END_THE_FED
Regular Member
I emailed the below letter to Dan Satterberg. He is the king County prosecutor and self identifies as a "republican". He officially endorsed I-594. I dont expect anything other than a form-letter in return, but we will see. Any response he sends will be posted here.
Mr. Satterberg,
My name is Taran and I am a GOP PCO in the 43rd district. It is with a heavy heart and a very deep feeling of betrayal that I write this letter to you today.
Myself, and several individuals I know are very disappointed with your decision to endorse I-594. As disappointed as we are with your decision to support this law, it is not the purpose of this letter to criticize your decision to do so. The purpose of this letter is to share some concerns that myself, and several of the republicans whom I have the honor of representing have with this (soon to be) new law. I hope to get some information and feedback from you regarding these questions and concerns and share the information with the members of my precinct.
The alleged purpose of this law is to regulate sales between persons and entities other than licensed dealers. However, this law seems to criminalize behavior that has nothing to do with sales.
I recently had a visitor stay with me and during his stay we went camping near the Mt. Rainier area. On our way to the camp site I stopped at the houses of a couple of friends to borrow a few firearms so I could take my visitor target shooting. On the way home from the camp site this visitor and I stopped at a lawful shooting area and spent a couple hours safely shooting firearms. When finished we cleaned up after ourselves, and picked up some other trash in the area. I then returned the firearms to their owners. I-591 appears to make this a felony. If I-594 would not criminalize this behavior please explain how it is exempt from the law. If the law does apply then please explain to me why this harmless, wholesome, and responsible activity should be a felony.
Many of the republicans that I have the honor of representing are concerned that the simple act of letting another individual use their firearm at a lawful shooting area will now be a felony. As you may already know, it is common for people to go shooting with friends and/or acquaintances. During a day of shooting people often shoot each others firearms, this common and harmless activity appears to be transformed into a felony by I-594. With my reading of I-594 handing a firearm to another individual, even for a few minutes would fall under the definition of a transfer because the definition of a transfer not only includes gifts and sales but also loans. Is my reading correct?
If my interpretation of the above scenario is correct, it would require that someone new to shooting who is interested in learning is now required to purchase a firearm before learning how to shoot. This makes learning to shoot cost prohibitive for a lot of people and seems to put a significant burden on the new shooters ability to exercise the right of self defense as affirmed by Article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. The law also places a burden on the rights affirmed by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution For The United States Of America. How can one be part of a "well regulated militia" if not allowed to learn how to use the common tools of defense?
There are additional concerns/questions that have come up.
Sometimes when someone is lawfully carrying a firearm they have contact with law enforcement. This can be in the form of a consensual encounter, investigatory detention, or an arrest. The contact may or may not have anything to do with the firearm. During such contacts, upon finding out the person is carrying a firearm, the officer sometimes seizes the firearm temporarily for "officer safety". If this contact ends with the person being "free to go" will the officer be able to legally give the firearm back to the person without performing the background check and FFL transfer? What if the person is arrested for something that has nothing to do with the firearm and would not make him a "prohibited person", when this person is released from jail, will his firearm be returned directly, or will it have to be done through an FFL?
How does this law effect armed security guards? Under current Washington State law an armed security guard is required to carry a firearm that is owned by the company for whom they work. Most companies have a policy that requires the firearm to be stored on company property when the guard is off duty. A strict reading of this law would require that an FFL be used every time the firearm is picked up, or returned by the guard.
Current law requires that courthouses provide a way for visitors to store their firearms while they are at the courthouse. The law gives the courthouse the option to providing a lock box for storage, or if the court does not provide lock boxes they must "designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping" Will this official be able to return the firearm to the visitor directly, or will it have to go through an FFL?
If this law is about background checks, why is there not an exemption to CPL holders? They have already passed the background check.
Please share your thoughts on these concerns. Your response or lack thereof will be shared with the people of my precinct and other people with similar concerns.
I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Taran J. Covich, PCO 43-1271 (GOP)
Mr. Satterberg,
My name is Taran and I am a GOP PCO in the 43rd district. It is with a heavy heart and a very deep feeling of betrayal that I write this letter to you today.
Myself, and several individuals I know are very disappointed with your decision to endorse I-594. As disappointed as we are with your decision to support this law, it is not the purpose of this letter to criticize your decision to do so. The purpose of this letter is to share some concerns that myself, and several of the republicans whom I have the honor of representing have with this (soon to be) new law. I hope to get some information and feedback from you regarding these questions and concerns and share the information with the members of my precinct.
The alleged purpose of this law is to regulate sales between persons and entities other than licensed dealers. However, this law seems to criminalize behavior that has nothing to do with sales.
I recently had a visitor stay with me and during his stay we went camping near the Mt. Rainier area. On our way to the camp site I stopped at the houses of a couple of friends to borrow a few firearms so I could take my visitor target shooting. On the way home from the camp site this visitor and I stopped at a lawful shooting area and spent a couple hours safely shooting firearms. When finished we cleaned up after ourselves, and picked up some other trash in the area. I then returned the firearms to their owners. I-591 appears to make this a felony. If I-594 would not criminalize this behavior please explain how it is exempt from the law. If the law does apply then please explain to me why this harmless, wholesome, and responsible activity should be a felony.
Many of the republicans that I have the honor of representing are concerned that the simple act of letting another individual use their firearm at a lawful shooting area will now be a felony. As you may already know, it is common for people to go shooting with friends and/or acquaintances. During a day of shooting people often shoot each others firearms, this common and harmless activity appears to be transformed into a felony by I-594. With my reading of I-594 handing a firearm to another individual, even for a few minutes would fall under the definition of a transfer because the definition of a transfer not only includes gifts and sales but also loans. Is my reading correct?
If my interpretation of the above scenario is correct, it would require that someone new to shooting who is interested in learning is now required to purchase a firearm before learning how to shoot. This makes learning to shoot cost prohibitive for a lot of people and seems to put a significant burden on the new shooters ability to exercise the right of self defense as affirmed by Article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. The law also places a burden on the rights affirmed by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution For The United States Of America. How can one be part of a "well regulated militia" if not allowed to learn how to use the common tools of defense?
There are additional concerns/questions that have come up.
Sometimes when someone is lawfully carrying a firearm they have contact with law enforcement. This can be in the form of a consensual encounter, investigatory detention, or an arrest. The contact may or may not have anything to do with the firearm. During such contacts, upon finding out the person is carrying a firearm, the officer sometimes seizes the firearm temporarily for "officer safety". If this contact ends with the person being "free to go" will the officer be able to legally give the firearm back to the person without performing the background check and FFL transfer? What if the person is arrested for something that has nothing to do with the firearm and would not make him a "prohibited person", when this person is released from jail, will his firearm be returned directly, or will it have to be done through an FFL?
How does this law effect armed security guards? Under current Washington State law an armed security guard is required to carry a firearm that is owned by the company for whom they work. Most companies have a policy that requires the firearm to be stored on company property when the guard is off duty. A strict reading of this law would require that an FFL be used every time the firearm is picked up, or returned by the guard.
Current law requires that courthouses provide a way for visitors to store their firearms while they are at the courthouse. The law gives the courthouse the option to providing a lock box for storage, or if the court does not provide lock boxes they must "designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping" Will this official be able to return the firearm to the visitor directly, or will it have to go through an FFL?
If this law is about background checks, why is there not an exemption to CPL holders? They have already passed the background check.
Please share your thoughts on these concerns. Your response or lack thereof will be shared with the people of my precinct and other people with similar concerns.
I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Taran J. Covich, PCO 43-1271 (GOP)
Last edited: