Via email from Kirk Parker we find still more absurdity in I-594:
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.
Walmart and many sporting goods stores sell 12-gauge flare guns used for signaling straight off the shelves.
These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.
I-594 requires background checks for these sales, loans and transfers.
Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.
These nail guns have actually been used in the past to murder people. I-594 requires background checks on these sales, loans and transfers.
I keep wondering about how the severability clause (Sec. 12) in I-594 is going to handle these things when the courts start stomping on this piece of trash. It says:
If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
The courts can’t rewrite the definitions of “firearm”, “gun”, and “transfer”, can they? Isn’t it limited to just striking certain portions of it? If so then how can the transfer restrictions, or even background checks, be retained? Doesn’t this increase the chances the entire thing must be thrown out? If the legislature wants to try and rewrite it with a 2/3 majority do we have enough votes to block the rewrite so the entire thing must be thrown out?