West Marine Stores. As Of 12/4/14 Flare Guns Are Firearms In Washington State?

[PiratePast40]

I joined Oregon Firearms Federation cause they seem to know how to deal with the political machine in Salem. I didn't see the NRA help Washington and I don't expect them to help here either. Hope I'm wrong.

Glad to hear that you joined OFF, but simply joining doesn't add much. It takes money and time to do what needs to be done. Contributions, up to $100 per couple, are refunded on your state taxes.

The NRA was at the Oregon senate hearings last year, so it's not true that they weren't involved. Ironic thing is that they were criticized from being out of state, while the gun control groups had several big money sponsors at the hearings.

 

[BoatRanch]

I had to hear it from the "Horses Mouth" so I emailed DOL Firearms Division.
Here is their response from Friday.

Good Morning,

The Dept. of Licensing does not keep records on Flare Guns.

Feel free to contact us with any further questions or conerns. Thank you and have a good day.

Regards,

Teresa Rutherford
Firearms Unit
Dept. of Licensing
Business and Professions Division
Phone: (360) 664-6616
Fax: (360) 570-4945
[email protected]

 

[Qjay]

I am not a lawyer, but have been trying to get a good handle on what the law means, and what it changed in the RCWs. I have read it all the way through several times, and been discussing it with people on and offline.

Flare guns and nail guns were legal due to the nature of the businesses selling them before, per my understanding of the regs, but that was changed with 594 requiring all devices to be 4473'd and the definitions of the devices.

Interestingly enough, fireworks are and were specifically exempted in the RCWs, but there is now some question about whether a party-popper would qualify as a firework, therefore requiring that background check.
Even more fun, 594 requires the device to use an explosive to fire a projectile, and while modern smokeless powder is a propellant, not an explosive, the cartridge primer would appear to qualify... since it does technically impart a little velocity (negligible in comparison to the propellant charge, but probably enough).

This law has more holes in it than a golf course made of Swiss cheese.

 

[PiratePast40]

What happens if i594 is simply amended to exclude those specific items? The reason I ask, is that some are criticizing the law because of poor definitions and writing, when the core is the real issue. Not sure of the makeup of the Washington legislature, but it seems that, unless changes can be blocked in favor of repeal, it's a matter of the controllers simply making the amendments in hopes of quieting the opponents. If that happens, there is no real gain.

 

[Qjay]

It's expensive to take a law to the Supreme Court, that's what they are counting on. The problem is the support were were promised by a lot of the national 2A groups never actually materialized; they just used the fight as a membership drive and threw some token buttons and bumper stickers out to calm us down.
I saw more pro 594 commercials than I could count, I saw ONE anti 594 commercial, and it was more pro 591 than anti 594.

It's up to us to make the difference and actually make sure people understand the law and why it is bad.

 

[balaperdida]

<snip>Even more fun, 594 requires the device to use an explosive to fire a projectile, and while modern smokeless powder is a propellant, not an explosive, the cartridge primer would appear to qualify... since it does technically impart a little velocity (negligible in comparison to the propellant charge, but probably enough).<snip>

Smokeless powder has characteristics that fit the general definition of "explosive material", such as found in Wikipedia:

An explosive material, also called an explosive, is a reactive substance that contains a great amount of potential energy that can produce an explosion if released suddenly, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure.

Explosive propellants are categorized as class C. Smokeless powder is usually 1.3 hazard class explosive. Making smokeless powder a class 1.3C explosive. See the Wikipedia article.

(Propellants can be anything from compressed air, to gasoline, to explosives.)

If the WA regs. don't define "explosive", they need to do so.

 

[Qjay]

According to that particular article on... wikipedia... an explosive is explosive whether it is contained or not, but a propellant is only explosive if it is contained, which is why they are transported in containers that prevent them from exploding. It is pretty specific about the difference between explosives and propellants.

I wanted to be sure to include information from AN ACTUAL SOURCE so here here are a few easy-to-read pages explaining about the two different, but similar, classifications of compounds:
http://www.saami.org/specifications.../download/SAAMI_ITEM_200-Smokeless_Powder.pdf This contains information on storing and transporting smokeless powder to prevent it from exploding if accidentally "set off".

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/368/8/08_chapter 1.pdf This one is a little bit dry, but it uses common language to discuss most of the differences, and is pretty clear about definitions, especially when describing "low explosives" as opposed to "high explosives" and the use of low explosives as propellant.

https://books.google.com/books?id=W...between an explosive and a propellant&f=false In the second column of this page is a nice explanation of the difference, as well.

In essence, explosives detonate (burn rapidly at a specific rate whether contained or not), and propellants deflagrate (burn rapidly, but controllably, and at different rates when contained and when not)

Explosives detonate when "triggered" even when they aren't contained, propellants do not, which is why I specified the difference. To use your examples, air, gasoline, and even low explosives don't really detonate unless they are compressed, then released.

I'm not a chemist, just an interested layman who happens to like poking fun at laws like this. I do know that there are many definitions that include smokeless powder as both an explosive AND a propellant, but the difference in practical application, as I understand it, is listed above.

I included the SAAMI article specifically for the storage section which delineates how to PREVENT smokeless powder from becoming explosive, by treating it AS an explosive.

 

[ocarolan]

For reference, our Oregon statute defines firearm to only apply to a weapon. Furthermore the 2007 statute required it to be "readily capable of use" as a weapon, per ORS 166.210(3). See Briney 2008:

"Firearm" means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon.


(Curiously I don't see the "readily capable of use" proviso in the online 2011 statute. Maybe legistature removed that in response to the Briney case??)

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S055567.htm

Of course, what exactly does a weapon mean?

In 1977, the court said essentially any gun can be used as a weapon, if it can merely be used as a club or to "gain an advantage". Judge Johnson dissented rather scathingly.

"... Although the latter guns may not have the appearance of operability as a firearm, they nevertheless could be used as clubs and thus as weapons. The question arises: Why did not the legislature make it illegal for an ex-convict to possess anything "that can be used offensively or defensively to gain an advantage"? (At 484.)

ORS 164.055 is ambiguously worded. I would construe the ambiguous language to mean that a firearm is a weapon designed to and capable of expelling a projectile by the action of black or smokeless powder. The interpretation adopted by the majority imposes strict felony liability on a broad range of non-culpable conduct."

http://leagle.com/decision/19781060578P2d482_11027.xml/STATE v. HASH

I think later courts (Briney) have cited Johnson and mostly rejected this over-broad weapon definition with respect to concealed carry, although not with respect to ORS 166.270 (felon in possession).

Some other cases where the firearm definition was debated:

Olson v. Lampert, 185 Or App 477, 60 P3d 544 (2002), rev den, 355 Or 391 (2003) (holding that a rifle lacking a bolt was "readily capable of use as a weapon," despite the fact that the defendant did not have the bolt and the person holding it refused to relinquish possession);

State v. Goltz, 169 Or App 619, 10 P3d 955 (2000),rev den, 331 Or 583 (2001) (holding that a rational jury could conclude that a disassembled nine-millimeter handgun, with all of the parts on site, could be considered readily capable of being used as a weapon);

State v. Gortmaker, 60 Or App 723, 655 P2d 575 (1982), aff'd on other grounds, 295 Or 505, 668 P2d 354 (1983) (holding that a pistol that lacked its firing mechanism, which could be replaced in three to four minutes by a gunsmith at a cost of $6, was "readily capable of use as a weapon").

(Read the cases above with a kleenex handy. You will cry or laugh very hard at these)

 

[Qjay]

Funny enough, Oregon has a lot more clarity in definitions compared to Washington. Even more funny, both states felt the need to define firearms differently than the federal regs. "Funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha."

 

[Who The F R U]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?


Please go read the definitions contained in RCW 9.41, (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010) it doesn't matter what you THINK the law says.

The LEGAL definition of a firearm in WA is and has been for years:

And a flare gun or concrete nail gun fits the legal definition and has for many years here in WA. It's just the with 594 in place people (well some anyway) are finally reading the law.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

__________________________________________________________________
<broken link removed>

BATFE's info on flare launchers.

 

[Qjay]

In WA, the state changed the definition of what they are considering a firearm, but didn't define the terms. They are now telling us "That's ok, we won't enforce the letter of the law, it'll be fine. Fiiiiiiiiiine."