WA AG at it again

[Tidalwave]

http://www.krem.com/news/local/report-identifies-gaps-in-wa-gun-laws/345797435

Death by a thousand paper cuts. They just keep prodding and poking all the "angles"

 

[DeSchaine]

Here in MI, it's all done by the FBI. The dealer sends the information to them and gets a reply usually in less than an hour. Now, that reply can be Yes, Hold or Deny. A yes lets you walk out of the store with the firearm right then and there. A hold means you may have to wait up to 3 business days. Deny is obvious.

I have to wonder why is WA State getting involved at all? Don't they trust the Feds?

 

[solus]

without delving into a full blown research project, i believe WA state's FFLs are exempt from NICS check on handgun sales for WA citizens who are CC holders...

ATF quote:
Note: Notwithstanding the dates set forth below, permits qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for nano more than 5 years from the date of issuance. The permit must be valid under State law in order to qualify as a Brady alternative.

WASHINGTON: Concealed pistol license issued on or after July 22, 2011 qualify.

unquote https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/permanent-brady-permit-chart

therefore the nice WA AG should be really upset at the nice LE personnel doing the limited bkgnd checks on the state's citizens.

NC citizens are not subjected to NICS checks as they must, by NC statute, have either a Pistol permit or CHP. (sidebar ~ that NC PPP/CHP holders allow themselves to be subjected to NICS checks at the box stores is their own uneducated fault and if they get a denial...serves them right!!)

final point...NC legislature mandated citizens sign waivers to access local mental health records when they apply for their PPP/CHP!

there ya go, WA AG is pushing for the same type of wavier...

ipse

added...you should be more upset at the article's P*** poor writing and inaccuracies ~ shudder

 

[golddigger14s]

"without delving into a full blown research project, i believe WA state's FFLs are exempt from NICS check on handgun sales for WA citizens who are CC holders..."
Negative ghost rider.
Rifle, or pistol you will do the federal/NICS BGC every time. If you have a CPL it takes the place of doing a local BGC. No delay from NICS, and you take the gun home same day.

 

[solus]

"without delving into a full blown research project, i believe WA state's FFLs are exempt from NICS check on handgun sales for WA citizens who are CC holders..."
Negative ghost rider.
Rifle, or pistol you will do the federal/NICS BGC every time. If you have a CPL it takes the place of doing a local BGC. No delay from NICS, and you take the gun home same day.

had to turn it into a research project didn't you...

first ATF cite i provided in my previous post provides guidance for WA FFLs to exempt WA citizens from provisions of the Brady act aka NICS for purchase of a handgun!

quote
Does a permit qualify as an alternative to a NICS check if the purchaser is using it to purchase a type of firearm that is not covered by the permit?

Yes, assuming the transaction complies with State law.
Example: ATF recognizes the permit to purchase a handgun and the concealed weapons permit as alternatives to a NICS check in State A. Any purchaser who displays a permit to purchase a handgun or a concealed weapons permit in State A is not required to undergo a NICS check prior to purchasing a rifle, assuming the transaction complies with State law.
last reviewed september 23 2016
unquote

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/doe...k-if-purchaser-using-it-purchase-type-firearm

now, which part of the official ATF policy are you confused on ~ if a WA resident has their valid permit, within 5 year issuance, the resident is exempt from NICS check...

unless you have a viable cite...

i'm out of here...

ipse

added...as stated re NC citizens who endure boxstores NICS deserve what the get, denials, etc. apparently that same mentality apply to WA residents as well ~ present company included golddigger!

 

[golddigger14s]

I don't have a "cite". I have first hand experience as a purchaser, and as a gun-sales person. If you buy any gun (or stripped lower) in WA, you will do a 4473 with or without a CPL.

 

[solus]

I don't have a "cite". I have first hand experience as a purchaser, and as a gun-sales person. If you buy any gun (or stripped lower) in WA, you will do a 4473 with or without a CPL.

i am glad you have this first hand knowledge...

did you see anywhere in my statement(s) or citations an FFL would not have the buyer complete an ATF 4473 Form ?

what i stated is by ATF guidance, WA residents who are purchasing firearms, handguns or rifles or shotguns, and have a valid CC permit - FFLs DO NOT need to submit buyer's personal data to NICS for approval ~ have the buyer complete front of the 4473, FFL (or gun sales person) list the CC permit & DL info on the back, FFL or gun sales person sign in the proper spot(s) and hand the purchase to the buyer...transfer complete!

now i understand as a gun sales person you are mandated to follow your boxstore's policy and dutifully call in every buyer's personal information or as a purchaser you have been forced to endure the NICS wait, but as you have seen from the cited official ATF guidance, it is not mandated by the ATF for your state's CC permit holders.

ipse

added...we are discussing Federal requirements and not 9.41.090 statutes which in part states:
9.41.090. Dealer deliveries regulated - Hold onon delivery
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate
atf5300.5 pg 479

 

[Whitney]

Back on topic

After reading through the white paper the AG is not really proposing any "new" legislation or law making, with one exception.
He is suggesting some tweaks to current statutes that will likely pass in our legislature.

Recall a few years ago when Amina Bowman was shot by a class mate in Kitsap county.
Prosecutors in this case failed to convict the owner of the firearm as it was not stored in a "felonious" manner.

After conclusion of the trial our legislature tried to enact a safe storage act which failed.

The AG is proposing a new law that makes clear how you must store your firearms. Additionally the law would incentivize the purchase of safe storage items.

I guess he does not know about the tax break you already get when purchasing a gun safe.

Some of the ideas presented I can get behind, but most are the same old "do something" tripe.

Currently waiting on a FOIA request from the AG office regarding the proposed ban on "assault weapons". The next legislative session starts in January and ends in April.

~Whitney

 

[solus]

since you'al are back on topic...

the recommendations are those being pushed in your new initiative 1491...the WA AG is hedging the bet to get the mental health/firearms into WA statutes, e.g.,

1. WP Recommendation: Take steps to ensure that when a court enters a guardianship order prohibiting an individual ward from possessing firearms, the order is entered into the federal background check system.

initiative 1491: ex parte extreme risk protection orders


The measure also authorizes courts to issue “ex parte extreme risk protection order,” which would hasten the process of prohibiting a person from possessing or accessing firearms.

2. WP Recommendation: Adopt a narrowly crafted prohibition on the possession of afirearm on a temporary or permanent basis if a person is detained for civilcommitment evaluation or observation and the use or threatened use of a firearmwas a factor in the person’s detention. The measure must include due processprotections and procedures for restoration of rights as appropriate.

Initiative 1491: Extreme risk protection orders

Initiative 1491 would authorize courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” which would prevent a person from possessing or accessing firearms. The person would need to be considered a significant danger to himself or herself or others before an extreme risk protection order can be authorized.

3. WP Recommendation: Adopt additional risk-based prohibitions focused on individuals who pose a high risk to themselves or others rather than categories of people without regard to risk. Any such measure must include due process protections and procedures to restore rights as appropriate.

initiative 1491: Extreme risk protection orders


....Petitions would be required to explain facts that demonstrate a reasonable fear of future actions by the person. Petitions would be filed under oath. An extreme risk protection order would last one year. Petitioners would be permitted ask for the order to be renewed for an additional year.

finally whitey, since according to you the thread was apparently terribly off topic, i shan't point out the WA AG is not cognizant, as evidenced in the white paper he released under his name, of the ATF's exemption(s) on NICS checks if a WA resident has a CC permit and purchases either a handgun, rifle, or pistol.

there are other blatant glaring errors in his white paper and ATF guidance as well as current WA statutory guidance.

jump up and down but WA citizens are about to get hit by a double whammy...from the initiative 1491 and the AG's push.

ipse

 

[retrodad]

jump up and down but WA citizens are about to get hit by a double whammy...from the initiative 1491 and the AG's push.

ipse

Second Amendment Foundation plans on challenging in the courts or legislature. There's a reason similar bills to this initiative died in legislative committees -- they didn't pass constitutional muster.

 

[solus]

Second Amendment Foundation plans on challenging in the courts or legislature. There's a reason similar bills to this initiative died in legislative committees -- they didn't pass constitutional muster.

ya ya ya...after the fact...as usual!!

how well did after the fact challenges work on 594...hummm?

ipse

 

[retrodad]

ya ya ya...after the fact...as usual!!

how well did after the fact challenges work on 594...hummm?

ipse

Yeah, not thrilled about that either, believe me. I gave to Know1491.org (the only grassroots opposition with a public face), but that's like p1ssing in the wind compared to the millions Bloomberg(spits) poured into this initiative.

 

[solus]

Yeah, not thrilled about that either, believe me. I gave to Know1491.org (the only grassroots opposition with a public face), but that's like p1ssing in the wind compared to the millions Bloomberg(spits) poured into this initiative.

your kind attention is directed to

http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/show...un-confiscation-without-being-convicted/page2

post 46... an offer to assist...post 47 response...

bottom line...no, nada, nothing but business as usual.

and giving to anonymous & nebulous entiy is like giving the money to a panhandler standing along side of the road.

ipse

 

[Whitney]

confused

since you'al are back on topic...

the recommendations are those being pushed in your new initiative 1491...the WA AG is hedging the bet to get the mental health/firearms into WA statutes, e.g.,

1. WP Recommendation: Take steps to ensure that when a court enters a guardianship order prohibiting an individual ward from possessing firearms, the order is entered into the federal background check system.

initiative 1491: ex parte extreme risk protection orders


The measure also authorizes courts to issue “ex parte extreme risk protection order,” which would hasten the process of prohibiting a person from possessing or accessing firearms.

2. WP Recommendation: Adopt a narrowly crafted prohibition on the possession of afirearm on a temporary or permanent basis if a person is detained for civilcommitment evaluation or observation and the use or threatened use of a firearmwas a factor in the person’s detention. The measure must include due processprotections and procedures for restoration of rights as appropriate.

Initiative 1491: Extreme risk protection orders

Initiative 1491 would authorize courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” which would prevent a person from possessing or accessing firearms. The person would need to be considered a significant danger to himself or herself or others before an extreme risk protection order can be authorized.

3. WP Recommendation: Adopt additional risk-based prohibitions focused on individuals who pose a high risk to themselves or others rather than categories of people without regard to risk. Any such measure must include due process protections and procedures to restore rights as appropriate.

initiative 1491: Extreme risk protection orders


....Petitions would be required to explain facts that demonstrate a reasonable fear of future actions by the person. Petitions would be filed under oath. An extreme risk protection order would last one year. Petitioners would be permitted ask for the order to be renewed for an additional year.

finally whitey, since according to you the thread was apparently terribly off topic, i shan't point out the WA AG is not cognizant, as evidenced in the white paper he released under his name, of the ATF's exemption(s) on NICS checks if a WA resident has a CC permit and purchases either a handgun, rifle, or pistol.

there are other blatant glaring errors in his white paper and ATF guidance as well as current WA statutory guidance.

jump up and down but WA citizens are about to get hit by a double whammy...from the initiative 1491 and the AG's push.

ipse

I did not get the sense that the AG was attempting to institute extreme risk or ex-parte orders.
I don't understand your comparison to 1491, please clarify your statement regarding persons subject to gaurdianships and how it relates to 1491.
I can see the similarity to 1491 with your statement #2 and #3 yet no exparte orders are suggested.

I get the sense that there is an overall acknowledgement NICS is broken and we are stuck with it.
I believe he also agrees the background check system could be streamlined but there are legal difficulties with including certain information in the NICS system.

It is encouraging there is acknowledgement of failed prosecution regarding "lie and try". What concerns me most with this is "deny" from NICS may not fall out the way his paper envisions and good people get tied up in a legal mess.

If 1491 passes then the things you mention will indeed be invoked by citizen initiative as they all failed to pass the legislature.
Any legislation proposed still has to make it out of the legislature or likely become another citizen initiative.

I do agree the AG office is not cognizant of all the nuances of BATF poicy and RCW 9.41.

~Whitney