tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post2362685453202808257..comments2024-03-28T18:08:20.711-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: Tomorrow is National Ammo DayPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-86761958648129215142014-11-19T01:48:59.966-06:002014-11-19T01:48:59.966-06:00This may sound like a bit of a stretch, but I'...This may sound like a bit of a stretch, but I'm wondering if Washington state's I-594 couldn't be neutered by a challenge on the 5th Amendment takings clause. <br /><br />".... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."<br /><br />Courts have, with some frequency, interpreted government action which reduces the value of property to constitute a "taking" by government, requiring compensation to the injured party. <br /><br />Should Party A wish to allow Party B to possess (and it needs to be remembered that with firearms "possess" has strict legal meaning - it means to come into physical contact with a firearm, such as touching it or holding it, so Mary handing her gun to Sally constitutes Sally's legal possession of the gun at the moment the gun touches Sally's hand) I-594 requires a legal transfer of the firearm from Party A to Party B, conducted by a federally- and state-licensed firearms dealer (eg., an "FFL") <i>and</i> a background check. <br /><br />The FFL will charge for that legal transfer because of the record keeping expenses and legal liability associated with the legal requirements of an FFL, and most states charge FFLs for background checks associated with transfers, which the FFL passes along to the customer. <br /><br />So, in the example above, either Party A or Party B must pay the FFL for the transfer and background check; this expense is will be incurred as part of compliance with the requirements of I-594.<br /><br />The day before I-594 takes effect Mary can hand Sally her gun without incurring any transfer or background check fees; the day after I-594 takes effect either Mary or Sally must pay a fee to do that. <br /><br />So, either FFLs have to do transfers for free, and not charge customers for the background check (good luck with that), or Washington state has just mandated a non-tax fee to participants. IANAL, but that may constitute a "taking." <br /><br />And, on a separate but related issue, suppose Mary and Sally do perform the now mandatory FFL-processed transfer so Sally can use (legally "possess") Mary's gun; should Mary trust Sally to engage in the legal transfer required to give Mary's gun back to Mary? Or should gun owners in Washington state (such as Mary) insist on compensation (in this case, from Sally) equal to the gun's value in case, for whatever reason, the gun is not, or cannot be, transferred back to Mary, the original owner? Inconsiderate Bastardnoreply@blogger.com