Probably the largest change that Initiative 594 would bring about is a change in the definition of transfer as it relates to firearms. Currently, to transfer a firearm means to transfer ownership of a firearm to someone else, either by means of a sale, gift, or by inheritance. Firearms transferred as a gift (only allowed within families) or by inheritance do not require the services of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer. On page 6, paragraph 25 of the initiative, the definition of transfer is expanded as the following; “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.” Now, there are some exceptions to this, spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles may gift a firearm to one another.
The importance of the term “transfer” is seen in what is required to transfer a firearm. Anytime a firearm is transferred to another person a background check is required.
That may seem alright, until you look at how the term “transfer” is expanded and what is excluded. If you and a friend wanted to go to the local range and go target shooting, neither of you can shoot the others gun as this is now included in the expanded definition of “transfer”. If you wanted to shoot your friends gun you would first have to go to a FFL to have the firearm transferred to you.
On page 7, under the heading “New Section, sec. 3” is the start of 3 pages of explanations of what does and does not constitute a “transfer”. For example, if the firearm is owned by a private shooting club and never leaves the club premises people at that range can use it and that is not considered a transfer. There is a specific exemption to loan a person “if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person whom the firearm is transferred to.” There is a caveat to this though, “the temporary transfer lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.”
Another exemption has to do with hunters. Say a friend from out of state comes to visit and do some hunting. You can loan your friend a gun to hunt, but only if “the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm.” So, if you loan a friend a gun for hunting and you give it to the friend at your house you have not met the exemption and have broken the law as it is not lawful to hunt at your house. Or, you loan the friend your gun and you ride in separate cars to the site of the hunt, you again do not meet the exemption and you have broken the law as it is not lawful to hunt from a road.
Another exemption has to do with inheritance. If you inherit any gun, except for a pistol, you do not the services of a FFL to transfer ownership. If you inherit a pistol, however, you have 60 days to either visit a FFL and have the gun transferred to you or you have to contact the department of licensing and report to them that you have a new pistol and that you intend on keeping it. This last part might make you wonder since we do not have gun registration in Washington. This law would invoke registration of handguns without people realizing what they are voting for.
Another new requirement for gun ownership in Washington provided in I-594, specifically in handgun ownership, is that to purchase a handgun from a dealer you must have a concealed carry permit. In other words, in order to own a handgun you must be licensed by the state to do so. Now, some people may think this is a good idea and we can debate that later. The unfortunate thing here is that it is being slipped in the middle (page 10 of a 19 page initiative) in order to keep it from being noticed and debated.
This is how I understand some of it, it is best to read the initiative several times, it is only 18 pages long. But that was long enough to confuse a lot of people, along with the pro 594 only focusing on the "gun show loophole".
It is a bad piece of work, hopefully the SAF will fight to get it repealed.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20594.pdfbob
