Gun Deals
Sporting Systems
Low Price Guns
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Southwest Firearms Forum
Buster Beaver Cerakote
J&B Firearm Sales
Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

Washington Did Washington just ban 80% lowers and pre-1968 guns?

AndyinEverson

Messages
12,282
Reactions
60,542
Re-garding the pre-1968 guns and serial numbers...
I am glad that , that part was cleared up ...'cause there are many older .22 rifles and shotguns that are still in use , with law abiding gun owners...to lump these folks in with criminals is well , criminal.

Plus most of my antique black powder firearms do not have serial numbers....and I'll be dammed if I am going to have Freddy Fumble Fingers and his Federally approved number stamping set , near 'em....

Again I know that , that provision does not apply to the above...but....
It does tend to back up the idea that Any firearm will end up on someone's You Can't Own This List....

To fight a unjust gun law is to fight against all unjust gun laws...If one gun is banned , any gun can be banned.
Andy
 
Messages
1,850
Reactions
4,037
Uhh I'm going to have to disagree with you on this part of your assertion.. "(*) Selling an 80% lower would certainly be considered helping under the statute." I utterly fail to see how!
...
I addressed this issue and others with citations to the statute earlier: Washington - Did Washington just ban 80% lowers and pre-1968 guns?

In any event, this is what the statute says verbatim about DIY stuff:

(1) No person may knowingly or recklessly allow, facilitate, aid, or abet the manufacture or assembly of an undetectable firearm or untraceable firearm by a person who: (a) Is ineligible under state or federal law to possess a firearm; or (b) has signed a valid voluntary waiver of firearm rights that has not been revoked under RCW 9.41.350. For purposes of this provision, the failure to conduct a background check as provided in RCW 9.41.113 shall be prima facie evidence of recklessness.
If you sell an 80% finished receiver are you facilitating, aiding or abetting the manufacture of a firearm? I think it would be very easy for the state to argue that you are and as you can see from the statute, doing that without a BG check is defined as reckless. This provision probably also applies to sharing files for 3D printing or CNC machining (which I would take as a violation of the 1A, but I also don't have half a million bucks to fight that to the Supreme Court and maybe lose anyway). Heck, it might even apply to posting a video on youtube showing how to make a DIY firearms, or publishing a book on the topic. It's one of the ugliest parts of the statute in my opinion but Ferguson abhors amateur gunsmithing.

Anyway, I can totally understand why a company would refuse to sell 80% stuff in WA because there's no way to do a BG check on that stuff, and if they sell to a prohibited person without a BG check, they are defined as guilty.

EDIT: this about much more that 80% receivers. This started with the Fed's decision to exempt Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed from ITAR regulations -- then Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit against the Feds. I watched the arguments for the preliminary injunction in person: Washington - Oral Argument in the States AGs' fight against the 1A (8-21-18) There are echoes of the things said there in this law -- this law was touted in the press as being the anti-3D-printed gun law. The section I quoted above, is the part designed to prevent people from sharing mere info (digital files), and so to extend that to 80% completed physical receivers is no stretch at all.
 
Last edited:
Messages
215
Reactions
172
I addressed this issue and others with citations to the statute earlier: Washington - Did Washington just ban 80% lowers and pre-1968 guns?

In any event, this is what the statute says verbatim about DIY stuff:



If you sell an 80% finished receiver are you facilitating, aiding or abetting the manufacture of a firearm? I think it would be very easy for the state to argue that you are and as you can see from the statute, doing that without a BG check is defined as reckless. This provision probably also applies to sharing files for 3D printing or CNC machining (which I would take as a violation of the 1A, but I also don't have half a million bucks to fight that to the Supreme Court and maybe lose anyway). Heck, it might even apply to posting a video on youtube showing how to make a DIY firearms, or publishing a book on the topic. It's one of the ugliest parts of the statute in my opinion but Ferguson abhors amateur gunsmithing.

Anyway, I can totally understand why a company would refuse to sell 80% stuff in WA because there's no way to do a BG check on that stuff, and if they sell to a prohibited person without a BG check, they are defined as guilty.

EDIT: this about much more that 80% receivers. This started with the Fed's decision to exempt Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed from ITAR regulations -- then Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit against the Feds. I watched the arguments for the preliminary injunction in person: Washington - Oral Argument in the States AGs' fight against the 1A (8-21-18) There are echoes of the things said there in this law -- this law was touted in the press as being the anti-3D-printed gun law. The section I quoted above, is the part designed to prevent people from sharing mere info (digital files), and so to extend that to 80% completed physical receivers is no stretch at all.
Not sure I understand why you say you understand why a company would refuse to sell 80% lowers to us in Washington State as they are not firearms yet. The only part of the law that mentions background checks references 9.41.113 as to what a background check consists of and no where in 9.41.113 is any mention of 80% lowers requiring background checks, I only took the 9.43.113 part to mean 100% firearms and that the background check clause was put in to cover Washington State's Universal Background Check Law should we ever need to transfer it.
 

Alexx1401

Messages
8,161
Reactions
19,061
Not sure I understand why you say you understand why a company would refuse to sell 80% lowers to us in Washington State as they are not firearms yet. The only part of the law that mentions background checks references 9.41.113 as to what a background check consists of and no where in 9.41.113 is any mention of 80% lowers requiring background checks, I only took the 9.43.113 part to mean 100% firearms and that the background check clause was put in to cover Washington State's Universal Background Check Law should we ever need to transfer it.
This has been answered multiple times. There is what the law plainly says, then there is what lawyers get some judge to say it says.
How much profit could a large Co, like Brownells, make on these? Now compare that to the cost of a team of lawyers to defend the sales. If a state, like WA decides to make life miserable for them they (State) can spend as much money as they want. After all it's tax money and they don't care. Brownells, or any other Co, does not have a pot of tax payer cash to dip into to fight this. Do you really think it would be hard for the State to find a judge to let them sue? So companies pay lawyers to look at this and tell them if it's worth it. Several have said no, the risk of HUGE legal costs is not worth the profit to be made selling these to WA state.
So I can't understand why so many seem to have so much trouble understanding why some Co's just are not going to take the risk. For anyone here who still wants an 80% there are still some places selling them. Want one? By all means buy one. I would not wait too long to do so though since this state is working hard to make it so you can't.
 
Messages
1,850
Reactions
4,037
Not sure I understand why you say you understand why a company would refuse to sell 80% lowers to us in Washington State as they are not firearms yet. The only part of the law that mentions background checks references 9.41.113 as to what a background check consists of and no where in 9.41.113 is any mention of 80% lowers requiring background checks, I only took the 9.43.113 part to mean 100% firearms and that the background check clause was put in to cover Washington State's Universal Background Check Law should we ever need to transfer it.
9.41.092 and 113 address the BG check requirements to transfer "firearms" (in this case as defined in WA law, see below). The law we are discussing here however, is not addressing WA-defined-firearms, it is addressing untraceable-firearms as defined in WA law (and undetectable-firearms as well, but let's not muddy this): RCW 9.41.325: Undetectable or untraceable firearms—Penalties.

(1) No person may knowingly or recklessly allow, facilitate, aid, or abet the manufacture or assembly of an undetectable firearm or untraceable firearm by a person who: (a) Is ineligible under state or federal law to possess a firearm; or (b) has signed a valid voluntary waiver of firearm rights that has not been revoked under RCW 9.41.350. For purposes of this provision, the failure to conduct a background check as provided in RCW 9.41.113 shall be prima facie evidence of recklessness.
This law clearly contemplates a firearm being made from parts -- the words "manufacture" and "assemble" carry that meaning. It is by it's plain language, NOT aimed at completed firearms, but at the information and parts needed to make a completed firearm.

The definitions section shows this clear difference between "firearm" and "untraceable firearm": RCW 9.41.010: Terms defined.
(11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. "Firearm" does not include a flare gun or other pyrotechnic visual distress signaling device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction purposes.
(12) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.
...
(34) "Untraceable firearm" means any firearm manufactured after July 1, 2019, that is not an antique firearm and that cannot be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number affixed to the firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer.
So you are correct that the the statutes handling BG checks make no mention of 80% receivers. That doesn't matter under this law though, because a separate law lays out consequences for not doing a BG check when facilitating, aiding, or abetting (providing information, physical assistance, tools, parts, shop space, books, videos, blueprints, digital files) a prohibited person without first doing a BG check.

092 and 113 by their terms apply to firearms as defined above, but one could easily argue that they don't ONLY apply to firearms, and nothing in those statutes would say you are forbidden from also running a BG check before selling a gunsmithing book or an 80% receiver. Of course, the ATF FBI might get a bit miffed about an attempt to run a BG check on a youtube video. If the ATF FBI refused to do so however, that would be a nice set of facts to use to setup a court case seeking repeal of this statute as a prior restraint on speech -- in essence, the state creates a system where information cannot be shared because the BG check system required to share such information does not exist.
 
Messages
254
Reactions
280
Was on another gun forum and they said that Washington governor Jay Inslee signed into law a measure that prohibited the possession of any firearm without a serial number.

My dad owns several custom hunting rifles based on actions that were never serialized. I will take possession of those rifles when he passes.

I had planned on getting one of the Glock build kits, but I guess that's no longer legal in a state that I can't even describe properly due to forum rules.

The link they referenced was this one:

Washington State Toughens Gun Laws, Bans ‘Ghost Guns’
I'm sure it's crossed your mind, but why not just take them and not say anything to anyone? Who would know unless you tell them?
 

Alexx1401

Messages
8,161
Reactions
19,061
I'm sure it's crossed your mind, but why not just take them and not say anything to anyone? Who would know unless you tell them?
This is of course what I would do. If Father had guns like this and passed? I would just keep them. Then of course not go on social media and tell everyone I did so too:D
It is scary how many gun owners have all kinds of strange idea's on guns. Co worker who is VERY pro gun was talking to me other day. I showed her a pic of the latest AR pistol I built. She loved it but said how is this legal? I said it's a pistol, that "stock" is a Stabilizing Brace. I also made the lower so it's what's known as a ghost gun. She said don't you have to register those? She has a few guns, I asked her where she went to register her guns here? She really believed we had gun registration. I had a hard time convincing her there is no such thing here yet. I told her I can't legally sell this gun I built but it was totally legal for me to make and use and no, I do not have to register it. I said I can't sell it but it's fine. I could see the look on her face that she is still not sure I know what I am talking about. This is someone super pro gun and loves guns. Good luck trying to get some anti gun person to hear this.
 
Messages
1,850
Reactions
4,037
I'm sure it's crossed your mind, but why not just take them and not say anything to anyone? Who would know unless you tell them?
This issue is also addressed in the untraceable definition noted above. It has a built-in grandfather clause so anything made July 1, 2019 or farther back in the past, is not defined as untraceable. Secondly, untraceable guns aren't illegal -- it is only illegal to make one with the intent to sell it (and it is illegal to help a prohibited person make one). It is not illegal to possesses one. Undetectable guns in contrast, are illegal to make or posses and there is no grandfather clause.
 
Messages
215
Reactions
172
This is of course what I would do. If Father had guns like this and passed? I would just keep them. Then of course not go on social media and tell everyone I did so too:D
It is scary how many gun owners have all kinds of strange idea's on guns. Co worker who is VERY pro gun was talking to me other day. I showed her a pic of the latest AR pistol I built. She loved it but said how is this legal? I said it's a pistol, that "stock" is a Stabilizing Brace. I also made the lower so it's what's known as a ghost gun. She said don't you have to register those? She has a few guns, I asked her where she went to register her guns here? She really believed we had gun registration. I had a hard time convincing her there is no such thing here yet. I told her I can't legally sell this gun I built but it was totally legal for me to make and use and no, I do not have to register it. I said I can't sell it but it's fine. I could see the look on her face that she is still not sure I know what I am talking about. This is someone super pro gun and loves guns. Good luck trying to get some anti gun person to hear this.
The registration your co worker was probably talking about is the Department of Licensing's data center where all pistol transfers are kept indefinitely and now with I1639 all semi automatic rifles too.
 

Alexx1401

Messages
8,161
Reactions
19,061
The registration your co worker was probably talking about is the Department of Licensing's data center where all pistol transfers are kept indefinitely and now with I1639 all semi automatic rifles too.
Could well be and although it's not "supposed to be" it is some form of registration. She really believed that I was "supposed to" take my AR I built to some agency to be registered to me. When I explained to her that this was not the law, and that as far as I know there would be no way for me to do this even if I wanted to, I could see she was skeptical of what I was telling her.
I have mentioned before that several decades ago in another state I and some buddies went through this with full auto stuff. Used to shoot at a public spot. Several times one of us would let go with one and some other shooter would run over to tell us what we had was illegal. There was a huge, well known dealer in town that sold ClassIII stuff. I would ask if they knew of the place. They would of course say yes. I would tell them if they ask they would show them some Class III stuff and explain how to buy. A few called me a liar. At that point I would tell them to go away. A few jumped in their car to run to a phone and call the law. LEO's actually showed up one time. After that we never saw them again. Now some did get real interested to find out you could buy this stuff and even wanted to try. That many people who were shooting, and shopped at a store that sold the stuff, were 110% sure we were breaking the law is what was sad. The store that sold the stuff did NOT advertise it at all. I used to wonder why but then thought this may well be why they did not. They did not want the counter people to have to deal with people telling them they were all going to prison. As you can see all these decades later nothing has really gotten better even when anyone can pick up their phone and see the info if they want to. :confused:
 

Alexx1401

Messages
8,161
Reactions
19,061
On this subject yet another suppler of 80% just balked at selling to WA. A while ago I bought 3AR9 lowers from 80%Lowers. They look to be fine. I decided for Christmas I was gong to buy myself a 3 pack of standard AR lowers also just in case. As soon as I put them in my cart a message popped up that they are sorry but they can no longer send these to WA. So I went over to 5D and they are so far, still willing. Ordered from them. Since sadly I do not see a majority of gun owners lifting a finger of support for these I would not wait too long to order. I now have enough to last me the rest of my life but sadly it looks like soon they will be no more here without jumping through some hoops.
 

Caveman Jim

Messages
14,503
Reactions
38,317
barrels weigh over 3.7oz or are they talking about what is actually considered to be the “firearm” IE: AR lower reciever?

if the lower has to have over 3.7oz of steel, most lower parts kit will have that covered. i believe even most 80% glock builds will be fine too. not legal advice. just speculation.
So does the LPK & no mention of exactly what gets X-rayed...o_Oo_Oo_O
 

Alexx1401

Messages
8,161
Reactions
19,061
So does the LPK & no mention of exactly what gets X-rayed...o_Oo_Oo_O
The real problem with this is the new law does not stop the 80%. It is easy to see that was what the law makers were after, they missed. They will I am sure take another bite at it and get it better. Even the places that will still sell these to WA state say they will not ship to NJ. So all WA really needs to do is copy whatever NJ did. Since a lot of gun owners are going to do nothing they will I am pretty sure get what they want here.
In the meantime we can still, for now, get them. Enjoy it while it lasts.
 

Caveman Jim

Messages
14,503
Reactions
38,317
Washington state was a good place to live, but like all libturd states it’s going to hell in a hand basket. Thinking of moving back to post falls idaho
Been slowly happening for 30 years with the Kalifornians fleeing the oppression there and voting the same way up here. It’s a mental illness.
 
TL : DR, even though I probably should.
I'm fine with Anderson (or close to the cost of) lowers.
Please point me in the right direction so I can fill my cart.

Done Deal
 
Last edited:

NEW CLASSIFIED ADS

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Supporting Vendor Copeland Custom Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    Tim, has done several projects including a sweet 1911 .38 super project
    • Qochoc
  • Mary's Pistols
    5.00 star(s)
    Fantastic small business with equally excellent folks running the place. I was given fair value for a trade in and was able to order something I...
    • Red98422
  • Gooseneck Road
    4.00 star(s)
    Very popular service road with some unmarked logging roads that branch off of the main. Relatively cleaned up from what we saw. I just wish that...
    • Benzdriver81
  • Liberty Safes of Oregon
    5.00 star(s)
    I have now purchased 2 Safe’s and constantly recommend people go here. You get better quality than the other liberty safes made for places like...
    • Motojohonda
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Just dropped by today to pick up a rifle … this is what a gun store should be! None of the crotchety bluster and BS that so many other gun stores...
    • DLS

SUPPORT NORTHWEST FIREARMS