Washington Can you carry a loaded Shockwave in your car

[wired]

You know always makes me laugh: "Digital Penetration"

That isnt something that makes me laugh. Quite the opposite actually. I dont care how hot she is.

 

[Flopsweat]

The law is full of unintended consequences.

The people who wrote the NFA did not intend for the Shockwave/et. al. to be a non-NFA firearm, they just never saw the loophole they were writing. Apparently nobody saw it for decades until recently.

It was originally intended to ban handguns and anything like them. They just didn't take out the SBR/SBS section when they took out the handgun section. That's why it makes no sense.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

No you can't. Just like you can't carry a loaded ar15 that's considered a "firearm" in your vehicle just because it has a brace on it.

The shockwave is not a pistol. You can't carry it loaded in your truck in Washington the same way that you can't have a shotgun loaded in your truck in Washington. Doesn't matter if it has a brace on it or not

 

[American123]

Seems like all this grey area could be avoided by just carrying a rifle with a detachable mag close by. When desired for defense, put mag in rifle, charge.

There is no Washington law that keeps people from doing that.

There are people who will argue that the gun and the ammo has to be separated for example or in the trunk. My reading of RCW's does not show that and I believe it is fuddlore.

 

[No_Regerts]

Seems like all this grey area could be avoided by just carrying a rifle with a detachable mag close by. When desired for defense, put mag in rifle, charge.

There is no Washington law that keeps people from doing that.

There are people who will argue that the gun and the ammo has to be separated for example or in the trunk. My reading of RCW's does not show that and I believe it is fuddlore.

This would be my choice.

 

[Gunbuggy]

I already know this. I was referring to rifles classified as "firearms" (barrel shorter than 16", OAL of 23" or more, braced or not, designed to be shot with two hands), not an ar classified as a pistol (barrel shorter then 16", length of pull less than 13.5", designed to be fired with one hand)

However the wording in the law where he says a pistol is anything with a barrel less than 16 OR designed to be fired with one hand is funny because technically under that wording I guess I could throw my mk18 SBR or one of my many other SBRs in my truck concealed cause Washington apparently would define that as a pistol. Same goes for the shockwave I see what everyone's getting at. But I wouldn't do it. Lol

 

[Flopsweat]

Seems like all this grey area could be avoided by just carrying a rifle with a detachable mag close by. When desired for defense, put mag in rifle, charge.

There is no Washington law that keeps people from doing that.

There are people who will argue that the gun and the ammo has to be separated for example or in the trunk. My reading of RCW's does not show that and I believe it is fuddlore.

There is one. You can't knowingly carry a rifle near an organized public something or other protest or rally. I'm too lazy to look it up today.

I already know this. I was referring to rifles classified as "firearms" (barrel shorter than 16", OAL of 23" or more, braced or not, designed to be shot with two hands), not an ar classified as a pistol (barrel shorter then 16", length of pull less than 13.5", designed to be fired with one hand)

However the wording in the law where he says a pistol is anything with a barrel less than 16 OR designed to be fired with one hand is funny because technically under that wording I guess I could throw my mk18 SBR or one of my many other SBRs in my truck concealed cause Washington apparently would define that as a pistol. Same goes for the shockwave I see what everyone's getting at. But I wouldn't do it. Lol

I was thinking that too, but elsewhere in the RCW there is a definition of a rifle that is rather broad and mentions, I forget, either a stock or "designed to be fired from the shoulder", so I think an SBR is still going to be pretty clearly defined as a rifle.

 

[User 1234]

A firearm may be both a rifle and a pistol under Washington law.

 

[Flopsweat]

A firearm may be both a rifle and a pistol under Washington law. View attachment 1100331

I don't know. For a second there I thought I had an example that could be both, but after re-reading it I see that I didn't. Do you have an example? I'm serious, not trying to mess with you.

 

[User 1234]

I don't know. For a second there I thought I had an example that could be both, but after re-reading it I see that I didn't. Do you have an example? I'm serious, not trying to mess with you.

AR-15 SBR. It is a firearm. It has a barrel under 16". It is therefore a pistol under WA law. It is concurrently a rifle because it is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder. Now if it was a full auto AR-15 SBR it would not be a "rifle" but would be a pistol and would very likely be a machine gun under WA law.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I always carry a Shockwave in my glove box.

http://news.tfw2005.com/wp-content/...rs-Cyberverse-Warrior-Class-Shockwave-009.jpg

 

[Flopsweat]

AR-15 SBR. It is a firearm. It has a barrel under 16". It is therefore a pistol under WA law. It is concurrently a rifle because it is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder. Now if it was a full auto AR-15 SBR it would not be a "rifle" but would be a pistol and would very likely be a machine gun under WA law.

So I cheated a little and looked this up after you responded. Let me first say that in the context of our conversation you are totally right and I must have missed something. Second, I'm just a guy with a keyboard so take the following with a grain or two of salt.

Here's what I found with some digging: This sort of ambiguity is apparently normally addressed by a court. So we may have to wait for someone to be charged and their fate becomes "case law". The first thing the judge will probably do (according to what I just read) is to look for a (rational) way to interpret them so that they do not conflict. If that fails and one of the laws is more specific than the other, the more specific one will probably prevail.

In this case, 24 is definitely more specific, so it might be the winner. I might personally observe that 24, coming after 23 could be considered to modify it, but it doesn't say it does and I have no real knowledge in that area. We should probably ask that guy from the video.

One thing I think we can both agree on is that I'm not going to be the test case.

 

[The Heretic]

One thing I think we can both agree on is that I'm not going to be the test case.

I think I have said that more than once in this thread.

 

[Flopsweat]

I think I have said that more than once in this thread.

All of us but one.

 

[CRBMoA]

Theres a reason for that. They have no justification in current law to call it anything but a pistol. Their definitions suck. They want to change the law go for it but until then its just the typical poorly worded Washington gun law. Remember when you could own silencers but not use them. Remember when you could own SBR's but not build them. Want to buy a gun parts it? Better make sure it doesnt have any full automatic parts because those are kind of illegal in WA.

I am a simple man.

It ain't gots no stock.

It's a pistol.

/Thread

 

[User 1234]

There are various canons of statutory interpretation. In the event of a conflict between two valid statutes (no constitutional infirmity) then usually the specific controls over the general. But there isn't a conflict simply because the gun is both a pistol and rifle.

If carried loaded in a car an SBR could lead to charges. If the defense is "but the gun was also a pistol" the court would also have to be persuaded that the pistol status somehow displaced the rifle status, so that the defendant was not carrying a loaded rifle in the car. That is an uphill battle.

Like all of you, I am not volunteering for that exercise. After lugging heavy weapons around in my youthful military days I'm also not eager to carry anything heavier than needed anyway. I'm not anti-tactical, I'm just a reluctant tactical minimalist.

 

[Flopsweat]

There are various canons of statutory interpretation. In the event of a conflict between two valid statutes (no constitutional infirmity) then usually the specific controls over the general. But there isn't a conflict simply because the gun is both a pistol and rifle.

If carried loaded in a car an SBR could lead to charges. If the defense is "but the gun was also a pistol" the court would also have to be persuaded that the pistol status somehow displaced the rifle status, so that the defendant was not carrying a loaded rifle in the car. That is an uphill battle.

Like all of you, I am not volunteering for that exercise. After lugging heavy weapons around in my youthful military days I'm also not eager to carry anything heavier than needed anyway. I'm not anti-tactical, I'm just a reluctant tactical minimalist.

So, Schrodinger's CPL then?

 

[Jay Walk]

The Judge will answer the question for you.
Not Law enforcement and
certainly not the Interwebs.

 

[wired]

Try contacting the Washington State attorneys generals office asking if something is legal. They dont give out legal advice. I mean why would the office in charge of the laws in the state of Washington stoop so low as to tell the citizens of the state if something is legal to do or not?

 

[Flopsweat]

Try contacting the Washington State attorneys generals office asking if something is legal. They dont give out legal advice. I mean why would the office in charge of the laws in the state of Washington stoop so low as to tell the citizens of the state if something is legal to do or not?

"The Attorney General's Office is authorized to bring legal action only in the name of the State of Washington, and is prohibited from serving as an attorney for individual consumers. We are further prohibited from giving advice, rendering opinions or interpretations, or conducting research on behalf of individuals or businesses."

The AG will occasionally offer guidance to elected officials. I remember when he told Seattle Mayor Kidbanger that if he tried to ban guns in the park he'd lose in court.