(b) "Firearm industry product" means a product that meets any of the following conditions:
(i) The firearm industry product was sold, made, distributed, or marketed in this state;
....

(e) "Product" means:
(i) A firearm;
(ii) Ammunition;
...

f) "Reasonable controls" means reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices, including but not limited to screening, security, and inventory practices, that are designed and implemented to do all of the following:
(i) Prevent the sale or distribution of a firearm industry product to a straw purchaser, a firearm trafficker, a person prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law, or a person who the firearm industry member has reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk of using a firearm industry product to harm themselves or unlawfully harm another, or of unlawfully possessing or using a firearm industry product;
...
(4) A firearm industry member shall establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale,  distribution, importing, use, and marketing of firearm industry products




Note that this bans the sale of ammo to someone who is not allowed to own a firearm, and requires the seller to screen for this. How else would your screen than a NICS check?

Obviously this is some BS but it's why online ammo retailers and wholesalers are blacklisting WA

It is illegal for an FFL to use NICS for anything other than firearms checks.  They recently changed it so that FFLs could use NICS to conduct background checks on employees, but that is the only exception currently.  It is not possible or allowed to use NICS for ammunition checks.

Probably why some places are not allowing ammo shipments to WA, even though 5078 is not yet the law.....  (7/23/2023 effective date)

So there’s no way for retailers to check for ammo sales. Meaning: nobody can sell ammo in WA or to WA? Wtf

This is another case of leaving the required actions ambiguous while making the legal consequences of a violation clear and excessive.

Their goal is to stop online sales to WA and then to shut down all the FFL's in State.

"we only banned some guns, and want to hold the FFL industry accountable if something bad happens.  Oh, the "unintended" (really intended....) consequence is that no FFLs exist anymore, so people CAN'T legally buy guns or even ammo in WA?  Not sorry...."

Remember we are switching to the WA State Patrol background system, which can be used for ammo background checks.  I can see this being brought up in next years session.

They don't even have to wait. They just send cease and desist letters to all online sellers, including out of state, who do not use the system, citing the law they already passed, stating that they are not implementing reasonable screening on customers such as a background check and noting the penalty is $2500 per box of ammo sold.

The effective date of this legislation is 7/23. I dunno if it will result in a lot of online sellers stopping business with WA but I'm afraid it might.

Between now and then I've decided it's anyway not a bad time to buy cheap and stack deep

Just tossed in a panic buy (after reading this thread) at SGAmmo. Order seemed to go through okay. Let’s hope it ships.

This state is so fucked up now. Some injunctions better happen soon.

Buying cheap and stacking deep is a standard that should be practiced anytime.  Whether it be a couple boxes or a case.

It's worse than California, you can still buy compliant rifles there.

Yep and they'll never actually enforce it making it WAY harder to challenge... It used to be very clear and explicit that ammo sales were legal without being an FFL in WA, how does that work now? You effectively can't

The law isn't in effect yet and most places are still shipping to WA. I dunno what happens once it's in effect though, after 7/23

The 77g PSA ammo is a helluva deal at $.50/rd. Considering.......

Haven't gone through the whole bill yet, but a cursory check suggests a simple affirmation to the effect of, "By checking this box/signing here/completing this purchase, I certify I am legally permitted to blah blah blah..." would be sufficient.

Also, any out of state retailers could just tell Ferguson and the legislature to pound sand since they have no authority over anything anyone does in any other state. Ammunition is pretty easy to stop at the courier level though. UPS/FedEx/USPS would love to deny accepting ammunition for shipment.

You clearly haven't been following the lawsuits filed by RSR Group and Davidson's, neither of which are located in WA State, trying to stop from having to give the WA AG the information he demands in the various "CIDs" his office has issued.....  The absolute sinister application of the "Consumer Protection Act" in these cases is where the liability comes from, and that liability extends outside our borders currently......

Washington's legislature and governor can enact whatever they want, and its AG can ask for whatever s/he wants based on that, but none have any authority to dictate anything to anyone not in Washington. Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond Washington's borders. Such a practice would require the existence of a mutually agreed upon treaty between the states or a federal law requiring every state comply with the laws of every other state. I'm not claiming either of those don't exist because I have not researched the subject, but it sounds a bit far fetched. Maybe it's relying on some esoteric interstate commerce law? I don't know. If such treaties or federal laws do not exist, then those two companies are just cowards trying to avoid further petty antics like intercepting shipments, blocking websites, extradition demands, loss of business to the government itself (which they should be denying anyway!), etc.

Edit: Interesting. So 5078 claims authority to enforce this via PLCAA, but PLCAA was enacted specifically to prevent this exact behavior. Washington passed a law which violates PLCAA (and various parts of the US Constitution) in order to claim that PLCAA allows them to enforce that law. This would fall in 30 seconds under any scrutiny by any federal judge who isn't a statist activist. But I guess there's the rub. I could probably count on one hand the number of federal judges at any level in the entire country who aren't statist activists.

Then how has Washington successfully sued people out of state who have violated WA's ban on calls to anyone who's number is on WA's do not call list?

How are states able to force retailers in other states to collect sales tax? Remember, this one went to the US Supreme Court.

If those can be enforced what makes this different?

Won't let me post a much longer response.

PLCAA states action can't be brought in federal or state court against firearms industry vendors unless specific conditions are met. WA is trying to circumvent those. To go after a vendor, WA needs to show negligence by that vendor AND link it to a specific crime. Like if a dealer delivers a firearm without background check AND the firearm is used to murder someone. Then the dealer shares in liability for the murder because the dealer knows they have to do background checks on all firearms transfers.

WA is claiming the simple EXISTENCE of anything firearms related is ITSELF "harmful," then using that claim to justify a demand for some form of verification that the recipient may possess the object, so that if a vendor doesn't do it, WA can claim negligence. The lynch pin of that is why WA is demanding sales records from vendors. WA wants the data in order to find one they can match to a specific crime. Then they can go after that vendor. I assume they would need a warrant to get the records though, but most vendors don't ask, whether it's firearms or plastic spoons. They just bend the knee to play nice hoping to avoid retaliatory harassment. I think this would fail if challenged in front of a reasonable judge because it is so obviously trying to circumvent PLCAA, and for arbitrary and capricious reasons.