I-594 and muzzleloaders

[usmc74]

Does I-594 apply to muzzleloaders?

Currently you can buy a muzzleloader without going through an FFL.  Can buy and ship without an FFL.

[csaaphill]

i have alink in the outdorr activist part go check but yes I beleive it does even though you don't have to go through a FFL now you will 
but for me don't comply it's the only voice that they will hear not us just complying they will say oh ok they don't care and go for more and more and more and more and more untill it's all gone!
each time we threaten if a law passes but don't do as we threat and when it does we just roll over we tell them they can just do what they want.

[TopOfTheFoodChain]

Looks like it does now. See wording of unlawful bill below.

Section 9 of the final wording on the bill:
(9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.

Section 20
(20) "Sale" and "sell" mean the actual approval of the delivery of a firearm in consideration of payment or promise of payment.

Section 25
(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

[luvmystang67]

While I see your point, here's yet ANOTHER contradiction within 594... but I think this similar to the exemption that allows muzzleloaders to be sold over the mail currently as well, so I'm pretty sure you're okay...  Again, I know its not clear, so you'd probably be okay after you hired a lawyer and defended yourself in court.



This measure would extend criminal and public safety background checks to all gun sales or transfers. Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques.

Sec. 2. RCW 9.41.010 and 2013 c 183 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

[Stein]

This measure would extend criminal and public safety background checks to all gun sales or transfers. Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques.

Sec. 2. RCW 9.41.010 and 2013 c 183 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

I highlighted another point above, antiques are only those guns produced before 1898.  Modern smokepoles are covered.

By their definition, potato guns may be covered as well.  They use the term "explosive" which isn't technically correct as well as "gunpowder" which is obviously almost never used.

Basically, antiques are exempt as they are really not fired but are museum type pieces.

[Bob33]

The way the initiative is written, modern muzzleloaders are not exempt from background checks.

[Chukarhead]

Looks like it does now. See wording of unlawful bill below.

Section 9 of the final wording on the bill:
(9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.

Section 20
(20) "Sale" and "sell" mean the actual approval of the delivery of a firearm in consideration of payment or promise of payment.

Section 25
(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

Bummer.  Buying "safe & sane" fireworks will be a challenge next summer! 

[BigGoonTuna]

that's quite a change, when i bought my muzzleloader at the defunct lacey wholesale sports,i wasn't even carded!

[luvmystang67]

Challenge:

Can someone find me what in the state language refers to "modern muzzleloaders" any different than the same definition of "antique firearms"?

I think 594 took the existing language for antique firearm, which I BELIEVE is what currently covers muzzleloaders in our state today.  Can someone find me something different in current wa code?  If that is the case, then 594 would not apply to muzzleloaders.

I do not think 594 fundamentally changed the definition of a muzzleloader compared to how the state listed it before.  All I can find in the WAC is reference to antique firearms, for which muzzleloaders count as a "modern replica".   

[JimmyHoffa]

modern style break, bolt and lever muzzleloaders have been around since before 1898.  I think they're covered.

[Bob33]

Challenge:

Can someone find me what in the state language refers to "modern muzzleloaders" any different than the same definition of "antique firearms"?

I think 594 took the existing language for antique firearm, which I BELIEVE is what currently covers muzzleloaders in our state today.  Can someone find me something different in current wa code?  If that is the case, then 594 would not apply to muzzleloaders.

I do not think 594 fundamentally changed the definition of a muzzleloader compared to how the state listed it before.  All I can find in the WAC is reference to antique firearms, for which muzzleloaders count as a "modern replica".   

In Washington state law, muzzleloaders are considered firearms. I-594 does not change that. It does exempt "antique firearms" from background checks, but most muzzleloaders (i.e. "modern muzzleloaders") do not meet the i-594 definition of an "antique firearm" and thus are subject to the same requirements as other rifles.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Lets settle this once and for all, before this thread gets out of hand.

Everybody pitch in and start a fund, then give it to me and on Dec 5, I will head down and purchase the latest, most modern muzzle loader on the rack and we will see if I have to go through the instant background check.

Actually, lets pool enough so I can test the law 3 or 4 times to get an accurate reading...I volunteer all in the name of clarification. 

I am just helpful that way.....

[luvmystang67]

Challenge:

Can someone find me what in the state language refers to "modern muzzleloaders" any different than the same definition of "antique firearms"?

I think 594 took the existing language for antique firearm, which I BELIEVE is what currently covers muzzleloaders in our state today.  Can someone find me something different in current wa code?  If that is the case, then 594 would not apply to muzzleloaders.

I do not think 594 fundamentally changed the definition of a muzzleloader compared to how the state listed it before.  All I can find in the WAC is reference to antique firearms, for which muzzleloaders count as a "modern replica".   

In Washington state law, muzzleloaders are considered firearms. I-594 does not change that. It does exempt "antique firearms" from background checks, but most muzzleloaders (i.e. "modern muzzleloaders") do not meet the i-594 definition of an "antique firearm" and thus are subject to the same requirements as other rifles.

Not trying to be a pain in the butt, but what prevented them from requiring background checks if they've always been considered firearms?  (Pre-594 as in today)

[bobcat]

Good question.

[Bob33]

Challenge:

Can someone find me what in the state language refers to "modern muzzleloaders" any different than the same definition of "antique firearms"?

I think 594 took the existing language for antique firearm, which I BELIEVE is what currently covers muzzleloaders in our state today.  Can someone find me something different in current wa code?  If that is the case, then 594 would not apply to muzzleloaders.

I do not think 594 fundamentally changed the definition of a muzzleloader compared to how the state listed it before.  All I can find in the WAC is reference to antique firearms, for which muzzleloaders count as a "modern replica".   

In Washington state law, muzzleloaders are considered firearms. I-594 does not change that. It does exempt "antique firearms" from background checks, but most muzzleloaders (i.e. "modern muzzleloaders") do not meet the i-594 definition of an "antique firearm" and thus are subject to the same requirements as other rifles.

Not trying to be a pain in the butt, but what prevented them from requiring background checks if they've always been considered firearms?  (Pre-594 as in today)

Federal law exempts them from background checks.

[luvmystang67]

Okay, I think I have this sorted out in a way that makes sense... let me know what you (masses) think.

Muzzleloaders are "antique firearms" under federal law. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/collectors.html#antique-definition

Given that state law previously ignored part c of the federal law, muzzleloaders have never all been considered antique firearms in WA state.  This was fine because wa state didn't have specific background check laws, other than the federally mandated ones.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41&full=true#9.41.010

Now that they do have mandated laws, the requirements will follow the new bill that mandates those laws.

Basically, WA states definition has never followed the federal one, and since 591 didn't pass, we're now stuck with WA's definition of antique firearms, which means we're hosed.  Wonder if any retailers know that?  What happens when I order a muzzleloader from Cabelas on Dec 5th and have it sent to my house?

[Bob33]

Okay, I think I have this sorted out in a way that makes sense... let me know what you (masses) think.

Muzzleloaders are "antique firearms" under federal law. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/collectors.html#antique-definition

Given that state law previously ignored part c of the federal law, muzzleloaders have never all been considered antique firearms in WA state.  This was fine because wa state didn't have specific background check laws, other than the federally mandated ones.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41&full=true#9.41.010

Now that they do have mandated laws, the requirements will follow the new bill that mandates those laws.

Basically, WA states definition has never followed the federal one, and since 591 didn't pass, we're now stuck with WA's definition of antique firearms, which means we're hosed.  Wonder if any retailers know that?  What happens when I order a muzzleloader from Cabelas on Dec 5th and have it sent to my house?

My understanding is similar to yours. The Cabelas question is an interesting one.

[luvmystang67]

This makes me furious.  I want to take PVC pipes and install muzzleloader nipples and spring loaded hammers on them and send them to friends to illustrate how ridiculous this is.  Even without a trigger I think that would qualify.

[TopOfTheFoodChain]

Looks like mortar type fireworks and many others would classify as "firearms" under this

[Fl0und3rz]

Challenge:

Can someone find me what in the state language refers to "modern muzzleloaders" any different than the same definition of "antique firearms"?

I think 594 took the existing language for antique firearm, which I BELIEVE is what currently covers muzzleloaders in our state today.  Can someone find me something different in current wa code?  If that is the case, then 594 would not apply to muzzleloaders.

I do not think 594 fundamentally changed the definition of a muzzleloader compared to how the state listed it before.  All I can find in the WAC is reference to antique firearms, for which muzzleloaders count as a "modern replica".   

You are correct, I-594 did not change the wording of RCW 9.41.010:

(1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

To distill that, (1) means all muzzleloaders (non-centerfire, non-rimfire, subject to AG opinion point below) such as "including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system"  AND any centerfire/rimfire pre-1898, subject to the commercially available ammo provision.
 

HOWEVER, RCW 9.41.010 does allow that "[ u]nless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter."

That is, context of I-594 can change the definition of "Antique firearm."  Does it?

(9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

Not changed by I-594

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

Changed/Added by I-594, but uses unchanged RCW 9.41.010 definition of "Firearm."

(4) This section does not apply to:
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;

New section of I-594. 


Because I-594 does not change the definition of "Antique firearm" or "Firearm" and exempts "[t]he sale or transfer of an antique firearm . . . ," I would expect that the existing state practice, for which  I presume is not requiring backgrounds checks for retail sale of modern muzzleloaders, would remain the same post I-594.


However, note that the existing definition of "Antique Firearm" has that murky clause, "and manufactured in or before 1898 . . . ."  I would have expected that someone has obtained an AG opinion in the past that interprets that clause as allowing sales of post-1898 muzzleloaders without background checks.

Disclaimer: don't take internet legal advice.