rifleshooter474
New member
Link Removed
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 - 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 - 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.
Handing a gun to a friend to shoot does not constitute transferring it to them. Where did you get that idea?...- 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?
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
Link Removed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While the law says :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.
(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
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.
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.
High 5!!! If it keeps going, I'll have twice that many battle rifles in .30-06.In which caliber?:biggrin:
I've got that many .45's.
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.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.
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....With no apparent meaningful resistance by the NRA....
Lost mine in a boating accident last year. Darn it! :sarcastic:In which caliber?:biggrin:
I've got that many .45's.