I've dug through the threads here, but I can't seem to find this specific issue addressed. I saw someone else mention that the term 'firearm' isn't exactly the same anymore, and that it'll cause some confusion.

So... on a Federal level, an AR15 lower is considered a firearm, and those federal laws would govern it (including no prohibition of private party transfers between eligible parties).

But, on a State level, we now have the new RCW 9.41 that has I-594 incorporated into it.

RCW. 9.41.010
(9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.
(18) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
(19) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.


A lower, on it's own can't fire projectiles and isn't designed to do so. And, a lower, being just a hunk of machined metal with no moving parts nor circuitry isn't really a device. Unless being used as a bludgeon, it's not really a weapon either.

SO, according to the State of Washington, as defined in RCW 9.41.010, an AR15 lower isn't a firearm and as such would not be subject to the regulations outlined by that section.
Private party transfers, in accordance with Federal Law, would have no prohibitions.

Sound legit?

This has been bandied about in some other threads.
In short who knows! Your reasoning is sound and until the AOG gets off his rear end and declares what the mess 594 means in terms of how it should be enforced, no one can really know for sure.

Note, now that the SAF has challenged the law in federal court. It may be somewhat of a mute point as the Federal Court may put the whole piece of junk on hold until it can be determined if legal.
AND contrary to what they tried to say in the initiative. If one part fails the whole thing fails.
AND frankly the Initiative should have been invalid from the start as it deals with more than one topic. State Law!

You're right about SAF and their suit. It'll be fun for them to say it's a single issue initiative, but then allow severability to separate out a bad issue!

I am convinced 594 was never written as an initiative, but was originally going to be pushed as a piece of legislation, and was simply copy/pasted over for an initiative.

Sounds legit to me. Based on our earlier discussions, it is my personal opinion that it is legal to do private-party transfers of AR lowers in Washington; they are not "firearms" per Washington state law.

I'm going to lock this thread and point you to this one, where we discussed it in some detail:
http://www.waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=49768