Guidance needed concerning "lawful outdoor recreational activity"

[bikemutt]

Washington State legislature has a bill introduced which concerns assault weapons and high capacity magazines. My question relates to such weapons and magazines possessed prior to the presumed passage of this mess into law.

Where do I go to find out what a "lawful outdoor recreational activity" is? For example, does target practice on public land that's legal today qualify?

(3) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon or large capacity magazine that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall possess the assault weapon or large capacity-magazine only on property owned or immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine at a duly licensed firing range, or while engaged in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, or while traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine, provided that the assault weapon or large capacity magazine is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container during transport.
(4) A person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

 

[nettlle]

.... hopefully it's in the "such as" part. Maybe. Of small comfort.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Where do I go to find out what a "lawful outdoor recreational activity" is? ...

What that means and how it might apply in a particular situation will probably need to be worked out through court decisions over time. There might or might not be some case law looking at that phrase or something similar, which case law might offer some clues as to how a court would be likely to interpret and apply it in connection with this law. Finding out would be a matter of good, deep legal research using something like Westlaw or Lexis.

If this bill is still in process, and if it looks like it can't be killed outright, one option is to propose and lobby for some clarifying language to be included.

 

[AlexanderA]

A "lawful outdoor recreational activity" involving "assault weapons" could be a WW2 or Vietnam War reenactment.

 

[6.8KT]

duly licensed firing range

I think that answers your question.

 

[Spats McGee]

duly licensed firing range

I think that answers your question.

No, given the OP's question (bolded below), I don't think it does.

Washington State legislature has a bill introduced which concerns assault weapons and high capacity magazines. My question relates to such weapons and magazines possessed prior to the presumed passage of this mess into law.

Where do I go to find out what a "lawful outdoor recreational activity" is? For example, does target practice on public land that's legal today qualify?

The short answer is: statutes and case law. With my usual caveat that I'm not licensed in WA, I took a peek at y'all's law. Only a peek, as I didn't have time to thoroughly research it. I did, however, find a couple of items that might give the courts some guidance. First of all, consider that these are really pretty commonplace terms. I didn't see anything in the cases that would indicate that they're being used as some kind of term of art, so your basic, dictionary definition can be used.

In connection with a different statute on the liability of a landowner: "We conclude that 'outdoor recreation' as now used in RCW 4.24.210 encompasses all recreational activities which commonly are conducted outdoors. Curran v. City of Marysville, 53 Wash. App. 358, 364, 766 P.2d 1141, 1144 (1989)." Like I said, it's a different statute, but I don't see why a court would not follow either that language or something very similar. That covers "outdoor recreation," but leaves "lawful" up for grabs.