. The whole thing, not just the mention of letting other people hold their guns, is really annoying for this state. And Bloomborg (surely some of you are Star Trek fans) and friends are doing it again in NE states and others.

Right, I do not live in WA, CA, NY or any other nanny state. I live in TN, the patron state of shootin stuff. I also know paragraphs.
 

alternety

New member
I know them too. Sorry about that. I don't know what happened. That is not the way I wrote it. I hate it when people do that.
 

CustomSatellite

New member
bofh - clearly you don't live in Washington. Handing your gun to someone else is an offense here since last year's referendum vote and resulting law. As I recall, doing it twice is a felony. Billionaires spared no dollars (or for some, endorsements), pimps were hired for massive TV advertising of professional quality. Media doggedly pushed their agenda. And they won. With no apparent meaningful resistance by the NRA. The whole thing was pushed as a (warning - hideous phrase coming) "common sense" move to insure proper background checks. If, unlike the common unwashed masses (excluding the clueless unwashed anti-gun people), someone actually read the document, they would be appalled. Aside from criminalizing allowing someone else to hold your gun, if I die, my wife has a short time (days) to register as the owner of all my guns (which have not really supposed to be "registered" or they will be confiscated. Right; common sense. As far as I know, no one has been charged for violating any of the nasty parts of the law. I believe there is some reluctance on the part of rational LEOs to participate in this stupidity. There are a number of issues; confiscation of private property, probably search of the home, registration of firearms, and the insane - you can't let someone else use/possess your gun. I am sincerely hoping this will be contested in cour,t if someone is affected by the law, on constitutional grounds. Hopefully the NRA will spend some of its' money then. Yeah, I know - rant only moderately related to the post. But the video is probably what the antis think of us. The whole thing, not just the mention of letting other people hold their guns, is really annoying for this state. And Bloomborg (surely some of you are Star Trek fans) and friends are doing it again in NE states and others.

I'd be packing up everything I own including my unregistered firearms and taking my ass to a free state where they respect the constitution and my rights as a free citizen.
 

scott_see

New member
...- clearly you don't live in Washington. Handing your gun to someone else is an offense here since last year's referendum vote and resulting law....
Handing a gun to a friend to shoot does not constitute transferring it to them. Where did you get that idea?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Handing a gun to a friend to shoot does not constitute transferring it to them. Where did you get that idea?

He got that idea from the law in Washington State. Perhaps you should search on recent changes to the transfer laws in WA before dismissing the correct information that alternety partially summarized. He's right, and you're wrong, it is considered a transfer requiring an FFL, ATF Form 4473 and background check of the recipient of the transfer before it is "legal" to hand someone a gun just to fire a few rounds downrange. It was i594 when it was passed and signed into law, and designated RCW 9.41.113 once entered as a statute within the overall criminal code. You can search YouTube for the "I Will Not Comply Rally" of 12/13/14 in Olympia, WA to hear all the speakers describing the Intolerable Act a few days after it was passed. The point of the rally was to show the new law as being unenforceable as several hundred people committed multiple misdemeanors and felonies by "transferring" to one another without an FFL, background check or any documentation whatsoever right in front of the cops. Not one single arrest was made as hundreds of "transfers" were completed with impunity on the grounds of the State Capitol Building.

Where did you get the idea that you know better than someone who lives there (alternety) what the law is (or is not) in Washington State?

Blues
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
Link Removed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be careful with that link. What they say and what the law says are not the same.Your link:
Is a temporary transfer of a firearm at a shooting range subject to I-594's background check requirement?
No. Section 3(4)(f) of the initiative (RCW 9.41.113(4)(f)) exempts from the background check requirement a temporary transfer that occurs at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the range is located, if the firearm is kept at the range at all relevant times. The firearm needs to be at the shooting range only during the period of the temporary transfer for the exemption to apply. It needn’t be housed there permanently. Moreover, the shooting range exemption applies regardless of the age of the persons involved.
While the law says :
(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 firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (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 (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; or

Note that nothing in the law says "relevant time" only.
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
bofh - clearly you don't live in Washington. Handing your gun to someone else is an offense here since last year's referendum vote and resulting law. As I recall, doing it twice is a felony. Billionaires spared no dollars (or for some, endorsements), pimps were hired for massive TV advertising of professional quality. Media doggedly pushed their agenda. And they won. With no apparent meaningful resistance by the NRA. The whole thing was pushed as a (warning - hideous phrase coming) "common sense" move to insure proper background checks. If, unlike the common unwashed masses (excluding the clueless unwashed anti-gun people), someone actually read the document, they would be appalled. Aside from criminalizing allowing someone else to hold your gun, if I die, my wife has a short time (days) to register as the owner of all my guns (which have not really supposed to be "registered" or they will be confiscated. Right; common sense. As far as I know, no one has been charged for violating any of the nasty parts of the law. I believe there is some reluctance on the part of rational LEOs to participate in this stupidity. There are a number of issues; confiscation of private property, probably search of the home, registration of firearms, and the insane - you can't let someone else use/possess your gun. I am sincerely hoping this will be contested in cour,t if someone is affected by the law, on constitutional grounds. Hopefully the NRA will spend some of its' money then. Yeah, I know - rant only moderately related to the post. But the video is probably what the antis think of us. The whole thing, not just the mention of letting other people hold their guns, is really annoying for this state. And Bloomborg (surely some of you are Star Trek fans) and friends are doing it again in NE states and others.

But it wasn't just Bloomin Idiot's money, Paul Allen also is guilty of selling out his own state.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Link Removed

Be careful with that link. What they say and what the law says are not the same.Your link:

While the law says :

Note that nothing in the law says "relevant time" only.

Not only does the law itself say nothing about "relevant time" only, but the exception also only applies "at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located". My home is not "at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located". Therefore, in my own home it is illegal for my wife or my daughter to handle my guns and it is illegal for me to handle their guns.

I hand my gun to my daughter in my home and say, "Here, clean this for me, please." I have violated the law in Washington.
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
Not only does the law itself say nothing about "relevant time" only, but the exception also only applies "at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located". My home is not "at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located". Therefore, in my own home it is illegal for my wife or my daughter to handle my guns and it is illegal for me to handle their guns.

I hand my gun to my daughter in my home and say, "Here, clean this for me, please." I have violated the law in Washington.
Yep! The devil is in the details and while you can by law loan it to your spouse anywhere, a hard nosed DA could prosecute you as you say just for handling your daughter's firearms.
 

Rhino

New member
...With no apparent meaningful resistance by the NRA....
Do you count it as not being meaningful simply because it didn't work, or because you were unaware of it? The NRA most certainly did fight Initiative 594. The Vote No On I-594 web site was created by the NRA, among other things. They also supported Initiative 591, which would have effectively nullified 594 if it had passed. Use Google next time.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,394
Messages
623,166
Members
74,218
Latest member
Evrviglnt
Top