Washington State's new "Gun" Law includeds Flare Guns and Nail Guns.

[OriginalShroom]

This is just how well the Anti-gunners thought about what they were doing when they accepted Bloomberg's money and bill and pushed it through the Washington State Election.

Does new law take into consideration devices Letter - Whidbey News-Times

Will Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe’s, Cabela’s and countless other sporting goods and hardware stores, as well as construction companies in Washington and even the state Department of Transportation, comply with Initiative 594 when it becomes law, and will this state’s prosecuting attorneys prosecute those who don’t?
The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.”

Notice the key words “or device” in the definition.

Anyone who sells 12-gauge flare guns will have to do a background check.

Nail Guns fall under that definition.

Even the Washington DOT's avalanche prevention cannon falls under that definition.

I-594 requires a background check for it.

So whenever a contractor sends a crew out with a Nail gun or when the State sends out their artillery gun with a road crew for avalanche control, they are required by law to go to a FFL and have background checks done on the person who will be using that item. If a different person is going to operate them the next day, then new background checks have to be done again. If those items are going to be returned to the Contractor or the State that evening, then background checks will have to be done again.

Even most of the little plastic champagne bottle poppers that shoot the confetti when the string is pulled are devices that fire a projectile with an explosive charge — there is a tiny gunpowder charge in most of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ironically enough, laws restricting nail guns and flare guns are more constitutional than laws banning firearms. I think that most nail guns used these days are pneumatic. I haven't seen a powder driven nail gun since I was a child.

 

[martybegan]

This is just how well the Anti-gunners thought about what they were doing when they accepted Bloomberg's money and bill and pushed it through the Washington State Election.

Does new law take into consideration devices Letter - Whidbey News-Times

Will Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe’s, Cabela’s and countless other sporting goods and hardware stores, as well as construction companies in Washington and even the state Department of Transportation, comply with Initiative 594 when it becomes law, and will this state’s prosecuting attorneys prosecute those who don’t?
The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.”

Notice the key words “or device” in the definition.

Anyone who sells 12-gauge flare guns will have to do a background check.

Nail Guns fall under that definition.

Even the Washington DOT's avalanche prevention cannon falls under that definition.

I-594 requires a background check for it.

So whenever a contractor sends a crew out with a Nail gun or when the State sends out their artillery gun with a road crew for avalanche control, they are required by law to go to a FFL and have background checks done on the person who will be using that item. If a different person is going to operate them the next day, then new background checks have to be done again. If those items are going to be returned to the Contractor or the State that evening, then background checks will have to be done again.

Even most of the little plastic champagne bottle poppers that shoot the confetti when the string is pulled are devices that fire a projectile with an explosive charge — there is a tiny gunpowder charge in most of them.

Typical progressive write the law quickly, pass it/get it approved, and fuck the details....

 

[martybegan]

Ironically enough, laws restricting nail guns and flare guns are more constitutional than laws banning firearms. I think that most nail guns used these days are pneumatic. I haven't seen a powder driven nail gun since I was a child.

Plenty are still in use due to the lack of a need for a compressor.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

The law seems to be specific about gun powder propelled projectiles. But let's not give the Statist Left any ideas, shall we?

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

The law seems to be specific about gun powder propelled projectiles. But let's not give the Statist Left any ideas, shall we?

It states "explosive." Is compressed air explosive? THe example of the nail gun brought me to think that as I've never seen one that wasnt pneumatic. But I could be wrong.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ironically enough, laws restricting nail guns and flare guns are more constitutional than laws banning firearms. I think that most nail guns used these days are pneumatic. I haven't seen a powder driven nail gun since I was a child.

Plenty are still in use due to the lack of a need for a compressor.

I'm guessing the law applies to newly sold nail guns. I haven't seen the .22 powder actuated guns sold new in hardware stores, but it might be I'm not looking in the right ones. I'd like to see the Gun Grabbing Left produce a single example of a felon, deprived of the right to have a gun, choosing to commit crimes with a nail gun rather than get a real gun illegally.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

The law seems to be specific about gun powder propelled projectiles. But let's not give the Statist Left any ideas, shall we?

It states "explosive." Is compressed air explosive? THe example of the nail gun brought me to think that as I've never seen one that wasnt pneumatic. But I could be wrong.

I don't think so. A law requiring background checks for BB, paint, or air soft guns wouldn't have passed even in a loony blue state.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

The law seems to be specific about gun powder propelled projectiles. But let's not give the Statist Left any ideas, shall we?

It states "explosive." Is compressed air explosive? THe example of the nail gun brought me to think that as I've never seen one that wasnt pneumatic. But I could be wrong.

I don't think so. A law requiring background checks for BB, paint, or air soft guns wouldn't have passed even in a loony blue state.

Not explicitly so. But a badly crafted law that people thought did one thing but actually did much more might.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are cartridge driven anchors used for concrete. They may have written is loosely on purpose, that way they could do what they want when they want and voters either wouldn't read the fine print or couldn't.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There are cartridge driven anchors used for concrete. They may have written is loosely on purpose, that way they could do what they want when they want and voters either wouldn't read the fine print or couldn't.

It's a badly crafted law. How can a background check be required for something that doesn't have a federally registered serial number?

 

[Roadrunner]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

The law seems to be specific about gun powder propelled projectiles. But let's not give the Statist Left any ideas, shall we?

It states "explosive." Is compressed air explosive? THe example of the nail gun brought me to think that as I've never seen one that wasnt pneumatic. But I could be wrong.

I remember them using .22 and .25 blanks.

Loud they were.

This was when I was a kid, selling kool-aid illegally to construction crews.

Made big bucks for a seven year old, but, the easy money, well, I took a lifelong shine to THAT!!!!

 

[Roadrunner]

There are cartridge driven anchors used for concrete. They may have written is loosely on purpose, that way they could do what they want when they want and voters either wouldn't read the fine print or couldn't.

You think the average legislator voting for it read it?

I doubt it.

Gruber wasn't just talking about Dem voters, he was talking about their representatives too.

 

[Iceweasel]

You think the average legislator voting for it read it?

I doubt it.

Gruber wasn't just talking about Dem voters, he was talking about their representatives too.

Point taken.

 

[OKTexas]

Hell, its more than that.
A device from which a projectile may be fired could include rubber bands. It could include sling shots. It could include drinking straws.
And dont think creative prosecutors faced with weak cases wont think about adding in charges based on this ridiculous statute.

The law seems to be specific about gun powder propelled projectiles. But let's not give the Statist Left any ideas, shall we?

It states "explosive." Is compressed air explosive? THe example of the nail gun brought me to think that as I've never seen one that wasnt pneumatic. But I could be wrong.

They have ones that uses butane and gun powder, the one using gun powder are usually used to set fasteners in concrete.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ironically enough, laws restricting nail guns and flare guns are more constitutional than laws banning firearms. I think that most nail guns used these days are pneumatic. I haven't seen a powder driven nail gun since I was a child.

Uncommon, but still used...saw one a couple years ago.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, if you go to your friend's house out in the sticks, and the two of you are plinking tin cans off his back porch, and he asks to try your gun for a few shots, and you hand it to him, you are immediately guilty of a felony under this new law.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There are cartridge driven anchors used for concrete. They may have written is loosely on purpose, that way they could do what they want when they want and voters either wouldn't read the fine print or couldn't.

You think the average legislator voting for it read it?

I doubt it.

Gruber wasn't just talking about Dem voters, he was talking about their representatives too.

You think the average legislator has ever SEEN (much less used) a nail gun?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is just how well the Anti-gunners thought about what they were doing when they accepted Bloomberg's money and bill and pushed it through the Washington State Election.

Does new law take into consideration devices Letter - Whidbey News-Times

Will Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe’s, Cabela’s and countless other sporting goods and hardware stores, as well as construction companies in Washington and even the state Department of Transportation, comply with Initiative 594 when it becomes law, and will this state’s prosecuting attorneys prosecute those who don’t?
The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.”

Notice the key words “or device” in the definition.

Anyone who sells 12-gauge flare guns will have to do a background check.

Nail Guns fall under that definition.

Even the Washington DOT's avalanche prevention cannon falls under that definition.

I-594 requires a background check for it.

So whenever a contractor sends a crew out with a Nail gun or when the State sends out their artillery gun with a road crew for avalanche control, they are required by law to go to a FFL and have background checks done on the person who will be using that item. If a different person is going to operate them the next day, then new background checks have to be done again. If those items are going to be returned to the Contractor or the State that evening, then background checks will have to be done again.

Even most of the little plastic champagne bottle poppers that shoot the confetti when the string is pulled are devices that fire a projectile with an explosive charge — there is a tiny gunpowder charge in most of them.

Well that serves reason, given the idiots who voted it in. Allow idiots to vote and it is inevitably, you'll get idiocy as public policy. It is consistent as the sun rising and can be no other way.

Understand, that nothing produces idiots faster than pot... and few places have more chronic abuser of pot, than Washington.