Solarbird (solarbird) wrote,
Solarbird
solarbird

  • Mood:

Vote No on I-594

Even if you're a gun-control supporter in a general sense, you really want to give I-594 a second look. In trying to cover All Cases Except, the authors really kind of did create a lot of accidental-felony opportunities here. The Tacoma News-Tribune points out several examples, and you might read their editorial, but I want to turn it up a little here.

The keys are twofold. First is the definition of "transfer" to include any "intent to deliver" to another person, even in the very short term. The clause specifically notes that it includes but is not limited to gifts and loans of any period. The second is a quick ramp-up into felony territory.

To point out an extreme and arguably silly but from my reading unfortunately legitimate example, it looks like you would technically commit a felony by handing your firearm to your firearms-legal friend to hold while you're, say, pouring some water, and then taking it back. You would certainly do so by handing it to a friend to fix (say, unjamming it) and then taking it back.

In both cases, the first transfer would be a misdemeanour, the second a Class C felony. And that's crazytalk. "Here, hold this" shouldn't generally lead to a felony violation. What bothers me is that the authors seemed to be somewhat aware of that fact - they make an exception for repairs by gunsmiths, but only Federally-licesnsed ones. Which most aren't.

So even if you're for gun control in general... this is just bad law. If you're reflexively voting yes, please reconsider.

Also posted to ソ-ラ-バ-ド-のおん; comment count unavailable comments at Dreamwidth.

Tags: politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments