Great job, Washington State

[Bone]

@Robot_Arm

Seems like a bit of a self-contradictory argument; that the background checks should be cheap, and yet have a large, qualified agency to make them fast, too. Someone has to run the checks, and maintain the data that they depend on, and those people will want to get paid. What if the true cost, in staffing, equipment, and overhead, to process a background check is $100; is it fair to pass that cost on to the buyer, or is it an onerous burden that should invalidate the law?

Actually - running the background check is cheap and the data is already maintained so the incremental cost should be nominal. That is if CA experience has any bearing on the WA scenario. In CA the cost of the background check is mandated by statute. In fact, it was cheap enough that the funds collected from the checks and DROS combined created a surplus which the state of CA illegally used for prohibited purposes. IIRC, the cost for DROS and background in CA is $25 and $10 respectively. That is for in person PPT. For out of state sales where the FFL is acting as the go between the statutory limits do not apply.

CA already requires universal background checks (save for some interfamilial and C&R sales) but the main difference is that there are exceptions that make the system not as stupid as WA I-594. I-594 was poorly written. The fact that the mere act of borrowing a firearm, among other things, triggers I-594 is what will be its demise.

[Buck_Godot]

@dracoi

In fact, some think we have do this double-transfer even if we’re both on the hunting trip and I just want to use your gun for the afternoon. (Which would obviously be impossible since we’re both out hunting.)

I’m inclined to discount this argument. Plenty of laws have potential weaknesses if they’re implemented unreasonably. I hope our law won’t suffer from that problem… but I do see the potential there.

For the most part I think you’re right. If you loan out your gun to a friend on a hunting trip no one will know or care. However, I can imagine this sort of law being applied post hoc if something bad goes down. If you lend your hunting rifle to your best fried Joe on a hunting trip and he kills a game warden with it, then you could be in trouble. So then it comes down to only lending your gun to people you really trust to be responsible, which is as it should be.

[Bone]

@Buck_Godot

For the most part I think you’re right. If you loan out your gun to a friend on a hunting trip no one will know or care. However, I can imagine this sort of law being applied post hoc if something bad goes down. If you lend your hunting rifle to your best fried Joe on a hunting trip and he kills a game warden with it, then you could be in trouble. So then it comes down to only lending your gun to people you really trust to be responsible, which is as it should be.

This is a poor way to craft laws. It gives discretion to enforcement agencies and allows wide disparity in the treatment of individuals who both behave in the same way. One should not be a felon on the whim of the game warden who happens to be having a bad day.

A simple fix would be to provide an exemption to the background check requirement for loaning firearms for a brief period, 30 days or so.

[Ravenman]

I just looked up the initiative. It specifically exempts several activities, inlcuding transfers within families, temporary transfers for hunting, and a limited number of other exceptions.

The law reads:

“This section does not apply to . . The temporary transfer of a firearm . . . 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.”

[Bone]

@Ravenman

I just looked up the initiative. It specifically exempts several activities, inlcuding transfers within families, temporary transfers for hunting, and a limited number of other exceptions.

The law reads:

“This section does not apply to . . The temporary transfer of a firearm . . . 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.”

There are exceptions, yes. They are not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional challenges, IMO. The hunting exception is only when the transfer happens during the hunting trip, and only if both transferor and transferee are present at the same time. In other words, you can’t loan your firearm to a friend to go hunt and have them pick it up at your house - you both have to go to the hunting grounds.