December 2, 2014

M E M O

To: Hunter Education Instructors

From: David Whipple, Hunter Education Division Manager

SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE 594

Dear Instructors,

During the November election, the voters enacted Initiative 594, concerning background checks on firearm sales and transfers. I-594 becomes effective on December 4, 2014. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in close consultation with our legal counsel in the Attorney General’s Office, has assessed the potential effects of I-594 on the Hunter Education Program, our instructors, and our prospective students. We do not believe that I-594 will significantly affect the program.

I will briefly summarize our analysis below. More detail will follow in the next few days.
• I-594 requires that all firearms sales or transfers in Washington be subject to background checks and be made through licensed dealers, unless specifically exempted.
• I-594 exempts all law enforcement agencies from the background check/transfer requirement. WDFW, as a general authority Washington law enforcement agency pursuant to RCW 10.93.020(1), is therefore exempt from this requirement. Any firearms purchase, sale or transfer to or from WDFW or WDFW employees when acting within the scope of their authority, is exempt from the background check/transfer requirement in I-594.
• The Hunter Education Program is a WDFW program authorized by state law pursuant to RCW 77.32.155(1)(a). Hunter Education Instructors, when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program, act on behalf of WDFW, and are therefore exempt from the background check/transfer requirements. This exemption extends to Hunter Education Instructors whether or not they are actually in the classroom, provided that they are in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program. (Firearms transfers by Hunter Education Instructors that are not for the purpose of the Hunter Education Program and within the scope of their authority as WDFW volunteers, are not entitled to this exemption.)
• Transfers of firearms between Hunter Education Instructors (when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program) and sports clubs, gun clubs, and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also exempt from the background check/transfer requirements.
• Transfers of firearms between Hunter Education Instructors and Hunter Education students are also exempt from the background check/transfer requirements of I-594, when the Hunter Education Instructors are in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program. Again, this is because the firearm transfer is to or from Hunter Education Instructors acting on behalf of WDFW, a law enforcement agency.
• I-594 contains limited specific exemptions for certain temporary transfers of firearms kept at shooting ranges and temporary transfers of firearms to persons under the eighteen for educational purposes. Although Hunter Education instruction is an educational purpose and may occur at a shooting range, these two exemptions do not limit or override the broader background check exemption applicable to law enforcement agencies. Therefore, within the constraints described above, transfers of firearms between volunteer Hunter Education Instructors and students are exempt by virtue of WDFW being a law enforcement agency, regardless of the age of the student, and regardless of whether the firearm is removed from a shooting range.
• Although we are still evaluating I-594, it does not initially appear that student-to-student transfers of firearms would fall within the general WDFW exemption for law enforcement agencies. For students under eighteen, however, temporary firearms transfers for educational purposes are exempt if the student is under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult (such as a Hunter Education Instructor) who may lawfully possess firearms. Students eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption. However, regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range. If adult student-to-student transfers are not exempt, then adult students may, without triggering I-594’s background check/transfer requirements—
 Use inert firearms or air rifles (which do not meet the definition of a firearm); or
 Hand their functional firearms to an instructor who then hands it to the other student.

In summary, the transfer/background check exemption I- 594 applies to the following transfers of firearms to or from WDFW Hunter Education Instructors while in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program:
• Between WDFW employees and Hunter Education Instructors
• From one Hunter Education Instructor to another Hunter Education Instructor
• Between Hunter Education Instructors and NGOs
• Between Hunter Education Instructors and students

Additionally, student-to-student transfers may also be exempt under the circumstances and for the reasons described above. Where such transfers are not exempt, we believe that minimal changes to classroom procedures will avoid conflicts with I-594.

You don't mean to say that Obama didn't grab everyone's guns when he enacted the Gun Amnesty Law of 2015 by Executive Order to distract everyone from Ebolaghazi?

While I still wish there was a better campaign to get the "no" vote better represented in the vote on Initiative 594, I'm not surprised that the sky has yet to fall in, either.

Fish on...

Todd

No, not chicken little here. 594 makes the instructors go through some very specific hoops. How an instructor with no LEO background gets considered to be LEO on the basis of this letter is a bit beyond me.

In a classroom setting (not at an authorized range) the instructor can hand a minor a firearm, but not an adult?

How about simulating a fence crossing, one person holds both firearms, the first person crosses, then the second hands them the firearms, as has been taught in every hunter ed class I've attended (4 entire classes total I've attended taking my boys and relatives through for their cards)? Students cant hand to students because they are not hunting, they aren't at a range, they are not licensed to hunt (they're in hunter ed), and so on.

Pure stupidity.

This essentially puts two State law enforcement agencies at odds. WSP says the act of handing a firearm to another doesn't violate 594. WDFW says it does. Not groovy.

the sky is falling and 594 is going to help save us is total bull chit that has taken away some of my freedom. It pisses me off. I will give away a gun today just because I still can. Anyone want to sell me one ?

I agree with all of that...here's the rub, though:

No one will ever be prosecuted for holding someone else's gun while they are stepping over a fence. Ever. Neither will the guy handing the other guy the gun while he climbs over. Ever.

No one will ever be prosecuted at a Hunter's Safety Course. Ever.

Fish on...

Todd

While you are probably correct on those specific scenarios, I am not so optimistic in the real world. The law opens up lots of possibilities for selective prosecution, specifically when you look at what happened with initiative 713.


http://m.seattlepi.com/local/article/Mole-traps-can-lead-to-mountain-of-trouble-1235780.php

Except that the animal rights folks pushing 713 fully intended the law to cover mole traps, too, and any other kind of trap that they found to be "cruel".

594 is intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (irrelevant as to whether or not it actually does, or does not, for this conversation), so behavior like holding your buddy's shotgun as he climbs a fence or handing a gun to a kid at a Hunter's Education/Safety course is not ever going to be a problem.

You know that I voted against 594, and you know that I think the jackasses who walk around waving their 74 IQs around calling other people idiots when those other people are the ones we needed to vote against 594 are the ones that really fukked this up, but I also think that being afeard of stuff like this happening is counterproductive, too...not to mention the fact that it does no good now.

We should have had all the idiots that were on "our side" learn some of these things beforehand and talk about that instead of attacking the very people they needed to vote against it.

Fish on...

Todd

I would hope you are correct. We may see a test of the law very shortly, especially since it goes into effect tomorrow.

I have a Bushmaster AR looking for a new home.

Selectively enforced laws are great.

The sky isn't falling but that doesn't mean this is OK. This is a personal liberty issue and another step further into death by administration. Every time we allow these kinds of laws to pass we further restrict our liberties. The fact that it might be illegal to pass my rifle to my hunting partner, or that I might not be able to loan my rifle to a friend is lunacy. The fact that we even have to consider the legality of a common sense act, loaning an inanimate object to a friend, is lunacy.

The only reason this even flies is there are more people who don't handle guns than do, the ones who don't don't care about the inconvenience they are causing others. Image if we had this law for letting a friend drive your car, you know, something that actually kills many more people than guns.

Our government represents us well, they control us because we let them.

Exactly, having your buddy hold you rifle won't be an issue until someone needs a reason to bust you for something, then, it is a technicality and they are searching your truck and seizing your phone. It happens with fishing rules we already have.