Washington State

[Puffer]

In WA. we have a "Primative" season. It is open to "traditional" MLs,Inlines, & archery (No restrictions on archery equip. except no crossbows EXCEPT for the "physically challenged" BUT there is an interesting :imo: restriction on us MLers.

Before I go into this, allow me to give an idea of where I am coming from. :thanks: I am a ML hunter. I am also a certified Hunter Ed. Instr.(Wa.St.Fish & Wildlife Dept. - Enforcement Div. - Vol.) I am also a member of our states H.E.Inst. Asson.,which,among other things Lobbies both the Dept. & Leg. about Hunting reg.s (we are responcible for getting "Hunter Orange" req. a few years ago.)

One of the issuses we are "dealing with is as follows:
ALL "firing mech.s (both inline & "traditionakl" MUST BE UNCOVERED (no closed actions or rags over the lock etc.)@ ALL TIMEs while in the field. :huh:
The Dept. & Leg.s are getting alot of "pressure" from not only from the "inliners",BUT gun dealers als,to "revoke"this reg. WHY???. It seems that the state of WA is either the ONLY one ,or one of a handfull, that have this req.There are only a couple of Mfg.s that make a gun,or for that matter a "coversion",that is "legal" to use in WA.We "traditionalist agree (for once,that this a bad reg. (Right now I "cover my Lock (a flinter) , by sliding it up the sleeve of my coat.(MUMs the WORD )

We are "suggesting that we not only "revoke the reg. BUT also have 2 seasons,ie: 1. Gen. ML & Archery & a "true primative" season. open for "traditional bows & firearms".
:front:

????s -Does your state have a reg. like this ???
What do you suggest ???

Puffer

 

[16gauge]

What is the states reasoning for this law, if any?

 

[biliff]

Oregon allows inlines but they can't use centerfire primers and must have an "open ignition" system. From the Oregon regs:

 

[tg]

I cannot see the reasoning behind a no cover law on ML locks, a no sealed ignition law is one thing to maintain the primitive aspect of the hunt but it is a historical fact that foks would cover their guns as needed to protect the lock, this is quite different from designing a weather proof breech system, even though some attempts were made at that in the past. I do believe that a total lack of understanding about ML guns and there traits is the main factor behind some of the odd regulations, that and a strong lobby from non trad sources.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

"reasoning with law"

Ha ha, This is WA state you are talking about. They do what they wish, and most of the time, they dont know what they are doing.

 

[musketman]

Putting something over the lock is O.K..

Like a cow's knee, when hunting in damp weather, as long as its not a perminate fixture of the gun...

 

[arcticap]

While I just learned that Mass. has a hinge action M.L. restriction, Conn. doesn't currently have either a design (permanent) or temporary lock covering restriction. The state used to restrict M.L.'s to an authentic or reproduction lock style from a certain period in history or before, but never actually specified anything else that would restrict the style of lock covering that I'm aware of. Right or wrong, thanks for reminding me about the most likely reason for the Mass. hinge action restriction. :redface:

 

[Puffer]

Oregon allows inlines but they can't use centerfire primers and must have an "open ignition" system. From the Oregon regs:

 

[Liver eatin’ Johnson]

Puffer,

One of the issuses we are "dealing with is as follows:
ALL "firing mech.s (both inline & "traditionakl" MUST BE UNCOVERED (no closed actions or rags over the lock etc.)@ ALL TIMEs while in the field.

Where can we see this new reg. that is being proposed? Right now it is only stated that muzzleloading ignition systems must be "exposed to the elements" and inlines must use standard percussion caps on a nipple. In the past, modern manufacturers have been able to "expose" their ignition systems to the elements by simply drilling a hole in the side of their receiver... :hmm:

 

[Puffer]

Puffer,

One of the issuses we are "dealing with is as follows:
ALL "firing mech.s (both inline & "traditionakl" MUST BE UNCOVERED (no closed actions or rags over the lock etc.)@ ALL TIMEs while in the field.

Where can we see this new reg. that is being proposed? Right now it is only stated that muzzleloading ignition systems must be "exposed to the elements" and inlines must use standard percussion caps on a nipple. In the past, modern manufacturers have been able to "expose" their ignition systems to the elements by simply drilling a hole in the side of their receiver... :hmm:

This is NOT a "NEW REG." (SEE above quote from the WDFW "Big Game Hunting Seasons & Rules."

The reg. reads as stated.It is the INTERPITATION of the reg., that the officers of the Enforcement Div.have been instructed to use. :sorry: the ONLY way you can "protect your ignition from the elements,is to do as I do,carry it up you sleeve, under the tail of your coat etc. I just confirmed this W/ a Sr. WDFW enforcement officer.(by the way he hunts elk W/ a "Flinter" & doesn't like the way it is, but they have NO choise.)
Also, drilling a hole in the side of the receiver will not make the gun LEGAL.
, per my sourse. :nono:
Puffer

 

This is NOT a "NEW REG." (SEE above quote from the WDFW "Big Game Hunting Seasons & Rules."

The reg. reads as stated.It is the INTERPITATION of the reg., that the officers of the Enforcement Div.have been instructed to use. :sorry: the ONLY way you can "protect your ignition from the elements,is to do as I do,carry it up you sleeve, under the tail of your coat etc. I just confirmed this W/ a Sr. WDFW enforcement officer.(by the way he hunts elk W/ a "Flinter" & doesn't like the way it is, but they have NO choise.)
Also, drilling a hole in the side of the receiver will not make the gun LEGAL.
, per my sourse. :nono:
Puffer

The "interpitation" sounds rather strange, to say the least!! :hmm: :imo:

YMHS
rollingb

 

[leslie]

You have it right.The WA. Dept of Fish and Game is strange to say the least.I dont hunt but I have asked their people for interpretations of the fishing rules,the answer,I dunno. The biggest enemy fish and game have in Washington are the people charged with looking after the fish and game.If it was'nt so serious it would be comical.

 

[Puffer]

This is NOT a "NEW REG." (SEE above quote from the WDFW "Big Game Hunting Seasons & Rules."

The reg. reads as stated.It is the INTERPITATION of the reg., that the officers of the Enforcement Div.have been instructed to use. :sorry: the ONLY way you can "protect your ignition from the elements,is to do as I do,carry it up you sleeve, under the tail of your coat etc. I just confirmed this W/ a Sr. WDFW enforcement officer.(by the way he hunts elk W/ a "Flinter" & doesn't like the way it is, but they have NO choice.)
Also, drilling a hole in the side of the receiver will not make the gun LEGAL.
, per my source. :nono:
Puffer

The "interpretation" sounds rather strange, to say the least!! :hmm: :imo:

YMHS
rollingb

Your not the only one :huh:. BUT remember The Enforcement officers are left W/ ambiguously written laws & reg.s that written by bureucrats. ( + lawers need work :imo They are either left up to the "interp.s dictated to them by their dept.s or left to their own devices ::

If you think this sounds strange try being a personal defence Inst.( I am a former LEO & an PD instructor for 40+ yr.s ) & having to "advize" students on "carry laws" in this state :crackup:
ff: But heres an example : In WA, the Law states that we have the "right" to carry open (except where local law forbids it, like in Seattle.Sounds simple, BUT there is a "LITTLE" thing called "intimination" I'd quote the law, but not enough space, But let it saffice to say that I have a note book of opinions on how this is "ITERP.ed )
Puffer

 

BUT remember The Enforcement officers are left W/ ambiguously written laws & reg.s that written by bureucrats. They are either left up to the "interp.s dictated to them by their dept.s or left to their own devices
Puffer

I just confirmed this W/ a Sr. WDFW enforcement officer.(by the way he hunts elk W/ a "Flinter" & doesn't like the way it is, but they have NO choice.)

So, the "Sr. WDFW Officer who hunts elk with a flintlock" would actualy "ticket" someone he caught use'n a "cow's knee" on ther flintlock in wet weather. (Do I understand this correctly??) :hmm: ::

 

[Puffer]

You have it right.The WA. Dept of Fish and Game is strange to say the least.I dont hunt but I have asked their people for interpretations of the fishing rules,the answer,I dunno. The biggest enemy fish and game have in Washington are the people charged with looking after the fish and game.If it was'nt so serious it would be comical.

Being in the "position I am in, I need to stay "quiet on the majority of what you said. But there is one thing I will say about a small segment of the dept.The LEOs. These men & women are some of the most highly trained & hard working LEOs I have ever worked with.If you have a ?? about how a law is inerp.ed, :imo: is to ask one of them.,they will try their best to help.You may not like their answer, but it may help you keep your lic.Remember, just because an individual answers the phone or wears a WDFW patch, doesen't mean he or she is up to speed on the reg.s ( after all I wear one :haha:

puffer

 

[Puffer]

BUT remember The Enforcement officers are left W/ ambiguously written laws & reg.s that written by bureucrats. They are either left up to the "interp.s dictated to them by their dept.s or left to their own devices
Puffer

I just confirmed this W/ a Sr. WDFW enforcement officer.(by the way he hunts elk W/ a "Flinter" & doesn't like the way it is, but they have NO choice.)

So, the "Sr. WDFW Officer who hunts elk with a flintlock" would actualy "ticket" someone he caught use'n a "cow's knee" on ther flintlock in wet weather. (Do I understand this correctly??) :hmm: ::

YUP !!!! :imo: REMEMBER, they do not "make the laws. It is not a ?? of whether they agree W/ the law or reg., they have a SWORN DUTY to up hold it. !!! It is up to the courts to decide the validity.(sometimes it isn't easy, I know, because I've been there :no:

But DO NOT think that if they felt that they were asked to do something that would "violate" what our Co. stands for, they would "rebel" :imo: :imo:

As an added note, I was raised in Spokane WA. & my family has a section of land, N of there, which was homesteaded in 1910.I spent my summers up there as a young kid of 12 +++. I supplimented my food supply by "poping sm. game, mainly rabbits. Under the present laws I could not do that, because there is now a rabit season" :huh: Do I agree w/ the law NO !!!!! Would I blame the LEO if I got "busted" for :: NO !! But I would be VERY POed @ those who enacted it

Puffer

 

[thomas]

Puffer,

Your wrong, the law says " Ignition is to be wheelock, match-lock, flintlock, or percussion caps that fit on the nipple and are exposed to the elements".

No one hunting in Washington state is going to be given a ticket if they use a cow's knee on a sidelock flint or percussion gun! However it is not legal to use a inline muzzleloader with a sealed ignition.

I can't see why anyone shooting a tradition sidelock gun would want the law changed.

Thomas :thumbsup:

 

guys if i may point out something here .
the regs you get at the local store are not the full written letter of the law . i know here in Idaho the actual book is about an inch and

 

[leslie]

I Do not want to offend anyone but it seems to me that if you walk in to the main office of any organization you should be able to get an answer to a question about the regs that outfit is enforcing. :imo:

 

Puffer,

Your wrong, the law says " Ignition is to be wheelock, match-lock, flintlock, or percussion caps that fit on the nipple and are exposed to the elements".

Thomas,.... Now thet makes sense, as it would pretain to the type/design of the muzzleloading rifle "itself", and has nuthin to do with sensable "precautions" a hunter uses to keep his powder dry!

I think some folks dwell too much on the "written word", then kick their "imaginations" into high-gear and start forming their own "definitions". :hmm:

........ unless the regs. actually do "state" flintlock and percussion locks, are prohibited from being covered with "LEATHER/RAG/CLOTH"???? :youcrazy: :haha: :haha:

YMHS
rollingb