January 24, 2014
Gun Know-Nothings are Back

On Tuesday there's a hearing in Olympia, in the House Judiciary Committee, for Initiative 594, which -- among other things -- generally forbids firearm transfers without background checks. It defines a transfer as, "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."

The bill does not define "delivery," so would include letting someone hold your gun (this is intentional: the law later provides exemptions for certain "temporary transfers"). So when my parents visited my home from out of town, and I let my mother hold my Ruger LCP, to see how it measured up to her Ruger LC9, I would have been committing a gross misdemeanor, because no exemption exists for that.

The fact is that the number of crimes committed by people with guns, who procured those guns through currently legal means but without a background check, is tiny. It just doesn't happen much. There's zero evidence that making currently legal transactions without background checks subject to background checks will have any significant effect on crime.

It makes sense to oppose a new law that will only serve to criminalize behavior of law-abiding folks without having a positive impact on crime, and therefore, I oppose "universal background check" laws.

But this law is worse than most, as it would criminalize the very act of letting your mom hold your gun.

But it gets worse: if I transferred the gun to my mom as a gift, that would be exempted by the law; but letting her hold it temporarily is a crime. And if I handed it to someone who was under 18, that would be lawful too, as it would be for educational purposes; but no such educational purpose is exempted for people over 18.

So, handing it to a child for educational purposes? Fine. To my mom, for the same? A gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail ... unless the transfer were permanent, as a gift, and not temporary.

This law really is that poorly written.

I also love that I can temporarily transfer a gun to anyone "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred," as long as the transfer only lasts as long as is necessary for that purpose, and the person to whom it is transferred is not prohibited from having it.

So imagine you are with a friend. You made someone angry, and he finds you and shoots you in the arm. You have your gun in your hand, but you're incapable of firing it. But you cannot give your gun to your friend, because his life is not in danger, yours is. And even if his life was in danger too, you can't give him the gun because he is a convicted felon. If you give him the gun, you both might live; but you slavishly follow the law, and oops: you're both dead.

Of course, you would likely violate the stupid law, because you respect your life and his ... and according to the law, you would end up in jail for it.

Saving lives, educating your parents or friends, and many other perfectly reasonable uses of a gun are criminalized by this initiative. It's a classic example of micromanagers trying to control your life for no serious reason, and -- predictably -- failing miserably.

Posted by pudge at January 24, 2014 12:35 PM | Email This
Comments
1. So, when we hit the range - when I shoot hubby's, he shoots my sons, and my sons girlfriend (who is currently attending the police academy) shoots mine - ILLEGAL. Hells bells, my nephews fav activity when they come visit (across country and state lines) is to go to the range with our assortment.

Also, there is a gun shop on the east side who lets safety class attendees use a store 'loaner'.

Democrats hate democracy.
Democrats hate the constitution.

Please keep it up! Promote it LOUDLY during hunting season, please.

The totality of their anti everything screeds are fast approaching the tipping point. The increasingly ridiculousness of speech and action by most of their 'special' interest groups already has. America is worrying about paying it's bills and feeding it's children and the special interest groups are befouling themselves.

2014: The Year of Delicious, Delightful, DemocRAT Schadenfreude.
1092 days. It seems like it was just yesterday it was 1200! Oh yes, the SCHADENFREUDE effect!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 24, 2014 02:25 PM
2. Rags, no, there is an exemption for temporary transfer at a shooting range. Just not in your own home. So you would have to go to the range before transferring your guns to your nephew.

And licensed dealers are also exempt.

Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2014 02:29 PM
3. Steve: as long as you post off-topic comments, they will be removed. And actually, I am probably just going to remove all your comments, just because your continual off-topic ones happen so frequently as to constitute abuse.

I don't know why you obtusely seem to think that attacking Republicans generally, without anything more than a mere reference to the topic, is on-topic. But it's not. The article you linked to was at best tangentially related to this one, as it was not about background checks or new state law, but an existing federal law about undetectable guns. A fine thing to criticize people for ... but really has nothing to do with this discussion.

And your next two comments were about ObamaCare and illegal immigration: completely unrelated to the topic in every possible way.

You will either keep your comments directly -- not merely tangentially -- on-topic, or you will not be allowed to post at all.

Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2014 02:40 PM
4. Good to see there is still postings. Nice if there were a goal of 5,000 visits per day like before.

Glad you did the gun one, but there is also a battle on the global warming front at the state legislature.

Should be a post on our own rep who is going to do the rebut of SOTU address?

Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2014 02:44 PM
5. So can a clerk in a store allow a customer to hold a gun?

Posted by: Red on January 24, 2014 03:02 PM
6. Win an AR 15!

Lee Bright is running for the Reprican nomination for Senate in So Carolina. If he wins, he will run against Sam Nunn's daughter on the Dem side.

YOU CAN SUPPORT Bright AND MAYBE WIN AN AR 15 by entering the raffle.

apparently they do NOT require a contribution but I put in $5 figuring it is a good investment!

You can enter the raffle by clicking the image at THE Ave.

http://handbill.us/?p=27811

Posted by: SeattleJew on January 24, 2014 03:03 PM
7. Frustrating but not all all surprising. This goes to the bigger issue of personal freedoms. This is what happens when they don't want us to think like they do, they want us to do what they think.

Posted by: Ted Ryan on January 24, 2014 03:04 PM
8. Red: yes, if they are a federally licensed dealer.

Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2014 03:05 PM
9. SeattleJew: why would you support a Republican? Or are you lying?

Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2014 03:07 PM
10. Crime has gone down where guns are more prevalent. Even Obamabot hell holes like Detroit are figuring this out.

Criminals are afraid of getting shot, idiots are just categorically afraid of guns.

Posted by: Mike on January 24, 2014 03:20 PM
11. "So imagine you are with a friend. You made someone angry, and he finds you and shoots you in the arm. You have your gun in your hand, but you're incapable of firing it. But you cannot give your gun to your friend, because his life is not in danger, yours is. And even if his life was in danger too, you can't give him the gun because he is a convicted felon. If you give him the gun, you both might live; but you slavishly follow the law, and oops: you're both dead."

Here's a ProTip for all you would be gunfighters out there.
If you are walking around with a gun in your hand with your friend, a convicted felon, making other people with guns angry, this law or any other pending law is neither going to save you nor harm you.
If the above scenario is something you can "imagine" happening to you, well, the 'law' you need to worry about is the one explained by Darwin.

Be safe out there.

Posted by: Billy on January 24, 2014 04:17 PM
12. Billy: that's 100% irrelevant to the point, but thanks for your "tip."

Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2014 04:21 PM
13. ""So imagine you are with a friend. You made someone angry, and (s)he finds you and shoots you in the arm..."

Yeah that happened more than 20 yeara ago now and the mainsteam Press in the Puget Sound area covered it up and Fisher fired Seigel over it. Rice was kind of the Obama of Seattle Politics in the day. Couldn't criticize him lest you be called a racist. He was "the one". Later they did the same thing with a black School Superintendent. They made him out to be "the Messiah who was above all political criticism in the Seattle media community.

Yeah, you can score that whole Rice as a win for the Left. If you knew the players you would know what they said happened most likely really did.

It's the Left who absues the 2nd Amemndment. Norm Rice's wife did but it continues even to today. Remember that recent shooting in Colorado.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/14/dead-colorado-school-shooter-was-hardcore-leftist-keynesian/

Yeah, if we could only deny the Second Amendment to the Left. Of course that's not possible, but it would be great if it was.

Posted by: Steve on January 24, 2014 07:14 PM
14. I meant to type wouldn't expect anything less from the type of people who thought Ted Bundy "had good ideas".

No I know how ruthless you are.

To the Right I mean. To the Left you are wimps. "Almost" like you don't REALLY oppose them.

Posted by: Steve on January 24, 2014 07:18 PM
15. "So when my parents visited my home from out of town, and I let my mother hold my Ruger LCP, to see how it measured up to her Ruger LC9, I would have been committing a gross misdemeanor, because no exemption exists for that."

No exemption exists because none is required.

"the law later provides exemptions for certain "temporary transfers"

Indeed they did. And you base your argument on this and that's where it falls apart. What I see is that none of the "temporary transfer" examples within the RCW are similar to you letting your mother hold your gun in your home. Temporary transfer for use at a range, for use at organized competitions, for use in hunting. What do these examples all have in common? With each "temporary transfer" example, the the gun is temporarily transfered for use. There's nothing in the RCW to prevent your mother from holding your gun in your home.

You read too much into the law and you seem to do this by using an example furnished by you which removes "temporary transfer" from the context framed within the RCW.

Posted by: Contrary on January 24, 2014 09:54 PM
16. Contrary: No exemption exists because none is required.

False. The law clearly says that exemptions are required.


What I see is that none of the "temporary transfer" examples within the RCW are similar to you letting your mother hold your gun in your home.

Therefore, the transfer is not covered by exemption, and is therefore illegal.


There's nothing in the RCW to prevent your mother from holding your gun in your home.

False. It is a transfer; therefore, it is illegal unless exempted. That's what the law says. Unless you're going to argue it's not a transfer ... but the law certainly doesn't give you any room to argue that.

Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2014 10:02 PM
17. "False. The law clearly says that exemptions are required."

The exemptions are for temporary transfers. To hand your mother your gun in your home is not temporarily transferring the gun to your mother. You are only letting her hold it, which is not regulated by any RCW. If she goes hunting with the gun, that act would be regulated under the RCW because you will have then temporarily transferred the gun to your mother.

"Therefore, the transfer is not covered by exemption, and is therefore illegal."

No, the law is not about mothers holding guns in their son's homes, it's about the sale and transfer of guns, which leads us to,

"Unless you're going to argue it's not a transfer ..."

Exactly. You're reading this into the law and it's just not there.

"but the law certainly doesn't give you any room to argue that."

Yes, it does. What it doesn't do is give you any room to argue against it, certainly not when the examples within the RCW you rely on as the premises for your argument do not resemble your own example. That they don't resemble backs me up, not you. Sale or transfer, the meaning of "delivery" is the same. The only difference between the two, with a transfer there is no payment, promise of payment, etc. Your mother holding your gun in your home simply isn't addressed as the law does not see this as you temporarily transfering the gun to her. Let her take it hunting or to the range and that's a different story.

Posted by: Contrary on January 24, 2014 11:56 PM
18. The radical left proves once again that their long term goal is disarming the law abiding public, while the criminal element, which adheres to no laws, would still be in possession of arms.

I guess the criminal protection zones, with large numbers of unarmed victims, don't go far enough in protecting the progressives' voter base.

Posted by: Independent Voter on January 25, 2014 08:35 AM
19. "The radical left proves once again that their long term goal is disarming the law abiding public"

Radical left? Hardly. As someone who was around when you could shake a tree in Seattle and true radical lefties fell out like monkeys, who on earth are you talking about?

"while the criminal element, which adheres to no laws, would still be in possession of arms"

They always will. So would our citizenry. Criminals will have fewer places to buy them. That's the intent of the law. Nobody is taking our guns. No-criminals, ordinary people, not only can still buy guns, guns sales have been soaring through the roof. We're armed to the teeth with more lethality than ever before in our nation's history. If you're not a criminal and you want a gun, go ahead and buy a gun. Then sell or transfer it. It's all OK.

Posted by: Contrary on January 25, 2014 10:58 AM
20. The goal of the communist left remains the same, to disarm America. If you can't see that, then you haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: Independent Voter on January 25, 2014 11:48 AM
21. Contrary: The exemptions are for temporary transfers.

Some of them are, yes. This doesn't help your case one way or another.


To hand your mother your gun in your home is not temporarily transferring the gun to your mother.

Incorrect. That's precisely what it is. As the law says, "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person. ... Since "deliver" is left undefined, we must assume the definition is reasonably broad, and there is nothing in the text justifying such a narrow definition as you have in your mind. This is obvious, and I don't know why you're denying something so clearly true.

Indeed, you have not even defined "deliver" at all. What would it mean? I cannot think of any definition that would fit all the facts, that would also show I am wrong. Perhaps you're smarter than me.


the examples within the RCW you rely on as the premises for your argument do not resemble your own example

That is obviously false, as I gave a very specific exemption that is similar: "The temporary transfer of a firearm ... to a person who is under eighteen years of age for ... educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms." That is exactly what I am doing in my scenario, except it's not a minor, but a legal adult.


Sale or transfer, the meaning of "delivery" is the same.

Yes, of course: deliver means to provide a gun to someone else to possess. And possession is very simple: if it is on your person, under your control, you possess it. Clearly, in my scenario, my mom possessed my gun. I delivered it to her. Unless you demonstrate this is not the definition, you cannot back up your case: at best, you can only say my case isn't backed up either (but even that would require you to actually show my definition is unreasonable, which you haven't done: you merely said I'm wrong, without argument).


Let her take it hunting or to the range and that's a different story.

Which brings up another example of where this takes away our current rights: in many places in this state, it is legal to fire guns on your own porperty (such as unincorporated Snohomish County), and under this proposed law, you can, essentially, only shoot your own guns on someone's property. Unless you're a minor.

Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2014 12:44 PM
22. Independent Voter: The goal of the communist left remains the same, to disarm America.

Yes, obviously. That doesn't mean, however, that this is the goal of everyone supporting bills such as this.


Contrary: Criminals will have fewer places to buy them.

That's marginally true, but deceptive. In practice, criminals very rarely buy guns from law-abiding citizens without a background check. It's just not a normal case. Almost all of those sales that will be banned are to law-abiding citizens, and while those purchases would still be legal, they will mostly disappear due to the cost and inconvenience.

So in fact, under a universal background check, criminals will almost entirely still get guns the same ways they always have, and law-abiding citizens will have fewer options.


That's the intent of the law.

If so, then the drafters are ignorant, because it surely will not be the effect of the law. Based on the data, there is zero reason to think it will have the effect of reducing the number of guns in criminals' hands, or making the guns they do use easier to trace, etc.


guns sales have been soaring through the roof

Which is part of why the left wants this measure, to reduce the number of guns that people buy, perhaps, but more importantly, be able to track all the guns that are sold, even to law-abiding citizens.

The fact is, the left is afraid of free people. That is why they hate guns in the hands of the citizens. There's a sad video out there where a journalist is interviewing a man about gun rights, and then the interviewer finds out the interviewee is armed, and his whole disposition changes. That is a typical irrational leftist, scared of his own shadow. That's most of what is going on here: people see more guns, and so they lash out with every proposal they can think of, no matter how irrational, such as this one, which -- again -- there is literally no reason to think will have any positive effect, but necessarily will have negative effects on the exercise of rights of the citizenry.


If you're not a criminal and you want a gun, go ahead and buy a gun. Then sell or transfer it. It's all OK.

If by "OK" you mean that it will cost you more, in both money and liberty, sure, it's "OK." That is, of course, what this proposed law does: it will make the monetary and temporal costs of transferring significantly greater, and it will put your name down in a government book.

And for what? Literally no actual positive effect. There is no reason to think it will have good effects, and we know it will have bad effects ... unless, of course, you just hate guns and gun owners and gun rights, in which case those bad effects are, to you, good.

Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2014 12:55 PM
23. The fact is that the number of crimes committed by people with guns, who procured those guns through currently legal means but without a background check, is tiny. It just doesn't happen much. There's zero evidence that making currently legal transactions without background checks subject to background checks will have any significant effect on crime.

Surprisingly, I have to agree. I don't find, for example, that a transfer of a vehicle between two private individuals should require a car dealership to get involved, even if cars themselves are regulated and could be used by someone illegally. The little quibbling about minor details that could (and most likely would) be addressed in future amendments is pointless.

Best to allow the market to regulate this through mandatory firearm insurance. No need for a government gun registry or government background checks if private insurance companies would be legally required to pay out for loss of life or damages. Gun aficionados with proof of their training and firearm safety measures get a discount, new owners need to pay more, and folks with violent criminal backgrounds have to pay significantly more.


@13: It's the Left who absues the 2nd Amemndment. Norm Rice's wife did but it continues even to today. Remember that recent shooting in Colorado.

Yeah, if we could only deny the Second Amendment to the Left. Of course that's not possible, but it would be great if it was.

(facepalm)

I'm very eager to hear why exactly Keysianism is related to a school shooting. Then I can certainly describe why anyone that would even begin to think disarming their political opponents while keeping their own weapons has an absolute contempt for modern pluralistic democracies and the rule of law.

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 01:28 PM
24. @what was 25-26, now likely removed:

Enjoy the business end of pudge's banhammer, Steve.

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 01:51 PM
25. "unless, of course, you just hate guns and gun owners and gun rights, in which case those bad effects are, to you, good"

I should explain. Ever since I was a kid I've loved guns. As a toddler I loved my cap guns. Now I love real guns. As a kid I started reading every book and magazine about guns I could get my hands on. I still do. The first gun I owned was as a teen, a Stevens 12g ga single shot, which I modified, shortening it to an 18" barrel along with shortened stock - easy to conceal. Eh, inner-city kid. I see that my modigied Stevens would be illegal today. I have my beef with that. Anyways, nobody will take my gun. I wouldn't let that happen.

My friends love guns. Some are quite fanatical about guns. One friend worked at Detonics for years. One guy owns several hundred guns of all kinds. He's bought several each month for decades. I just gave him a book I bought for him as a gift that's about strange and unusual guns that have been made through the years, 19-shot revolvers, things like that.

I love guns. You love guns. We differ on interpretation of law, that's all. I'll be back on that as I believe you to wrong on several points.

Posted by: Contrary on January 25, 2014 02:14 PM
26. @what was 29, now likely removed: Demokid. seems like you are on Pudges side on this.

Pudge's side on... what exactly? Pointless gun regulation? Guilty as charged!

Not surprising. The alliances between Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats are well known. You aren't really adversaries. You are collegues.

Except that many "establishment Democrats" are promoting the bill that pudge is discussing, and I am not a Democrat.

The Republicans aren't really an opposition party. Their purpose has always been to stiffle real opposition. Their purpose has always been to keep conservatives on a short leash.

Do you even know how political parties work?

Yeah, It's the LEFT that REALLLY Fears the Death of the Republican Party. At lesat the wise ones do. They know that the Republican Party has always been a buffer between real opposition and them.

It's like you are fundamentally unable to grasp real-world concepts.

In a two-party system, purging moderate members will just add voters and candidates to the other party. If you get rid of RINOs and demand that strict Tea Party purists should rule over all, those moderates would go to the other side en masse. You'd shoot yourself in the foot, as moderate voters would flee in droves.

Now, the left would fear this is NOT because of the threat from a two-bit rump party that can't play well with others but little power to do much of anything. However, if you were to suddenly add moderate Republicans to the mix, the Democrats would turn into a centrist party. Why precisely would progressives in the Democratic Party want MORE competition and intra-party dissent from a new cadre of Blue Dog Democrats?

And dude, spell check. It's your friend.

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 02:44 PM
27. @was 33: Ignoring how perverted the Republican Party has become, especially on the elite level. Caligla would feel right at home as a Republican in the US Senate.

That's not the point of this post.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. And moreover it becomes YOUR EVIL. You become associated with that evil. And at least now, I don't know what it will be like in ten years, no one wants to be associatied with Pedophlia and therefore no one will want to be associated with the Republican Party.

Therefore, if any Tea Party-ist is guilty of anything means that you are automatically guilty of that same thing?

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 03:22 PM
28. @formerly 35: which there is no evidence for since they cover things up better

Nothing better than conspiracy theories where a lack of any evidence is actually "proof". Absolutely brilliant.

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 03:38 PM
29. @37: Sounds like proof to me. And he was just about to be indicted. Which means he was just about to roll over on the others in his cabel before he convenently "killed himself".

Nothing better than conspiracy theories where a lack of any evidence is actually "proof". Still brilliant.

Are you going to say anything about gun regulation?

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 03:55 PM
30. Think I'll just wait until pudge deletes your posts and bans you. You don't seem interested in a relevant or rational discussion.

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 04:22 PM
31. Think I'll just wait until pudge deletes your posts and bans you. You don't seem interested in a relevant or rational discussion.

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 04:23 PM
32. Now it looks like I'm just talking to myself... :)

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 09:39 PM
33. Contrary: I love guns.

I never implied you don't. I was just pointing out the fact that the negative effects of this law are, to those who hate guns and gun rights, positive effects.


demo kid: you usually do talk to yourself, right? :-)

Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2014 10:01 PM
34. @33: you usually do talk to yourself, right? :-)

I pretty much was talking with myself there. Thanks for the banhammer...

Posted by: demo kid on January 25, 2014 11:42 PM
35. Pudge is right on the mark.

There is no outcome other than to track gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Registration is the ONLY thing it accomplishes.

And registration is ALWAYS the first step to confiscation.

Watch as the first amendment media howls for its passage, like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

Posted by: Independent Voter on January 26, 2014 08:22 AM
36. "Clearly, in my scenario, my mom possessed my gun. I delivered it to her. Unless you demonstrate this is not the definition, you cannot back up your case"

I can not only back my case, but I can make it difficult for you to rebute!

You recognize that this is contract law - possession, sale, transfer, commodity received, delivery and bailment, as in "transfer of possession, not ownership". Is there bailment when you let your mother hold and admire your gun? No. Your mother may possess the gun in her hands, but there is no contract to transfer possession and deliver it to her for use. To hold and admire is not to use a gun. You would not be a bailor nor she a bailee. Therefore, you allowing your mother holding and admiring your gun within your home would not be a violation of law as there is no intent whatsoever for her to use it.

Posted by: Contrary on January 26, 2014 04:49 PM
37. "howls for its passage, like chickens"

Howling chickens. Heh.

Posted by: Contrary on January 26, 2014 04:57 PM
38.
Heh this reminds me of the new $100 fee for electric cars on the highway!

Taxing the result you are trying to attain, lowering pollution and stopping global cooling (joke) is like killing the goose laying the golden eggs because you are afraid it might shit on the road and require a guvment pooper scooper truck to follow it.

For the idiots that voted for this:

1. Electric cars plug in every night to an electric grid and already pay plenty in extra electric energy taxes as a result.

2. Aren't people who pay huge prices for electric cars already, helping to fix your smog problems that are helping fix your global warming problems that are saving you gazillions to not have to deal with.

Why not charge them for an emissions test and quarterly oil changes while you are at it.

Posted by: GS on January 26, 2014 09:00 PM
39. Contrary: You recognize that this is contract law

It's not, no.


possession, sale, transfer, commodity received, delivery and bailment, as in "transfer of possession, not ownership"

Right. Transfer of possession is what is restricted by this proposed law. And you are certainly well aware that possession of a firearm is explicitly criminal law, superceding all possible contracts.


Your mother may possess the gun in her hands

Not under this proposed law, no, because I have delivered it to her. In your words, I transferred possession to her. That is explicitly disallowed by this proposed law, with no exemptions.


but there is no contract to transfer possession and deliver it to her for use

You are adding "use" to the issue. That is not mentioned or implied in the proposed law. So your claim is literally irrelevant. And even if we excise "for use," so what? Yes, there is no contract, but I did transfer possession, and that is disallowed by the proposed law.

Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2014 06:40 AM
40. "possession of a firearm is explicitly criminal law"

Criminal law for crimes of possession AND sales, but the state's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in RCW 62A also applies to sales, from which gun sales and merchants are not exempt, and in which you can find your definition of "delivery" as well for other words and terms used in RCW 9.41.

Your case depends on there not being a definition of delivery within criminal code, but the word is already defined by RCW 62A for the sales and loans in question. When the criminal code talks about illegal sales and delivery, they have to further define "sell" to specifically relate to gun sales, but the word "delivery" is already defined by the RCW applicable to sales and delivery of guns and is unchanged by criminal code. The initiative also provides a new definition of a transaction type not in UCC and RCW 62A, the "temporary transfer" of a gun, but they're otherwise using sales terminology defined in RCW 62A and UCC.

When one sees UCC, RCW 62A and RCW 9.41 as the legal context, not the RCW 9.41 alone, one can more easily understand that allowing your mother to hold your gun to admire it within your home is not defined as delivery and so she hasn't taken possession. Without delivery as defined by RCW 62A, it is not a temporary transfer of possession. With that, it is not a crime.

Posted by: Contrary on January 27, 2014 12:07 PM
41. "You are adding "use" to the issue."

Nope. When you consider that the context of the initiative, which would include ALL applicable law regulating sales, "use" is relevant because it helps to understand the word "possession", which is defined by neither RCW 62A, RCW 9.41 nor the initiative. It is to say that contract law is relevant to understanding RCW 9.41 because this particular criminal law pertains to sales, delivery and possession - the very stuff of UCC, RCW 62A and thus contract law.

Posted by: Contrary on January 27, 2014 12:23 PM
42. .
Look, the people behind Initiative 594 really are, as pudge says, "Gun Know-Nothings". The fact of the matter is that the gun genie is out of the bottle and any attempt to prevent such routine gun violence in this state or nation like this only most recent tid-bit this weekend
Rodney Bruce Black has been charged with two counts of 1st degree murder. Deputies say he admitted to shooting the two men because he thought they were trespassing on his property.
Sheriff McComas says the land actually belonged to Garrick Hopkins. He had just purchased it and was showing his brother where he and his family were planning to build their new home in the coming weeks.
Inside Black's home, deputies seized many weapons and ammunition.

is a waste of time.
Hell, an average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year according to the US Dept of Justice.

There's no point to attempt to regulate legal transfers of deadly weapons. We're awash in firearms.

Duck and cover.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 27, 2014 12:33 PM
43. "The fact of the matter is that the gun genie is out of the bottle and any attempt to prevent..."

Yeah, no rebutting that. And I'm feeling that way about more than just gun control these days. Goodbye, planet. Sigh! That said, I still believe Pudge is wrong in how he is constructing his argument. Debating Pudge without a judge sucks. Aren't you an attorney? So who is right, or closest to being correct? My best guess is neither of us.

Posted by: Contrary on January 27, 2014 03:53 PM
44. MikeBS: There's no point to attempt to regulate legal transfers of deadly weapons. We're awash in firearms.

Or even illegal transfers, not with additional laws. It's already illegal to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who cannot legally posses a gun. This proposed law won't change that: it will just put more of a cost -- again, in terms of liberty, money, and time -- on top of those who would actually follow the law. And that may very well be the point, to burden law-abiding citizens who want to transfer guns.


Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2014 04:23 PM
45. Contrary: Criminal law for crimes of possession AND sales, but the state's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in RCW 62A also applies to sales, from which gun sales and merchants are not exempt, and in which you can find your definition of "delivery" as well for other words and terms used in RCW 9.41.

I note you don't quote that definition. Perhaps because you can't find it? Or because it doesn't back up your argument? Either way, it's question-begging to claim that the definition of "delivery" here is a commercial one.

Your entire rebuttal is based on the existence of a definition you don't cite or quote, or even demonstrate any direct link to. Do you not realize that?


Your case depends on there not being a definition of delivery within criminal code

No, it depends on the plain meaning of the word, in the absence of a contrary definition (which is still absent).


"You are adding "use" to the issue."

Nope.

Yes. You are. You are making things up that have no bearing on the proposed law. You wrote, "but there is no contract to transfer possession and deliver it to her for use." Contracts and use are absolutely irrelevant to the plain language of the proposed law, and you've provided no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.


When you consider that the context of the initiative, which would include ALL applicable law regulating sales, "use" is relevant because it helps to understand the word "possession"

READ THE TEXT. It says, "A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if ..."

You're asking us to believe that if I hand a gun to someone, that this is not a temporary transfer of possession of that gun. That defies the plain meaning of these simple words. The burden is, therefore, on you. You know this: hence, you make vague references to other RCWs. But, tellingly, you cannot provide a specific citation to back you up.

Until you do, logic dictates you have no case.


Debating Pudge without a judge sucks.

Don't worry about not having an arbiter to proclaim victory for you: worry about the fact that you cited 62A eight times, and yet never once pointed to where 62A actually backs you up in any way (and even if you had some definition of delivery or possession that backed you up in 62A, you'd still have to demonstrate -- not merely proclaim -- that the definition there applies here).

Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2014 04:40 PM
46. I believe it is already a crime to transfer in any way a firearm to one who is not legally allowed to have one (in any way).

Thus, why use I-594 to complicate and/or criminalize actions by those who may legally have firearms and wish to allow another legal owner to touch/hold/fondle/shoot/buy thier firearm?

Remember, as Shane said (paraphrasing), "A gun is only a tool. It's as good or as bad as the person who uses it."

Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on January 27, 2014 05:20 PM
47. Bob: I believe it is already a crime to transfer in any way a firearm to one who is not legally allowed to have one (in any way).

Yes.


Thus, why use I-594 to complicate and/or criminalize actions by those who may legally have firearms and wish to allow another legal owner to touch/hold/fondle/shoot/buy thier firearm?

Probably, to punish legal gun owners.

In regard to transfer of ownership, there are only a few kinds that currently do not have background checks:

A. Legal seller to legal buyer
B. Legal seller to illegal buyer
C. Illegal seller to illegal buyer

C will be completely unaffected by this law. A will be burdened by this law, and some specific transactions will be prevented due to this burden. B will be prevented, but B is extremely tiny compared to all ownership transfers, around two percent according to a study I've seen (and I've never seen any data saying it's significantly more), and all of the B transfers will simply become C transfers, because C is so large.

So it won't stop C, and B is tiny and will just become C anyway. The only significant effects will be to punish lawful gun owners, just like the rest of the proposed law's provisions about temporary transfers.

Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2014 06:30 PM
48. "Your entire rebuttal is based on the existence of a definition you don't cite or quote, or even demonstrate any direct link to. Do you not realize that?"

I thought you might be familiar with RCW 62A, seeing as how it applies to sales and contracts in this state.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=62A.1-201

"(15) "Delivery," with respect to an electronic document of title means voluntary transfer of control and with respect to an instrument, a tangible document of title, or chattel paper, MEANS VOLUTARY TRANSFER OF POSSESSION (CAPS mine)."

"No, it depends on the plain meaning of the word, in the absence of a contrary definition (which is still absent)."

There it is above, link and all.

"Contracts and use are absolutely irrelevant to the plain language of the proposed law"

The so-called plain language of RCE 9.41 can only be clearly understood if you first understand the definition of words and terms as defined by the RCW regulating sales, contracts and possession in this state.

"you'd still have to demonstrate -- not merely proclaim -- that the definition there applies"

You need to show how it is that the terminology of contract law and RCW 62A which defines the sales, delivery and possession of guns does not apply when the subject of RCW 9.41 is the sales, delivery and possession of guns.

"Don't worry about not having an arbiter to proclaim victory for you"

It's not exactly odd that when my debate opponent wants to be the judge that I'd recall and miss the impartiallity and objectivity required of that role.

Posted by: Contrary on January 27, 2014 09:12 PM
49. @47: That said, I still believe Pudge is wrong in how he is constructing his argument.

As much as it pains me to say this, he's not wrong. It's a law designed to make people feel good, not to actually manage a problem effectively or efficiently. He's made his case well, and I don't see anything more than a knee-jerk justification for this bill, even for the left.

Still, homing in on superficial flaws in a bill or law is more annoying and frustrating than actually constructive. Constructing hypotheticals such as:

So imagine you are with a friend. You made someone angry, and he finds you and shoots you in the arm. You have your gun in your hand...

are fine, but there are plenty of existing laws that have that level of ambiguity. It's pointless to prattle on about it, really. You could spend your time fine-tuning this law all you wanted, but it wouldn't matter: it is still a lousy idea even if it were very well-written.

Posted by: demo kid on January 27, 2014 09:26 PM
50. @49: Oops... that should read @43.

Posted by: demo kid on January 27, 2014 09:34 PM
51. Contrary, this is really getting boring. You simply don't make any case at all. You cite things without showing relevance, and frankly, I think it is rank dishonesty at this point.


I thought you might be familiar with RCW 62A, seeing as how it applies to sales and contracts in this state.

... which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, since this is about temporary transfers, which involve neither sales nor contracts.

You want us to believe that when the proposed law mentions temporarily handing a minor a gun for educational purposes, or an adult a gun at a shooting range for the purposes of target practice, that this is about sales and contracts. You offer zero argument for this. You appear to want us to believe that the mere juxtaposition of these noncontractural temporary transfers, in the same section as sales and gifts, implies that every delivery of a gun falls under commerce. But this is not stated, and you offer no reason to infer it other than juxtaposition.


"(15) "Delivery," with respect to an electronic document of title means voluntary transfer of control and with respect to an instrument, a tangible document of title, or chattel paper, MEANS VOLUTARY TRANSFER OF POSSESSION (CAPS mine)."

Even if this relates -- and you offer no argument that it does -- it only backs up my claim, which is that possession has been transferred. In the scenario, my mother possessed the gun. Literally. You'd have to demonstrate that this isn't possession, either in the sense of Title 62A or Title 9. And worse for you, we already know quite well that possession of a firearm in Title 9 -- which, without specific instruction to the contrary in the proposed law, would certainly take precedence over possession of something in Title 62A -- has absolutely nothing to do with sales or contracts, but is the physical fact of possession, merely holding it in one's hand.


You need to show how it is that the terminology of contract law and RCW 62A which defines the sales, delivery and possession of guns

Please, please, stop lying. 62A says nothing about possession of guns, despite your explicit claim that it does.


It's not exactly odd that when my debate opponent wants to be the judge

Each of us judges each other. I do so no more than you, and it is unbecoming that you should pretend otherwise. The problem you face is not that I want to be the judge, but that you cannot actually make your case, and no one else is here to make it for you.

This is very simple. Temporary transfers are defined in the proposed law in terms that have plain meaning, but that you falsely claim that the meaning of those terms is based on an unrelated and uncited separate section of existing law, even though the examples of temporary transfer given in the proposed law do not fit the meaning you want to claim, and disagree with more closely related definitions. Your claimed meaning cannot possibly be correct.

Even more simply put, a temporary transfer of a firearm is the act of merely temporarily transferring possession, whether at a gun range or competition, or for hunting, or for educational purposes to minors or a family member. Any temporary change of possession would be illegal under the proposed law, unless explicitly exempted.

Maybe the part you're missing here -- I never stated it, because it seems obvious -- is that your claim that my scenario doesn't need to be exempted because it isn't covered under the terms also would, by your same argument, apply to all of the other temporary transfers I mentioned here. But those temporary transfers are explicitly exempted, directly implying a legal need to have them exempted in order to not be illegal activities, and therefore, implying that my scenario, not being explicitly exempted, would be illegal under the proposed law.

Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2014 09:40 PM
52. demo kid: Constructing hypotheticals such as ... are fine, but there are plenty of existing laws that have that level of ambiguity. It's pointless to prattle on about it, really.

Meh. I was mostly pointing out the fact that this proposed law goes beyond mere feel-goodism of most universal background check laws, and makes some simple and innocuous acts criminal. The addition of the desperate act of giving a gun to a felonious friend to save a life was more about showing that it's predictable failure to try to micromanage the behavior of a free people by saying what they cannot do, and then offering exemptions. It's a neverending pit.

Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2014 10:33 PM
53. @52: I was mostly pointing out the fact that this proposed law goes beyond mere feel-goodism of most universal background check laws, and makes some simple and innocuous acts criminal.

But again, you can look at plenty of laws on the books now that are like that, and plenty of other bills that are written in that way. What's the point? You could draft a perfect law, follow a perfect process, and the intent is still flawed.

Posted by: demo kid on January 27, 2014 10:49 PM
54. Demo Kid, all points well taken. I have no intent to fine tune the stinkin' law. I say arm and prepare to defend ourselves from the coming brown horde! Heh. Or out here where I live, the coming white redneck hoarde and the much smaller brown horde of Guatemalan sala pickers.

"... which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, since this is about temporary transfers, which involve neither sales nor contracts"

Now you're saying that the transfer of possession isn't contractual. With that I can at least see why you believe that UCC, RCW 62A and contract law pertaining to sales and contracts are irrelevant to understanding and interpreting a law that makes engaging in some sales and contracts a criminal act. Sigh! I'll close as I'm bored too.

Posted by: Contrary on January 27, 2014 11:18 PM
55. demo kid: What's the point?

Stated from the beginning, and in my most recent comment: to show that this proposed law is even worse than most universal background check laws. To show that it is poorly written, and will have additional adverse effects.


You could draft a perfect law, follow a perfect process, and the intent is still flawed.

Right, which is why I said that the nominal intent is flawed, but additionally, the bill is poorly written and will have additional adverse effects.

It seems to me that I would need some point to not highlight the fact that handing someone a gun in your own home is a criminal act under this proposed law, and I have no such point. Do you?

Posted by: pudge on January 28, 2014 08:43 AM
56. Contrary: "... which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, since this is about temporary transfers, which involve neither sales nor contracts"

Now you're saying that the transfer of possession isn't contractual.

That is completely obvious to me, yes. Else how could I temporarily transfer my gun to a minor for educational purposes, when minors cannot enter into contracts?


With that I can at least see why you believe that UCC, RCW 62A and contract law pertaining to sales and contracts are irrelevant to understanding and interpreting a law that makes engaging in some sales and contracts a criminal act. Sigh! I'll close as I'm bored too.

It's still completely unclear to me how you could think your argument makes sense: it cannot be about contracts, and even if it were, the law you cited would still back me up, as already demonstrated. You literally have made no argument here.

Posted by: pudge on January 28, 2014 08:46 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?