Washington AR kit trick to by-pass I-1639

[2A2Dend]

I was surprised of the topic at all, given the array of said components.

 

[rdb241]

OK brainiacs, if I buy a thompson center contender frame/receiver used, what is it? A pistol or a rifle? Or an "other"?

You answered your own question by stating the words frame/receiver and not a complete firearm.

 

[tinkerbill]

OK brainiacs, if I buy a thompson center contender frame/receiver used, what is it? A pistol or a rifle? Or an "other"?

It makes sense that it would be "other" or formally "any other weapon" but not everything makes sense in the .gov world! Upon reflection it probably is defined as whatever barrel gets attached to the receiver just like what happens when you modify a flare gun into a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. At the time that the weapon is looked at by .gov. probably has a lot to do with it. Compare that to a rifle that is black powder and was converted to fire modern shells. I know it's not apples to apples in this case but it is a classification change.

 

[ajmacomber]

A pistol made from a rifle is an SBR unless it was originally a pistol. A rifle made from a gun that was originally a pistol can be reconfigured into a pistol. Obviously a person has to be careful when switching back and forth. Some states also prohibit going back to a pistol from a rifle even if it was originally a pistol.

and how would they know exactly? That's dumb

 

[User 1234]

It makes sense that it would be "other" or formally "any other weapon" but not everything makes sense in the .gov world! Upon reflection it probably is defined as whatever barrel gets attached to the receiver just like what happens when you modify a flare gun into a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. At the time that the weapon is looked at by .gov. probably has a lot to do with it. Compare that to a rifle that is black powder and was converted to fire modern shells. I know it's not apples to apples in this case but it is a classification change.

"Any other weapon" is a completely different legal category than "other." There are multiple legal issues being debated in this thread, and not competently. These posts mix and match concepts, confuse lack of enforcement with clear legality, and assume the government can prosecute based on what the law intended versus what the law says (sometimes the government gets away with that sometimes it doesn't). Hopefully nobody is making decisions in their legal affairs based on what is written in this thread, or any other.

 

[wired]

How would they know? They have tax records. Every completed firearm has an FAET excise tax paid on it by the manufacturer . 10% on pistols and 11% on rifles. The IRS handles the transactions and the ATF records the serial numbers and manufacturer info. When the Police recover a firearm, say that you use to defend yourself or gets stolen from your home etc, they contact the ATF , they run a trace. Say you have a pistol built from a receiver you purchased from a dealer who sold it to you as a bare receiver. It was transferred to you as such but the dealer got it in his bound books as a rifle. Somebody has some splainin' to do. A dealer who transfers a receiver out as "other" when it came into a his books as a rifle is putting himself in great jeopardy and potentially his customer as well. Ive known dealers who have done all kinds of "Its my business and I'll run how I see fit" kind of crap and they all received massive fines from the state or the feds for either not paying taxes on transfers in WA, participating in straw purchases, selling guns under the table etc. and Ive seen dealers push those ATF buttons all day long and keep their licenses. All depends on how much you want to pay in lawyers fees. I was in a shop the other day in South Carolina and witnessed a dealer in his shop pay cash for a gun under the table ($200 for an AR-15) no paperwork , no bound book , nothing.

Thompson Contenders, as noted above, are their own little world as they have a direct supreme court case in United States V. Thompson-Center Arms Co.. The whole pistol into a rifle and back to pistol thing stems from that ruling.

 

[ajmacomber]

I meant if you had a pistol, threw a rifle upper on it, and then changed it back to a pistol, there is absolutely no way anyone would even know you did that. I don't have a dog in the fight, hat just seems ridiculous

 

[User 1234]

I meant if you had a pistol, threw a rifle upper on it, and then changed it back to a pistol, there is absolutely no way anyone would even know you did that. I don't have a dog in the fight, hat just seems ridiculous

And that would not be illegal, so nobody would care.

 

[gmerkt]

Okay, I started this thread informationally. Now I will add my own opinion.

My feeling is the FFL dealer knows he's doing wrong. He may have found what he thinks is a work-around, but knows what he is doing is not consistent with the intent of the law. And of course that part doesn't bother him. My personal view is that he's at some risk of correction by authorities. His statement that his master is the ATF who controls his FFL, and not the state. This is wrong, he's got two masters in this sense, because he is bound to obey state law regardless of who issues his FFL. The ATF requires that FFL dealers comply with all state laws in order to make a lawful sale, their words. So an FFL dealer cannot simply ignore state law because his license comes from the feds. This is a fundamentally incorrect conclusion.

Laws are laws, but in the case of firearms there are technical issues. That legislators and those floating initiatives don't necessarily understand. California has had big problems with loopholes related to technology. My guess is this is why in Wash. the gun-haters decided to go for ALL semi-autos and try to avoid the pitfalls that California experienced. However, they couldn't envision the nature of an AR, that is, that it could easily be broken in half and shuffled around. Stripped lowers would be way beyond most of their knowledge.

The nature of the AR design has allowed the perceived gray area that subject FFL dealer has used to skirt the law. He has used this exception to decide that because it isn't specifically written into the law, it's okay to do it. Over time, I'm sure we'll see how this goes.

 

[User 1234]

^^^ This is what the "designer drug" chemists did to avoid the bans on drugs which were outlawed by statute. Changed it to a different drug but with the same effects. Then Congress and the FDA and DEA would add those to the ban. Then the game of cat and mouse continued.

 

[Sporting Systems]

From an 07 manufacturer FFL:

1) If the dealer does not hold a federal manufacturing license (type 07), he's illegally manufacturing firearms. Period. That's a felony and there is no discussion over what they are doing. An 01 FFL CANNOT create a new firearm, or change a firearms classification on their books. A single ATF inventory and A&D audit will quickly expose this and because of the "willful intent", they will lose their license and very likely face Federal prosecution.

2) The State of Washington requires a State dealers license, issued by local enforcement, issued annually. Clark County for us.

Now, how to do it correctly.

1) Obtain an 07 manufacturing license.
2) Create the firearm classification in your manufacturing log, in this case, FRAME/RECEIVER
3) Record your manufacturing record.
4) Make the correct entries into your bound book to remove the rifle and add the "Frame".
5) File your mandatory manufacturing report. Excise taxes may be due depending on what was built.

Now, the sticky wicket for an overzealous Local/State prosecutor/AG. Did you do this to circumvent state law on the purchase of the rifle? Yes. Is it specifically illegal under Federal or state law, NO. However, you'll get to answer that question in a criminal courtroom.

 

[User 1234]

Even if the dealer's activities were only scrutinized by the state and not the feds, and even if a judge or jury eventually might rule in the dealer's favor that he did not violate 1639, there is truth in the phrase "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride."

 

[rdb241]

^^^ This is what the "designer drug" chemists did to avoid the bans on drugs which were outlawed by statute. Changed it to a different drug but with the same effects. Then Congress and the FDA and DEA would add those to the ban. Then the game of cat and mouse continued.

"BINGO"...............this is what happened in the early 80's and real "crack" was made. Not cocaine free basing rocks but actual Crack. Crack and Cocaine are 2 different drugs entirely. Crack is man made drug with one or 2 elements either left out or changed try to skirt the cocaine laws. Cocaine comes from the Coca plant that only grows above 3,000 ft. But thanx to the media and mass phcycology every single night saying the phrase "Crack Cocaine". Everybody thinks it's all the same thing. Not true. When actual crack came out on the streets. It was kinda a yellow color to it and was nick named cat piss rocks. I have first hand experience with and my sister being addicted for many years. Plus unlike Cocaine, Crack can not be crushed up in to a powder to snort. It is too hard and can only be smoked.

 

[arakboss]

You simply watch way too much TV. That is such a far stretch it's almost not worth saying anything. Explain to me how the LEO's could possibly trace a non-numbered upper receiver to you?

Rifling and firing pin marks from upper used in murder. In his example he was in possession of upper when the cops showed up. Maybe anonymous tip came in suggesting he had the murder weapon.

 

[wired]

"BINGO"...............this is what happened in the early 80's and real "crack" was made. Not cocaine free basing rocks but actual Crack. Crack and Cocaine are 2 different drugs entirely. Crack is man made drug with one or 2 elements either left out or changed try to skirt the cocaine laws. Cocaine comes from the Coca plant that only grows above 3,000 ft. But thanx to the media and mass phcycology every single night saying the phrase "Crack Cocaine". Everybody thinks it's all the same thing. Not true. When actual crack came out on the streets. It was kinda a yellow color to it and was nick named cat piss rocks. I have first hand experience with and my sister being addicted for many years. Plus unlike Cocaine, Crack can not be crushed up in to a powder to snort. It is too hard and can only be smoked.

That is not what crack is at all. Crack is cocaine hydrochloride that is converted to a stable free base crystallized form by reduction with typically a bicarbonate . You start with cocaine and go from there. Same stuff but "purer". It never was legal. You may be thinking of the early 80's cat and mouse game that was being done with derivatives of MDMA designer drugs.

 

[gmerkt]

The State of Washington requires a State dealers license, issued by local enforcement, issued annually. Clark County for us.

I didn't know this. I wonder why the dealer I quoted doesn't take this into consideration. State requires the license but issuing authority are the county sheriffs. Does this set-up result in any administrative oversight? Do state or county sheriff auditors routinely check dealers books? Or is this mainly a way to cause payment of a fee? Or results in gotcha type prosecution at random?

I read through the RCW that addresses this license. I noted that it provides for dealers to sell away from their premises, typically at gun shows but stipulates that those events be sponsored by certain organizations. Does that mean that private, commercial gun shows technically aren't an authorized venue for license holders?

 

[wired]

I didn't know this. I wonder why the dealer I quoted doesn't take this into consideration. State requires the license but issuing authority are the county sheriffs. Does this set-up result in any administrative oversight? Do state or county sheriff auditors routinely check dealers books? Or is this mainly a way to cause payment of a fee? Or results in gotcha type prosecution at random?

I read through the RCW that addresses this license. I noted that it provides for dealers to sell away from their premises, typically at gun shows but stipulates that those events be sponsored by certain organizations. Does that mean that private, commercial gun shows technically aren't an authorized venue for license holders?

The state license is more of a permit than a license. You need an FFL and a master business license ( you need that for the FFL too ) and THEN you apply for the state permit. They check city and county zoning laws and HOA regs if you are a kitchen table licensee. I had to forfeit my license when I moved to Yakima because Yakima does not allow kitchen table dealers and they strictly enforce it. No permit, no FFL business. No checks from the state except for checks you send to the state , occasional visits from the ATF field agents of which there are just 5 or 6 in WA and OR.

The dealer you quoted is just cruising to have his license revoked or worse.

 

[MrRob96]

So everyone is talking about a rifle vs an "other". Yet 1639 distinguishes between a semi auto rifle and a bolt rifle. Both are simply rifles to the feds, right?

This type of thing was done for years in California under the single shot exemption for handguns. The FFLs would render SA pistols inoperable as an SA and transfer them legally as single shot. They were always a pistol according to the feds. Customer would walk out the door with their single shot pistol and back in the door to have it repaired to SA. Some FFLs wouldn't participate in the behavior but it was legal until the pols closed the "loophole."

I think second hand information from the FFL is the culprit here.

 

[MrRob96]

Also I think this thread should be deleted to remove this info from the anti crowd's arsenal.

What mod do I need to start calling names in order to get this thread title changed or shut down?

 

[rdb241]

That is not what crack is at all. Crack is cocaine hydrochloride that is converted to a stable free base crystallized form by reduction with typically a bicarbonate . You start with cocaine and go from there. Same stuff but "purer". It never was legal. You may be thinking of the early 80's cat and mouse game that was being done with derivatives of MDMA designer drugs.

No your are not correct. I know all about "free basing". My sister did it for years. With real crack you do not reduce anything to a rock because it is already in rock form. I know what MDMA is. It is extasy today. I never was around MDMA and nobody I know did it. The phrase crack has become the norm thanx to the media calling it by the wrong name. I am not making this up or wishing. I have first hand experience with my sister being addicted to both drugs. With Crack you do not start with cocaine like you said. That is free basing. Actual crack can not be crushed to a powder and snort. Crack will not crush to a powder. If you could comare both crack and Cocaine you would see that it is not even the same color. Cocaine is very white and sparkles when you crush it up to snort. Crack is more of a yellow color and does not sparkle when attempting to crush it up. Crack was for smoking only and that is where people get confused between the two. When somebody free bases and smokes cocaine is where the news media lumps the 2 together and uses the phrase "crack cocaine. When they are 2 different drugs all together that give some of the same effects. The news media has had 30+ years to cram that phrase down the public's throat. If you are such an expert. What chemical do you use to reduce real cocaine to rock form to smoke? I grew up in the era of the cocaine epidemic that hit America in the late 70's and early 80's. This is knowledge learned on the street and not some book or the news."Crack" is not real "Cocaine". Crack is man made and not from a plant.