Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Washington State, Enforce New Gun Law Fully and Mercilessly…No Really

My regular readers my see the title to this article and think I’ve lost it.  Let me assure you it isn’t so.  And if you are a gun control zealot thinking I am going support your ideology…well…have fun with that.

Washington State recently, through a ballot initiative bankrolled by Billionaire freedom hater Michael Bloomberg, bamboozled the voters who were ignorant about what they were voting on and making them believe that ballot initiative I-594 would do anything to stop crime.  It won’t.

What it will do is drive up costs, hassle gun owners and businesses and be an all around pain in the ass.

That is why it must be enforced to the FULL extent of its power.  I want this law to be hammered home as it is written.

Ah yes…as it is written.  You see, there’s the rub.

When gun controllers get together in their confabs to discuss stripping away rights they have no working knowledge of they tend to screw the pooch.  One need look no further than New York and the SAFE Act which, when initially past in the dead of night, hurried so the people couldn’t voice their oppostion, the law stripped police officers of their rifles.  Cuomo and his cronies went back to ensure that Two New Yorks would exist, one with the peons and one with the privileged ruling class.  Such is the Empire State.

So what does Washington’s I-594 actually say?

It’s a series of infringements on people who own, buy, sell, borrow or trade guns or devices I’ll get back to that “device” part in a minute.  Basically the state requires that background checks be done every time a firearm is handed from one person to another, regardless of the amount of time.

Go to a shooting range and want to let your buddy take a few shots?  Law requires a background check.  Gran pappy giving his grandson his old  .22 bolt action rifle?  Law requires a background check.  Run a gun range?  Every time someone enters you must run a background check.  A museum with military rifles from WWII?  Need to run a background check every time they are touched by workers. And so on.

Background checks cost time and money…so who is going to pay?  The people.

Now, if that were the end of it, perhaps hammering down on gun owners wouldn’t be enough to enact any change.  But the law doesn’t deal SOLEY with gun owners.

Here’s the juicy part:

 (9) “Firearm” means a weapon or device from which a projectile or
projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

Here are some things that constitute a “firearm” thanks to the law (remember the explosive force need not be gunpowder):

Flare Gun

Nail Gun


Your car if it backfires (combustion engine)

A lawnmower if you don’t bag the grass

Lighters (flame is a projectile)

Anything that runs on combustible fuel and ejects something

IF taken as explosive force and not an explosion then T-Shirt cannons require background checks now.  Tough break Mariner Moose.

A straw used for spitballs.

And the list goes on.

All of these people sharing cars, passing T-shirt cannons about and moving lawns without a license need to be rounded up and arrested.  It’s the law.

If we actually FOLLOW the letter of the law, then maybe the voters of Washington will realize that they have been duped by a New York Billionaire and take steps to repair the damage their voting has done.

Even if they just enforced it on the first three, enough people may realize how much of a pointless joke that I-594 was.

That is why I am fully supportive of this gun control law being enforced as it is written.

Eventually the uninitiated public will learn that the gun controllers have been lying to them for years and hopefully that will be enough to wake the masses up.

Here’s to hoping.


  • Mary Brown

    Libtards will be fine with it anyway because they are a bunch of brain dead compliant SHEEP

  • The useful idiots of the left coast strike again

  • ps

    Don’t forget that some Nerf guns and Supersoakers are now illegal based on the firearm definition.

    • Brigadier

      Really? Where is the explosive? Come on, use your head.

      • ps

        It is called compressed air. The expansion of air or other substances is an explosion by definition. One of the first “assault rifles” ever made was an air rifle used by the Germans in the 1780’s. It could fire numerous (around 20 .46 caliber) shots rapidly at about the same velocity as a musket. I am using my head. These types of laws may seem innocuous. But you have to consider the consequences of poor language in laws. An item that most people do not consider to be a firearm can be a firearm in the eyes of the law if the definition is vague. The law does not say that gunpowder must be used. It refers to “an explosive such as gunpowder.” The law refers to the effect, not the means by which the effect is achieved. If that is not the case, then maybe you would like to stand in front of a Girandoni Air Rifle. That explosive air made it an effective killer at up to 150 yards.

        • Brigadier

          “an explosive such as gunpowder”. If you are worried about air being classified as such, then ALL pellet guns will need BGC’s too. This ain’t Canada, yet. Let’s stop the hysterical nonsense and be realistic, shall we?

          • ps

            You are correct about the pellet guns. None of the items discussed are excluded. And an argument can be made that they fall under the definition in the law. I am not hysterical about any of this. In fact, none of it will ever apply to me since I live in another state and have no desire to move to Washington. My point is that the law is poorly worded. Laws should be written so everyone knows the rules. It would just take an overzealous prosecutor to create havoc with this. The Girandoni air rifle mentioned in my previous post would not be considered a firearm under most definitions. But if it was sold to a person who used it for evil purposes, you can bet that the government would come after everyone who touched it. Or as another example, my son (currently a freshman in college) can easily build a Nerf gun that can shoot a styrofoam nerf projectile through a cardboard box using items that you could buy at any hardware store. If he started making such a device with a heavier projectile, it could easily penetrate human skin. Do you really think that a prosecutor would pass up the chance to prosecute someone selling such a device if some kid took it to school or started shooting other kids with it?

            Words have meaning. They should be used carefully when creating laws.

  • Pingback: Washington State, Enforce New Gun Law Fully and Mercilessly…No Really | Give Me Liberty()

  • JenniferP

    You make a good point. I have seen lawn mowers throw rocks. Must be illegal, projectiles are emitted. More idiots with unintended consequences

    • Brigadier

      Via what explosive?

      • JenniferP

        Sorry, forgot to make the snark obvious

  • Up Huff

    And charges could be filed against any of the LEGISLATORS who voted for the bill. In fact they should be videoed in the process fo committing ANY of the acts noted in the article. As should their children. Citizen’s arrests should ensue. As well, prosecutors and judges/juries instructed to find “guilty” any who are thusly ‘caught’. THEN the law should be brought up for review and summarily removed.

    • Brigadier

      This was an initiative passed by the people. No legislators voted for this.

  • Brigadier

    Are you seriously saying that lawn mowers throw rocks via an explosive? Straws and spitballs? Air powered t-shirt guns? Seriously? It is stupid articles like this that do NOT help the 2A cause.

Send this to friend