Buying a AR lower in Washington ???

[monkeybutler]

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.

That would be a transfer. money and a weapon changed hands.

Don't drop the soap.

 

[lucusloc]

I just thought of another loophole that would probably be covered under "operation of law"

Grandpa goes on life support -> Immediate family get power of attorney over medical and assets -> family find buyer and provision inheritance contract -> family pull plug on Grandpa-> buyer inherits guns.

The only step in here I am unsure of is the families power to dictate intended inheritance as a proxy for Grandpa. If there is a well established legal precedence/mechanism here this will work just fine. If not then it would probably have to go to court to establish that precedent one way or another.

 

[lucusloc]

That would be a transfer. money and a weapon changed hands.

Don't drop the soap.

No, only money and a legal document changed hands. No weapon did. The weapon only changes hands on death, as provisioned for by law. Technically the only thing you are buying is an entry on some kind of will.

 

[Koda]

family find buyer

Keep in mind the historical use of grandfather laws have always been within the immediate family members.

 

[lucusloc]

Keep in mind the historical use of grandfather laws have always been within the immediate family members.

Sure, but that is not what is written in this law. If they wanted to limit it to only family inheritance they should have put that stipulation in, not used the broad-as-possible "as provisioned for in law" stipulation. Non-relative inheritance is provisioned for in law. Furthermore I am unaware of any legal prohibitions against buying such inheritance, hence the speculation of a new, rather grim market space.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

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.

Yep it's pretty clear they won't let any "assault weapons" into the state and have mechanisms to get them out of the state (Fe can be transferred to FFL who can only sell it out of state). The intent and the law seems clear to me.

The whole thing is unconstitutional and hopefully it will be overturned before one ever has to worry about the grandkids.

 

[Alexx1401]

I just thought of another loophole that would probably be covered under "operation of law"

Grandpa goes on life support -> Immediate family get power of attorney over medical and assets -> family find buyer and provision inheritance contract -> family pull plug on Grandpa-> buyer inherits guns.

The only step in here I am unsure of is the families power to dictate intended inheritance as a proxy for Grandpa. If there is a well established legal precedence/mechanism here this will work just fine. If not then it would probably have to go to court to establish that precedent one way or another.

As long as you do not have to actually transfer the guns, IE, at a dealer, you can just keep them. Is it legal? No. As with anything like this the only problem will be people who tell everyone they know what they did. If someone like an ex gets angry and turns them in? They may well end up with a check. Otherwise no way state could prove the guns were not there before the law went in. As always it will be people's own mouth that will get someone in trouble. If the family has sibling's who know about this best make sure none of them are anti gun or feel they got shorted on their piece of the pie. Those would be the kind who might call and report you. Again what more gun owners need to do is VOTE well if they currently are not and try to get ALL gun owners they know to do the same.

 

[Alexx1401]

Sure, but that is not what is written in this law. If they wanted to limit it to only family inheritance they should have put that stipulation in, not used the broad-as-possible "as provisioned for in law" stipulation. Non-relative inheritance is provisioned for in law. Furthermore I am unaware of any legal prohibitions against buying such inheritance, hence the speculation of a new, rather grim market space.

Not going to happen. AG will NOT allow FFL's to transfer the guns and I VERY much doubt anyone would find an FFL who wanted to poke side show bob. Could the FFL win if side show comes at them? Maybe but, who pays for the FFL's lawyers? This is why I doubt any FFL is going to stick their neck out for this since so many gun owners prove every couple years that they just don't care. Side show will not be interested in people with one gun. He would LOVE to go after FFL's.

 

[lucusloc]

As long as you do not have to actually transfer the guns, IE, at a dealer, you can just keep them. Is it legal? No. As with anything like this the only problem will be people who tell everyone they know what they did. If someone like an ex gets angry and turns them in? They may well end up with a check. Otherwise no way state could prove the guns were not there before the law went in. As always it will be people's own mouth that will get someone in trouble. If the family has sibling's who know about this best make sure none of them are anti gun or feel they got shorted on their piece of the pie. Those would be the kind who might call and report you. Again what more gun owners need to do is VOTE well if they currently are not and try to get ALL gun owners they know to do the same.

Yeah, the old adage of "anything is legal if you do not get caught." My point is I think this is legal even if you do. I know the intent of the law is to deprive people of continued ownership of these guns, but the as written legal meaning of the law seems to indicate they can "change ownership" (Remember, inheritance by death is not a transfer!) to anyone as long as it is somehow legally stipulated to be so. If this becomes a thing (if the law even lasts that long) it should probably be seen as a considerable amount of egg-on-face for the legislators who wrote this passage.

 

[Alexx1401]

Yeah, the old adage of "anything is legal if you do not get caught." My point is I think this is legal even if you do. I know the intent of the law is to deprive people of continued ownership of these guns, but the as written legal meaning of the law seems to indicate they can "change ownership" (Remember, inheritance by death is not a transfer!) to anyone as long as it is somehow legally stipulated to be so. If this becomes a thing (if the law even lasts that long) it should probably be seen as a considerable amount of egg-on-face for the legislators who wrote this passage.

The entire law does NOT seem to be good. That does NOT mean its not law. Anyone can do anything they want and when they end up in front of some black robe tell them " I think this is legal". The black robe will tell them in their opinion its not. Want to guess who wins that argument every time?

 

[lucusloc]

The entire law does NOT seem to be good. That does NOT mean its not law. Anyone can do anything they want and when they end up in front of some black robe tell them " I think this is legal". The black robe will tell them in their opinion its not. Want to guess who wins that argument every time?

My question to you is "how is the black robe going to tell them they are wrong given what is explicitly written into the law?"

• There is no stipulation or limit on who can inherit, just "as stipulated by law" (again, non-relative inheritance is stipulated for in law)
• There is no (known to me) prohibitions for buying inheritance provisions
• This law explicitly states that inheritance by death is not legally any kind of "distribution" which would include normal transfers (as defined elsewhere in this law)

I would agree that this is a terrible law, but I would also state that it is a terribly written law that probably has some massive oversights the legislature did not intend. Those oversights, should the judiciary not become activists to "fix" the law themselves (a gamble itself I will admit, but not a sure thing by any stretch), will stand. This means that inheritance could become a legally traded commodity for these items. You just have to wait for the seller to die to collect.

 

[Koda]

I would agree that this is a terrible law, but I would also state that it is a terribly written law that probably has some massive oversights the legislature did not intend. Those oversights, should the judiciary not become activists to "fix" the law themselves (a gamble itself I will admit, but not a sure thing by any stretch), will stand. This means that inheritance could become a legally traded commodity for these items. You just have to wait for the seller to die to collect.

Legal oversights are true for most all laws written, but even if your 100% correct I dont see people lining up to buy guns when people die.

But they effectively ended FTF transfers between family members, this is even worse than I first thought as now family has to assure the transfer is written in a will. Way more dubious than I thought, they virtually ended the grandfather clause almost entirely.

 

[lucusloc]

Legal oversights are true for most all laws written, but even if your 100% correct I dont see people lining up to buy guns when people die.

But they effectively ended FTF transfers between family members, this is even worse than I first thought as now family has to assure the transfer is written in a will. Way more dubious than I thought, they virtually ended the grandfather clause almost entirely.

I would count this all as entirely within the realm of speculation simply because I do not think the law will stand long enough for this to become a thing. There is no way it stands under current legal jurisprudence. The only question is how long will it stand before it is struck down. Months? Years? Surely no longer than that. It does not even have to be directly challenged, as SCOTUS has a few AWB cases they can choose from and there seems to be good indication that they will do so shortly. Good money says AWB laws are not long for this world, and it could not come fast enough.

 

[monkeybutler]

My question to you is "how is the black robe going to tell them they are wrong given what is explicitly written into the law?"

• There is no stipulation or limit on who can inherit, just "as stipulated by law" (again, non-relative inheritance is stipulated for in law)
• There is no (known to me) prohibitions for buying inheritance provisions
• This law explicitly states that inheritance by death is not legally any kind of "distribution" which would include normal transfers (as defined elsewhere in this law)

I would agree that this is a terrible law, but I would also state that it is a terribly written law that probably has some massive oversights the legislature did not intend. Those oversights, should the judiciary not become activists to "fix" the law themselves (a gamble itself I will admit, but not a sure thing by any stretch), will stand. This means that inheritance could become a legally traded commodity for these items. You just have to wait for the seller to die to collect.

Please stop. What you are talking about is a sad attempt at an end run around the law and reflects poorly on the rest of us.

If someone pays to get in a will to facilitate the transfer of an assault weapon, it is a de facto SALE, regardless of any time elapsed between payment and transfer or how you try to skirt around it.

 

[lucusloc]

Please stop. What you are talking about is a sad attempt at an end run around the law and reflects poorly on the rest of us.

If someone pays to get in a will to facilitate the transfer of an assault weapon, it is a de facto SALE, regardless of any time elapsed between payment and transfer or how you try to skirt around it.

I was unaware that trying to stay explicitly within the law would reflect badly on anyone. If the law allows it why would it be problematic? Or are you saying we should comply with the will and intent of the antis, rather than what they put into law?

 

[monkeybutler]

I was unaware that trying to stay explicitly within the law would reflect badly on anyone. If the law allows it why would it be problematic? Or are you saying we should comply with the will and intent of the antis, rather than what they put into law?

Laws do not exist in vacuums. What you are suggesting clearly creates an illegal transfer.

Trying to turn that into some suggestion that others might be bending over for antis is not cool.

 

[arakboss]

I was unaware that trying to stay explicitly within the law would reflect badly on anyone. If the law allows it why would it be problematic? Or are you saying we should comply with the will and intent of the antis, rather than what they put into law?

Sadly that is what some are saying.

 

[Koda]

I was unaware that trying to stay explicitly within the law would reflect badly on anyone. If the law allows it why would it be problematic? Or are you saying we should comply with the will and intent of the antis, rather than what they put into law?

The problem is what your suggesting is a theory, not explicitly something the law allows. I tried to point out earlier the state will interpret (enforce) any law biased by the political view of the state (prosecutors, judges etc.). Monkeybutler is just more confident than my self that such an idea is in fact a sale therefore illegal but I tend to agree... I don't think its even a short stretch to suggest the state that implements such a law would enforce such a law that way. Remember Grandfather laws historically stay in the family.

 

[lucusloc]

The problem is what your suggesting is a theory, not explicitly something the law allows. I tried to point out earlier the state will interpret (enforce) any law biased by the political view of the state (prosecutors, judges etc.). Monkeybutler is just more confident than my self that such an idea is in fact a sale therefore illegal but I tend to agree... I don't think its even a short stretch to suggest the state that implements such a law would enforce such a law that way. Remember Grandfather laws historically stay in the family.

The government will enforce whatever they think they can get away with, even if it is not provisioned for in law. It is only the confidence of people who are willing to challenge them on it, and the likelihood of their victory (barring activist judges), that staves off the tyrants for any length of time at all.

Now granted I would want an actual lawyer to go over this in it's entirety (including all other relevant and applicable laws, not just the single passage we have been discussing here) before making any kind of an actual attempt at this. But its seems at the very least plausible (if not likely) that an truly neutral judicial ruling will find that inheritance under this provision will work out as I speculate.

Fortunately, as I stated before, I think all of this is moot, nothing more than a fun exercise in reading a poorly written law and speculating on what it would allow for. I think this law is not long for this world and nothing I have written above would every be in play long enough to get any kind of official ruling.

Remember everything is legal speculation until tried in court, no matter how well founded the theory is. Your opponents get to make an argument too, and who knows what they will come up with. We have both wins and losses, but if we do not venture we will never gain.

 

[cervelorod]

Would having a trust own the firearms protect the ownership and remove the inheritance issues? I have trustees for my NFA items that can legally possess them, so if i die, they become the controlling trustee and there is no transfer required. Tax was already paid, so atf doesn't care, side show Bob probably thinks they need to be destroyed, but f him…