Buying a AR lower in Washington ???

[lucusloc]

This is how I read the law.
Its the first attempt Ive seen at legislating away the grandfather clause. The left knows they need a grandfather clause to pass any AW bans but they also know there are enough "assault" weapons in any state to continue a healthy market of buying and selling used. Rest assured other states will follow as they collaborate.
Washington will not be legal to own any AW in as little as 2 generations from now.

Do you have a citation that shows this limitation of inheritance in the law? I would be interested to see how that modifies the above cited passage.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Do you have a citation that shows this limitation of inheritance in the law? I would be interested to see how that modifies the above cited passage.

 

[Koda]

Do you have a citation that shows this limitation of inheritance in the law? I would be interested to see how that modifies the above cited passage.

RCW 9.41.390: Assault weapons—Manufacturing, importing, distributing, selling prohibited—Exceptions—Penalty.

 

[lucusloc]

View attachment 1797096

That was the same section I was commenting on above. This section seems to indicate any legal inheritance is legal, and there are no stipulations about relation or number of inheritances. Hence my comments above about buying inheritance through the addition of unrelated persons into legally binding documents.

I do not think the second part is a limitation on future inheritances, since inheritance itself is explicitly not "distribution" according to the first section. It is just stipulating that people who inherit a firearm are not free to dispose of it in a way normal for other inherited items i.e. turning them into cash via transferring them on to more interested parties at the time of inheritance, which is something often allowed for under inheritance law as a single transaction for tax reasons.

 

[Sporting Systems]

As side note to inheritance, the banned items have to be IN the state of Washington at the time of the owners death, because the importation clause did not specify inheritance was an exception to importation. They say you have to provide provenance of this, but honestly, nobody is looking for these. We have gone through this withe the AGs office, and the legislature "knew" what they were doing by excluding that exemption", there is an official term for it that escapes me at the moment.

I'm aware of an estate that had about 450 firearms that are are caught up in this. 3 heirs arguing, lawyers arguing, bank/escrow arguing and the FFL that took the "consignment sale" already had received possession (so they can't legally return them to the family). The state's 90 day to sell existing inventory OUT of state comes into play here now, they cant be sold out of state now either. This is how terrible law, passed by the power drunk super majority in the legislature with NO amendments or changes to the bill, screw a lot of people really hard, in addition to that whole UNCONSTITUTIONAL thing.

 

[User 1234]

That was the same section I was commenting on above. This section seems to indicate any legal inheritance is legal, and there are no stipulations about relation or number of inheritances. Hence my comments above about buying inheritance through the addition of unrelated persons into legally binding documents.

I do not think the second part is a limitation on future inheritances, since inheritance itself is explicitly not "distribution" according to the first section. It is just stipulating that people who inherit a firearm are not free to dispose of it in a way normal for other inherited items i.e. turning them into cash via transferring them on to more interested parties at the time of inheritance, which is something often allowed for under inheritance law as a single transaction for tax reasons.

This is a good argument, and I hope that anyone who is challenged by police uses it. There are dozens of these issues the courts will have to decide. Given the trend in WA Supreme Court rulings, it will be interesting to see.

 

[Koda]

That was the same section I was commenting on above. This section seems to indicate any legal inheritance is legal, and there are no stipulations about relation or number of inheritances. Hence my comments above about buying inheritance through the addition of unrelated persons into legally binding documents.

I do not think the second part is a limitation on future inheritances, since inheritance itself is explicitly not "distribution" according to the first section. It is just stipulating that people who inherit a firearm are not free to dispose of it in a way normal for other inherited items i.e. turning them into cash via transferring them on to more interested parties at the time of inheritance, which is something often allowed for under inheritance law as a single transaction for tax reasons.

If anyone gets caught up in court on this the state is going to interpret the law in the manner that prohibits the transfer.
Im all for finding loopholes but "A person who legally receives an assault weapon under this subsection (2)(e) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state" is pretty clear.

 

[lucusloc]

If anyone gets caught up in court on this the state is going to interpret the law in the manner that prohibits the transfer.
Im all for finding loopholes but "A person who legally receives an assault weapon under this subsection (2)(e) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state" is pretty clear.

Yeah, but I would argue that "receipt under this section [of inheritance] is not distribution" is also pretty clear. Inheritance is not legally the same as a transfer, it is its own thing even if it has aspects similar to a transfer, i.e. background checks etc.

 

[GrayGoose]

You can't do a transfer with a dead person…

Dead people can't transfer, but they can still vote.

 

[Koda]

Yeah, but I would argue that "receipt under this section [of inheritance] is not distribution" is also pretty clear.

That only refers to the initial inheritance (by death only...). The part about not selling refers to the person who initially inherited the gun when they are ready to get rid of it.


Reposting for reference:
RCW 9.41.390
(e) The receipt of an assault weapon by a person who, on or after April 25, 2023, acquires possession of the assault weapon by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the assault weapon, provided the person in possession of the assault weapon can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection (2)(e) is not "distribution" under this chapter. A person who legally receives an assault weapon under this subsection (2)(e) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state other than to a licensed dealer, to a federally licensed gunsmith for the purpose of service or repair, or to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of permanently relinquishing the assault weapon.

 

[lucusloc]

That only refers to the initial inheritance (by death only...). The part about not selling refers to the person who initially inherited the gun when they are ready to get rid of it.


Reposting for reference:
RCW 9.41.390
(e) The receipt of an assault weapon by a person who, on or after April 25, 2023, acquires possession of the assault weapon by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the assault weapon, provided the person in possession of the assault weapon can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection (2)(e) is not "distribution" under this chapter. A person who legally receives an assault weapon under this subsection (2)(e) may not sell or transfer the assault weapon to any other person in this state other than to a licensed dealer, to a federally licensed gunsmith for the purpose of service or repair, or to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of permanently relinquishing the assault weapon.

Yes. So now the person who inherited the gun is the official owner. How does the first part not apply to them also when they die? Yes, they are not allowed to dispose of it in any other way, but continued inheritance through death does not seem to be limited in any way.

Read it this way;
1. Inheritance through death is not a transfer
2. The inheritor is not allowed to transfer within WA state for any reason (including dispositions normally allowed through inheritance, as discussed above)

So what happens when the inheritor dies?
See 1.

 

[FireArm]

Dead people can't transfer, but they can still vote.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

At times , the less said about something , the more better it may be.
Andy

 

[ilikegunspdx]

All the legal experts said you can leave it to your kids but they can't leave it to their kids. Which is exactly what the law cited above says as I read it.

 

[lucusloc]

All the legal experts said you can leave it to your kids but they can't leave it to their kids. Which is exactly what the law cited above says as I read it.

I don't see it, and I am curious about the context as to how those legal experts came to that conclusion. Maybe there is some other portion of the law that comes into play? I fail to see how inheritance through death can be implicated as a transfer (and therefor be limited as such) when inheritance through death is explicitly not a transfer as stated by the passage just above.

 

[Koda]

How does the first part not apply to them also when they die?

Because the second part stipulates they may not transfer it to any other person (including relatives).
That said, upon death... I think I see your point now if there is a legal will involved. That I'm not certain. ("by operation of law" to me implies a legal will)

 

[lucusloc]

Because the second part stipulates they may not transfer it to any other person (including relatives).

But this section also states that inheritance by death is not a transfer, therefor this section would not apply to that specific situation. If inheritance by death is explicitly not a transfer (or any other kind of distribution) then the passage that limits transfers cannot apply to subsequent inheritance by death.

 

[Koda]

But this section also states that inheritance by death is not a transfer, therefor this section would not apply to that specific situation. If inheritance by death is explicitly not a transfer (or any other kind of distribution) then the passage that limits transfers cannot apply to subsequent inheritance by death.

I see your point now and Im not certain how it works if a will is involved.
I do think the intent was to prohibit transferring within the family like most background check laws allow. In that regard, it means you have to wait for each owner to die with an established will in place to pass the gun down. This is actually even worse than I originally imagined.

 

[lucusloc]

I see your point now and Im not certain how it works if a will is involved.
I do think the intent was to prohibit transferring within the family like most background check laws allow. In that regard, it means you have to wait for each owner to die with an established will in place to pass the gun down. This is actually even worse than I originally imagined.

Oh yes, this section definitely seems to limit such transfers to death only. That part is explicit and clear. But my reading of the law indicates that it is not limited to family only.

"...acquires possession of the assault weapon by operation of law upon the death of the former owner..."

Since there is no stipulation of what that "operation of law" is it seems it could be anything; will, trust, default ownership. . . And it could be any person so stipulated, as there is no explicit limitation there either. I know non-relative inheritance is not common, but it is legal and well provisioned for in law.

So I see this going down in multiple ways;

No explicit will?
Family fight over inheritance, whoever winds up with the guns is now the owner subject to all limitations within the law.

Explicit will?
Whoever is named (family or not) gets the guns, subject to all. . .

Trust?
Named trust holders/beneficiaries (again, no family relation necessary) are now the owners, subject to all. . .

Other legal method of inheritance?
Same as all the rest.

All of these would clearly fall under the stipulation of "operation of law" sans any other limiting factors, of which there are none (that I know of) stipulated herein.

This is the passage that initially inspired my speculation about buying inheritance from some old crusty gun owner who wanted to turn the promise of a future inheritance into some immediate cash (kinda like a reverse mortgage). I do not see anything within this section of the law that would prevent that, nor prevent the future trade of such guns in perpetuity.

 

[Koda]

Since there is no stipulation of what that "operation of law" is it seems it could be anything; will, trust, default ownership. . . And it could be any person so stipulated, as there is no explicit limitation there either.

This is true, but I still think the intent was to close the family BGC "loophole" that essentially allows infinite transfers between family members without a BGC. This is the first attempt to legislate away that kind of family inheritance, I dont think it will be the last attempt to get rid of grandfathered guns.