Does Washington’s I-594 measure cover nail guns?

guns.com ^ | 12/2/2014 | Chris Eger

[rktman]

Fear over just what comes along with the 18 pages of background check legislation approved by Washington state voters last month has led some to wonder if devices such as nail guns and avalanche cannons would see increased regulation.

The definition of just what is a firearm as defined in the ballot initiative that takes Dec. 4 is still subject to interpretation. According to the language of the referendum, virtually every transfer of any device “from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder” must in the future be accompanied by a background check beforehand.

[rktman]

I suppose interpretation will be key in this case. Based on some of the responses in the comments section of the seattle times article I posted, there are a lot of seatteltes that claim we're just being silly. Because, after all, it's about feeling safer. Not that you will actually BE safer but as long as you feel you are, that's what matters.

[Oatka]

According to the language of the referendum, virtually every transfer of any device “from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder” must in the future be accompanied by a background check beforehand.

That includes flare guns.

[ConservativeInPA]

" ... from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder

Modern gunpowder is not an explosive, it is a propellant.

[Red Badger]

Slingshots, Arrows and Atl-Atls are next...............

[PROCON]

I suppose these are included too...

[rktman]

LOL! Don’t you wish it were that simple? These asshats would argue over OUR semantics but their word usage is just fine. Of course they’ll be using their “How to sell gun control in 10 easy steps” manual found here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

AKA “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging”

Guess they don’t want to appear “threatening” to us “not super sophisticated” types.

[jim_trent]

That looks like an assault nail gun. And it is armor piercing, too (through concrete).

[arthurus]

That would seem to include nail guns that fire by compressed air and potato guns, too. Paintball is in there somewhere, I’m sure.

[rktman]

Guess it depends on your definition of “explosive”. Compressed air can be an explosive force. But it ain’t gunpowder.

[k4gypsyrose]

Lets not argue over words...they could regulate the after effects of that chili you had last night/s

[ExCTCitizen]

Nail Guns? I guess lawbreakers - er lawmakers - didn’t read 20 pages of this bill, let alone all of the pages. Is AquaBlaster Squirt Guns banned?

[NormsRevenge]

What next? Hammers?

[goldstategop]

It was drafted by Michael Bloomberg’ anti-gun fascists.

That said, the old saw comes to mind: when nail guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have nail guns.

That’s how nutty hoplophobes have to be to take away every one else’s rights.

[arthurus]

That “such as” is dangerously indeterminate.

[BillT]

Don’t forget “Staple Guns” they shoot staples but no gunpowder. Nail guns also do not use gunpowder... Just saying...

[Still Thinking]

Some of them are combustion driven.

[Myrddin]

Nail guns also do not use gunpowder... Just saying...

I have nail setting tools that employ .22 rimfire blanks (with standard gunpowder) to drive nails into concrete. They have been sold at Home Depot for years.

[Myrddin]

Click the image for information.

[Boogieman]

Well, the feds have already banned the high velocity powder nail guns, except for ones made decades ago that are grandfathered in.

[roadcat]

I also have nail gun tools with .22 rimfire. Looks like I've been using them wrong. From the article:

He added, “These nail guns have actually been used in the past to murder people.”

Then again, the other day a guy was murdered by several people (blacks?) wielding hammers. Guess they'll be pushing for a background check for hammers as well.