I-594 covers flare and nail guns

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?

Quote of the day—formerChild

Guns are just viagra for these guys. They’re incapable of sustaining an erection without one in their hand (a gun, I mean).

October 13, 2014
Comment to NRA Warns Men: If You Let Your Wife Do Gun Control, Your Peen May Fall Off
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

The article and most of the comments are Markley’s law material. It’s as if they are obsessed with genitalia. I never spent much time around hard-core racists, but didn’t/don’t they have some obsession with the size of black men’s penis’s too? I wonder if there is some sort of feeling of inadequacy in the mind of the bigot which they need to project onto their victims.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ray Carter

The police (and paramedics) are dandy when they arrive. But in the immediate moment of attempted felonious or otherwise violent action being committed upon ones self, persons one is responsible for or the imminent threat thereof a more immediate tool is both appropriate and desirable even in this day and age. It is my observation that a .45acp JHP placed center of mass at approximately 900fps will, more often than not, bring such unpleasantry to a swift halt, though on occasion repeated application of the lesson is required.

Ray Carter
November 21, 2014
Comment on Facebook.
[Or as John Fogh once said:

Nothing says, “Please don’t rape me.” like multiple jacketed hollowpoints.


Quote of the day—Lyle

Something we should all understand, and the sooner the better; the anti WANTS to be stopped. Believe it. Just like the errant little child, testing his parents’ strengths and weaknesses by misbehaving, the leftist is testing you, wanting more than anything to find the good, principled, rock solid father figure that he never had, so he’ll be loved and corrected like he never has been. Every time you cave or compromise like a shitty, girlish, drunken Republican on anything, the leftist is disgusted with you, and will ramp up the volume and rattle the cage even harder. It’s a search, you see, for even one good, principled individual.

November 21, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii
[It is true that our anti-freedom opponents have a nearly unending demand for the government to force us to do things. So why not give them what they want by government forcing freedom upon them?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii


  1. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm as confirmed by the AFS system;a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
  2. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who possess a valid CCW license issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155;a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
  3. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who possess both a valid COE issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26710 and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system.a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;

Anthony W. Ishii
Senior United States District Judge
August 22, 2014
Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California
[This ruling in Federal court may impact the five day waiting period on handguns in Washington State which appears to be extended to ten days under I-594. California intends to appeal this ruling but the stay on enforcing this order is about to expire and it appears California will have to drop the waiting period for certain categories of people during the appeal.

SAF was one of the plaintiffs in this case and with their strong presence in Washington State perhaps before the end of the year we will see another lawsuit over the waiting period there. It would be nice to get a quick slap down on I-594 even if it were a just minor part of the injustice inflicted upon us.—Joe]

I-594 vagueness

I-594 has a number of issues that are not clear. Perhaps the most vague is section 3. (4)(f)(ii) which is an exception to the requirement that background checks need not be done prior to a transfer:

if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

Emphasis added.

The question is what does “kept at all times” mean? Does this mean for the duration of the transfer or does it mean the gun stays at the range until the end of time? Well, we might be able to rule out “until the end of time”. But it could easily be interpreted as the gun belongs to the range such as a rental gun.

I think we can get a clue as to what was meant by this by the counter example in section 3. (4)(f)(iii):

if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm,

Emphasis added.

Notice the different language used. Had they intended for the first exemption to mean “the gun must not leave the range while in use by your friend” or something similar they would (should?) have used language such as:

if the temporary transfer occurs, and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

While one could argue that I am giving them too much credit for deliberate and clear use of the language I wonder what the courts will think. And keep in mind this is the age of Gruber and admitted deliberate deception by the authors of the law. The authors of I-594 have close philosophical ties to the authors of Obamacare. I strongly suspect they intended for it to be ambiguous so they could claim one thing before the election and another when it was being enforced.

Quote of the day—Sean Davis

Baseless gun control laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Instead, those laws keep lawful, innocent Americans from being able to protect themselves from the very same criminals who regularly violate the nation’s gun laws. Thankfully, that’s a fact that more and more Americans understand.

Sean Davis
November 11, 2014
Time for Knife Control?
[Setbacks like I-594 blunt the enthusiasm but we are making progress. It’s extremely easy to see the progress when I look back 20 years to 1994. The Heller and McDonald decisions were such huge wins that I don’t think the anti-gun side will ever recover.

The war may never be won to my satisfaction but we are making steady progress on the culture war. Of the three fronts we do battle on, legislative (including initiatives), judicial, and culture we are clearly winning more than losing on two of them. It’s only the legislative that we have lost some important battles recently. Even if they have another few wins of I-594 magnitude in the next few years we will bury them with the cultural and judicial wins.—Joe]

First 594 casualty

I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.

The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.

Quote of the day—James

The problem with applying risk factor analysis to the law is that the law gains it’s moral authority from its disposition against what is wrong and in favor of what is right. Not every risk factor for a bad event is, independently, morally wrong. For example, littering is wrong, but carrying objects is not wrong, even though it makes littering more likely. Lying in court is wrong, but speaking in court is often necessary, although it makes perjury more likely.

Simply proving that an action or state of affairs carries risk does not say anything for or against its moral justification. Laws regarding the ability of the people to arm themselves need to make sense as a model of individualized justice, not just as a risk-management strategy for those making the decisions.

January 20, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[It’s a little dense but I really liked the comparisons to littering and perjury.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rob Morse

Let’s not mince words. People who punish and restrict innocent people are bigots. Much of the language, and many of the actions, by the anti-rights gun-control groups is designed to alienate gun owners from the rest of society. The reason is simple. It is easier for politicians to oppress an alienated minority. Yes, this is government sponsored bigotry.

Rob Morse
November 10, 2014
Government Approved Bigotry Against Firearms Owner

As I have been saying for years.—Joe]

Quote of the day—GOP @GroverOwnedPawn

@Brettsko ihave small testicles and a huge amount of paranoid delusion. Check out my GUN!

GOP @GroverOwnedPawn
Tweeted on October 10, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Cal A. Feit ‏@tazcat2011.

As I have been telling people of his ilk recently, “Actually, I have the Bill of Rights supported by SCOTUS and you have grade school insults.”—Joe]

Update: A short while after this post went live the following conversation occurred on Twitter:

 Joe Huffman @JoeHuffman

Quote of the day—GOP @GroverOwnedPawn wp.me/p2Yf1R-G3WN – 17 Nov

 GOP @GroverOwnedPawn

@JoeHuffman nobody reads your blog Joe.
02:37 PM – 17 Nov 14

 Joe Huffman @JoeHuffman

@GroverOwnedPawn You should do some research in that. Apparently you have problems distinguishing reality from your wistful thinking. – 17 Nov

 GOP @GroverOwnedPawn

@JoeHuffman ok Joe good luck with that wistful thinking!
02:51 PM – 17 Nov 14

Then sometime before noon he deleted all his Tweets associated with this topic.

My best guess is that the recreational drugs he was using wore off sufficiently such that he caught a glimpse of reality but it’s hard to know for sure. And as Barb and I frequently tell each other, “You are trying to make sense of crazy. You shouldn’t be attempting that. It’s not healthy.”

Create reflection not reaction

As most people in the Washington State gun community know there is an I Will Not Comply! i594 event in Olympia December 13th. I plan to attend as do others.

I understand the strong emotions I’m picking up from a bunch of people. I have a lot of them myself. Just last week I retrieved the last of the guns I had loaned out*. That transfer wouldn’t have been legal had I waited until I-594 went into effect. A lot of the innocent, everyday type of things we do with guns will soon be illegal. The Second Amendment is no different than the First Amendment. If there isn’t an victim then it cannot be a crime to exercise that freedom in that way. But we have vile enemies who want to destroy our freedoms. We must stand up to them.

But we must be careful how we do this. Think back (I know most people aren’t old enough to remember, so do the research or trust me on this) how the civil rights protesters of the 1960’s accomplished things. And think how some of them made things worse.

The civil rights activists following Martin Luther King were peaceful and only used violence or the threat of violence for defensive purposes. Their firearms were concealed and in their homes and vehicles. Their firearms were not on display unless there was a really good reason for it.

The civil rights activists following the Black Panther Party** model had many guns on display.

Which side do you think got the most sympathy from people who “didn’t have a dog in the fight”?

The attitude from people at a distance from “the trenches” were that the Black Panthers were a bunch of criminals. When J. Edgar Hoover said they were, “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country” it resonated with a lot of people.

Hoover certainly wasn’t friendly to King and company either. Conspiracy theories of the FBI assassinating King have a lot more credibility with me than those that someone other than Oswald murdered President Kennedy. But the big difference is how the majority of people respond to us. If politicians claim we are threat to society we want the majority of people to realize that politician is off their rocker instead of agreeing with them.

When we disobey a law, such as Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus, we want people to recognize the unfairness and irrationality of the law rather than thinking we need to be “put in our place”.

To that end present yourselves as calm, rational, peaceful people deserving of respect and trust. The media is going to be looking for the most outrageous examples to put on display. Do your best to give them nothing except those acts which will further our cause.

We want to create reflection upon what we are saying and doing rather than generating a reaction that results in broader support for repression.

*This gun was to a friend that had someone try to get in her apartment late at night. She lived alone, was unemployed, broke, and couldn’t even pay her rent at the time. I took her to the range, did a bunch of training, then loaned her a gun until she could afford her own. The transfer to her would not have been legal without a background check and fees under I-594. As this gun was rather old, I had purchased it second hand, I didn’t want it being in a registry, and I didn’t want to pay money to get my own gun back so I retrieved it.

I know she went shooting with in at least a time or two since I loaned it to her so I was very pleased to see it well cleaned and lubricated when I got it back.

Thanks E.

**From Wikipedia:

Originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.

Initially, the Black Panther Party’s core practice was its armed citizens’ patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality.

Quote of the day—Hank B Reardon

I don’t care about gun owners and their perceived rights.

Hank B Reardon
November 1, 2014
Comment to I-594 and Gun control: An automobile analogy
[If he were to say “black people”, “Jews”, or “homosexuals” instead of “gun owners” I’d bet he would be getting a lot more attention that he currently is.

It appears to me Mr. “Reardon” (how very ironic he uses this name) is a prime candidate for prosecution under 18 USC 241.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jack McCauley

I’m a police officer who was sworn to uphold the Constitution. I had no idea how badly we were trampling people’s rights.

Jack McCauley
November 12, 2014
Senior Maryland ex-state trooper claims O’Malley administration silenced him on gun control law
[Shanetta Paskel, the Maryland Deputy Legislative Officer for the Office of Governor commanded McCauley to not answer a question about the effect of a proposed “assault weapon” ban on crime.

They know the truth and they actively suppress it. I look forward to the day Shanetta Paskel is prosecuted for her crimes.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Derek Amarpreet Whitman

Total paranoia. You will be one of the first people to be killed.

Derek Amarpreet Whitman
November 11, 2014
Comment to Gun Control Groups Eye More State Ballot Initiatives After Victory In Washington State
[I find it very interesting that in one sentence Whitman tells a gun owner he is paranoid and in the very next sentence tells him that he will be one of the first people to be killed. This is yet another demonstration that these people are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Feinblatt

Our electoral strategy this year is driven by our plans to keep passing better laws that will prevent gun violence state by state, whether we’re doing it through legislation or doing it through the ballot.

John Feinblatt
President of Everytown
November 11, 2014
Gun Control Groups Eye More State Ballot Initiatives After Victory In Washington State
[Feinblatt is apparently unconcerned that what he is doing and wants to do is in violation of the Second Amendment as well as having been proven to be of zero effect in preventing violent crime. If the backgrounds were of value in reducing violent crime we would have seen the statistics in their advertisements here in Washington State. Where’s the data from the other states which passed “universal background checks” Mr.Feinblatt? That’s right, there is nothing you want the general public to see.

The crowd he associates with is unconcerned with the facts. They know it’s the only way they can win. The article is just another example of this. It has numerous errors such as claiming I-591 “would have loosened gun laws”. This is completely false.

I hope the day will soon come when we can generate some concern in Feinblatt and his ilk with felony charges for their criminal acts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—tdave

Between attempts at disarmament, invasions of privacy, regulation of assembly and apparent attempts to dilute the vote by including illegals and dead voters. It becomes difficult to impute benign intentions.

November 2, 2014
Forum post on the topic Have people taken the issue of gun control OUT of control?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John F. Bash

Those cases only verify what I think has been this Court’s judgment in Heller and Miller, Congress’s judgment, the judgment of State legislatures for a long time, that these are exclusively used for unlawful purposes.

John F. Bash
Assistant to the Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
Oral arguments to SCOTUS in Samuel James Johnson v. United States
November 5, 2014
[H/T to Ry and David Hardy.

Bash is referring to short barreled shotguns.

This was said even though he knows tens of thousands of these guns are lawfully owned by people and are not used for unlawful purposes. He claims to believe these are only owned by collectors who don’t actually use them. Any use, he claims, would be exclusively for an unlawful purpose.

His justification appears to be because of NFA34 and various state legislatures put restrictions on this item beyond the restrictions on some other type of firearms. That is what the U.S. government thinks of one aspect of the right to keep and bear arms. Once a gun is restricted then that is justification for more restrictions.

Apparently if there were laws against something then there must have been a valid reason and the courts should not question the law. I would like to hear him draw similar conclusion from the history of laws against interracial marriage, laws against homosexual acts, and prohibitions against people of color using public swimming pools.—Joe]