As stated above. My dad has a boat. I think I'm gonna buy him some signal flares for Christmas. Oh wait...

Yes I was agreeing with you.

I still think it's fucking funny, because it's one more blow against it when it gets challenged.

I should go pay a visit to West Marine and talk to their manager.

Every fishing boat and construction jobsite with ex cons or people with DV convictions are gonna have possible problems

Heh. Fishing boats would NEVER employ anybody with a spotty criminal background. [/sarcasm]

Sitting in a jail cell, one dude looks at the new guy. "I killed a man with my bare hands. What you in for?" "Skipper sent me to West Marine to buy some parachute flares and I was popped for violating my parole. "

Guess its time for me to build that coil gun I've always wanted to make. Do it right and you could potentially get a device that fires a lethal projectile without any silly 'explosion'.

So I stopped by West Marine in Ballard today, and had a chat with the gentleman at the register about their flare guns. He was initially resistant to the idea that they would be covered by 594, arguing that they were federally not defined as a firearm, but I pointed out that the RCW definition does my exclude safety and signaling devices. He seemed genuinely concerned about ensuring that his store remained legally compliant, and went to talk to the manager about the issue. The more people we can reach, to show them that this will directly affect them in every day life, the better our chances of getting it turned over...

No problem at all, I am sure all the illegals and felons working construction should easily pass UBCs.

I have a contact at West Marine corporate and I'd be happy to alert her to this . . . but I want to make sure I have my story straight before I do so.

I understand the concern. The RCW defines a firearm as:

This definition is existing, and is not changed by 594.

This would include flare guns, since they use gunpowder to launch the flare . . . correct?

Initiative 594 now requires that the transfer of any firearm include a background check, so it would appear that any transfer of a flare gun would require a background check.

So, help me out with one thing. Why is it that flare guns are NOT regulated at the federal level today? Where is the exception that controls this?

I see that a signaling device (flare gun) is not a destructive device . . . but what makes it not a firearm? Here's the federal definition that I found:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

Help please...

Emergency and signaling devices are excluded by the federal definition. I'd have to look it up to give the exact language.

Yes, I saw the exclusion for destructive devices. But what makes a flare gun NOT an ordinary firearm?

It's not a firearm. But because of 594, it's a device who's operation becomes defined as an object that needs a UBC.

It's not a firearm as you and I define it. However, it IS a firearm under Washington state law, and now under 594 it appears to require a background check for all transfers.

Let me ask two questions:

1) Why are we able to go to the store and buy flare guns now (pre-594) without a background check?

2) ^ Probably related to that question ... why don't the Feds control flare guns as firearms? For example, presumably I can order one online and have it shipped across state lines...?