Post by: steeleywhopper on December 22, 2015, 08:56:57 AM
Post by: cowboycraig on December 22, 2015, 09:02:40 AM
Think technically they are not legally guns. Sure someone will chime in that knows for sure.
Post by: bobcat on December 22, 2015, 09:02:41 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2015, 09:04:19 AM
According to the law yes, but apparently the law isn't being enforced so everybody is continuing to transfer muzzleloaders without the FFL.According to Washington state law, they are considered firearms. According to federal law they are not.
Post by: bobcat on December 22, 2015, 09:06:28 AM
According to the law yes, but apparently the law isn't being enforced so everybody is continuing to transfer muzzleloaders without the FFL.According to Washington state law, they are considered firearms. According to federal law they are not.
Right. And according to I-594 to transfer a muzzleloader you need to use an FFL just like any other firearm.
Post by: cowboycraig on December 22, 2015, 09:36:13 AM
So how can a private sale require a background check? It is confusing.
So at a store no background check is needed, but between citizens a background check is needed?
594 was always about "hurting those you don't like politically"... I am feeling the pain. :bash:
Post by: Antlershed on December 22, 2015, 09:37:22 AM
Unless purchased from a dealer. Makes zero sense, but now we are "safer" :chuckle:According to the law yes, but apparently the law isn't being enforced so everybody is continuing to transfer muzzleloaders without the FFL.According to Washington state law, they are considered firearms. According to federal law they are not.
Right. And according to I-594 to transfer a muzzleloader you need to use an FFL just like any other firearm.
Post by: bobcat on December 22, 2015, 09:39:02 AM
Unless purchased from a dealer. Makes zero sense, but now we are "safer" :chuckle:According to the law yes, but apparently the law isn't being enforced so everybody is continuing to transfer muzzleloaders without the FFL.According to Washington state law, they are considered firearms. According to federal law they are not.
Right. And according to I-594 to transfer a muzzleloader you need to use an FFL just like any other firearm.
No, the same law applies to everybody. Like I said, everyone seems to be ignoring it. And that's fine with me.
Post by: cowboycraig on December 22, 2015, 10:57:16 AM
So the stores dont have to do paperwork when I buy one, but if i buy one from Joe Schmo I needto do paperwork? Thats just asinine.If you only knew the power of the dark side...
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Post by: luvmystang67 on December 22, 2015, 11:02:30 AM
Post by: seakev on December 22, 2015, 11:58:00 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 22, 2015, 12:01:29 PM
No way to enforce it, as there is no way to complete a background check on the buyer.
Not sure what you mean. Why couldn't a person with a FFL do a background check on a buyer, just as they do with any firearm sale?
Post by: seakev on December 22, 2015, 12:35:13 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2015, 12:38:42 PM
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.
Federal law currently exempts muzzleloaders from requiring a background check.
Post by: Old Dog on December 22, 2015, 12:39:27 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2015, 12:51:36 PM
Actually you can do a background check on a black powder gun. The federal form 4473 only asks if it is a hand gun, a long gun, or other.I believe his point is that according to Federal law, a black power gun is not considered a firearm.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download
"Thus, a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA."
Post by: cowboycraig on December 22, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FADZwVq4.jpg&hash=52ae69e56464a326da699abb1358cd7d1d18581b)
Post by: bobcat on December 22, 2015, 01:21:11 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on December 22, 2015, 01:26:21 PM
What if it is THIS Muzzleloader?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FADZwVq4.jpg&hash=52ae69e56464a326da699abb1358cd7d1d18581b)
yeah, that is an assault muzzy. You will need an AOW NFA stamp for that bad boy. The forward vertical grip gives you a huge "SUPER SCARY" advantage over the deer and that tacti-cool scope mount ought to be illegal everywhere. The bipod and front weapons light really enhance its assault-ability. I like the way you've streamlined by removing the ramrod, but in this case, less is more as in "MORE ASSAULT" as you've streamlined the weapon. Now that you've chosen to remove this primitive tool, that ramrod "LUG" up front should be removed to bring it IN LINE (pun) with assault muzzleloader regulations.
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
What if it is THIS Muzzleloader?If it meets the following definition, it is considered an “antique firearm” and is not subject to Gun Control Act requirements as far as the ATF is concerned:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FADZwVq4.jpg&hash=52ae69e56464a326da699abb1358cd7d1d18581b)
“any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.”
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 22, 2015, 03:04:49 PM
Post by: cowboycraig on December 22, 2015, 03:17:56 PM
I think Craig was just pulling everybody's leg with the "tactical muzzleloader" :chuckle:
Ya pretty much.
Post by: cbond3318 on December 22, 2015, 03:32:04 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 22, 2015, 03:45:36 PM
Post by: usmc74 on December 23, 2015, 05:05:10 AM
Post by: lee on December 23, 2015, 06:21:05 AM
Does a FFL transfer have to happen for the purchase of an inline muzzleloader now that 594 passed?
Technically, "yes" it does...... and "technically" this also applies to the transfer(sale) of concrete nail guns that use a 22rf blanks, also flare guns for your boat, also some fireworks...... based on how 594 so loosely defined a "firearm". Obviously though ... no... NICS are not being performed on these transfers.
Interestingly, one full year since 594 passed, not 1 person has been cited statewide....
Lee
Post by: steeleywhopper on December 23, 2015, 08:55:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 23, 2015, 09:04:54 PM
I called a local place that does FFL transfers and he said that no transfer needed for muzzleloaders.
Yep. They will tell you that. Like I said before, the law is being ignored.
Post by: Bob33 on December 23, 2015, 09:06:55 PM
I called a local place that does FFL transfers and he said that no transfer needed for muzzleloaders.I wouldn't want to be the first one to have that tested in court. :twocents: