collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: 594 and muzzleloader purchase  (Read 15404 times)

Offline steeleywhopper

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 1676
  • Location: Snohomish co.
594 and muzzleloader purchase
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:56:57 AM »
Does a FFL transfer have to happen for the purchase of an inline muzzleloader now that 594 passed?
Politicians like Jay Inslee are the reason we have the 2nd Amendment

Offline cowboycraig

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Seattle
    • What is an Operator?
  • Groups: NRA
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2015, 09:02:40 AM »
Purchased my first muzzle loader a few weeks ago. Was really odd when it was handed to me with a "Thanks" and that was it. lol

Think technically they are not legally guns. Sure someone will chime in that knows for sure.

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39207
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2015, 09:02:41 AM »
According to the law yes, but apparently the law isn't being enforced so everybody is continuing to transfer muzzleloaders without the FFL.

Offline Bob33

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 21794
  • Groups: SCI, RMEF, NRA, Hunter Education
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #3 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.
Nature. It's cheaper than therapy.

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39207
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #4 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.

Offline cowboycraig

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Seattle
    • What is an Operator?
  • Groups: NRA
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2015, 09:36:13 AM »
I got my Muzzy at a store. Didn't require a background check of any kind. Didn't even have to show ID etc. Was surprising and refreshing :)

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:

Offline Antlershed

  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 4823
  • Location: Olympia, WA
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2015, 09:37:22 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.
Unless purchased from a dealer. Makes zero sense, but now we are "safer"  :chuckle:

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39207
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2015, 09:39:02 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.
Unless purchased from a dealer. Makes zero sense, but now we are "safer"  :chuckle:

No, the same law applies to everybody. Like I said, everyone seems to be ignoring it. And that's fine with me.

Offline cowboycraig

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Seattle
    • What is an Operator?
  • Groups: NRA
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #8 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


Offline luvmystang67

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 2299
  • Location: Coeur d'Alene
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2015, 11:02:30 AM »
I seriously hope you do not follow I-594 for a muzzy purchase.  It is not being enforced and I'd love to see someone make a stink about it on a private sale.  I will never follow 594 for muzzleloaders if stores are not following for their retail sales. 

Offline seakev

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 73
  • Location: SeaTac
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2015, 11:58:00 AM »
No way to enforce it, as there is no way to complete a background check on the buyer.

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39207
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #11 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?

Offline seakev

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 73
  • Location: SeaTac
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2015, 12:35:13 PM »
In order for a FFL holder to complete a NICS background check, the purchaser must complete a Form 4473. Since a muzzle loader is not a firearm by federal definition, the form can't be used. Question 18 on the form requires the type of firearm to be listed/selected.

Offline Bob33

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 21794
  • Groups: SCI, RMEF, NRA, Hunter Education
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2015, 12:38:42 PM »
It's yet to be court challenged, but it may be that retailers are relying on this clause:

(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.
Nature. It's cheaper than therapy.

Offline Old Dog

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 1190
  • Location: Pierce County
  • Groups: Old Dog
Re: 594 and muzzleloader purchase
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2015, 12:39:27 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. 
Hunt hard and shoot straight!

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal