Washington Does WA restrict purchase of pistol braces?

[1911Fanatic]

As Wayne in Letterkenny would say, "figure it out."

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/House/1240-S.SL.pdf#page=1

Well it's not on the list. Probably should get a California compliant one just to be sure.

 

[sobo]

Well it's not on the list. Probably should get a California compliant one just to be sure.

Read the whole law that @monkeybutler linked. The S&W M&P 15 is listed on Page 4 (yes, I suspect they are referring to .223/5.56 caliber), but the law also goes on to say "high capacity magazines" (whatever that means) are also banned. So, bannination could also include the magazines for the 22LR version. However, nowhere in the law did I read anything about rimfire rifles and "high capacity" magazines for rimfire rounds being banned, so there's that...

 

[orygun]

Read the whole law that @monkeybutler linked. The S&W M&P 15 is listed on Page 4 (yes, I suspect they are referring to .223/5.56 caliber), but the law also goes on to say "high capacity magazines" (whatever that means) are also banned. So, bannination could also include the magazines for the 22LR version. However, nowhere in the law did I read anything about rimfire rifles and "high capacity" magazines for rimfire rounds being banned, so there's that...

Otherwise, Clear as mud.

 

[MikeSD]

Obviously, it doesn't. But you'll have to ask the bubbleguming nutjobs in Olympia how it does for them...

By that logic, simply putting a scope on one or inserting a magazine would turn it into an assault weapon.

I don't really need a brace, or attachment that looks like a stock. I just need something on the tube that's legal. I have a cheek rest/ riser that I could use. Some say it's legal, some say it's not, and some says its a gray area.

I'm about to move to a freedom state. But in the meantime I'm still trying to work within the law.

Another "gray" area is carrying a loaded AR pistol in a vehicle. Consensus is it's legal but...

 

[sobo]

Otherwise, Clear as mud.

WA State laws are designed that way on purpose, for a reason...

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Securite gun club flow chart is easiest and most accurate way to figure out if something is banned or not imo. Mags are banned regardless of caliber as far as I know.

 

[sobo]

Securite gun club flow chart is easiest and most accurate way to figure out if something is banned or not imo. Mags are banned regardless of caliber as far as I know.

Not so fast... 1240 doesn't say anything about banning or limiting the magazine capacity of rimfire cartridges. The law specifically refers to centerfire cartridges, with zero mention of rimfire cartridges..

 

[MikeSD]

Securite gun club flow chart is easiest and most accurate way to figure out if something is banned or. It imo. Mags are banned regardless of caliber as far as I know.

I bought a lifetime supply of mags, even for guns I don't own yet, before the ban went into effect. But navigating around the law, to make sure something is legal is a nightmare.

I called WA's AG office once on a clarification, and they said the couldn't give legal advice if a gray area is blackb or white.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Not so fast... 1240 doesn't say anything about banning or limiting the magazine capacity of rimfire cartridges. The law specifically refers to centerfire cartridges, with zero mention of rimfire cartridges..

I was only looking at the rcw

RCW 9.41.370:

app.leg.wa.gov

It may be in another rcw where rimfire is listed as an exception?

I saw this online sales bullsheet

RCW 9.41.370:

app.leg.wa.gov

From the definitions section of rcw:

(25) "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled if those parts are in possession of or under the control of the same person, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) An ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(b) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

They made the 1240 law murky on purpose to incite confusion and make people think twice and avoid the issue(s). These chicken sh** law makers and the AG, now gov knew what they were doing. Taking things out of the IL, CA playbooks and sprinkling in their own BS in the mix. The former AG already has proven they will try to sue their own citizens out of business, so many retailers are not wanting to ship AR parts etc to WA.

 

[sobo]

I was only looking at the rcw

RCW 9.41.370:

app.leg.wa.gov

It may be in another rcw where rimfire is listed as an exception?

I saw this online sales bullsheet

RCW 9.41.370:

app.leg.wa.gov

From the definitions section of rcw:

(25) "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled if those parts are in possession of or under the control of the same person, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) An ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(b) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

So from the Definitions section (right after the bigass table of sweet rifles that have been banninated), there is this definition of an "assault weapon":

(iv) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

And then they go on to list all the scary superficial features of EBRs.

My point is, because the definition speaks specifically to centerfire rifles/cartridges, would something like a S&W M&P 15/22 still be legal?

Yes, it's a semi-automatic rifle
Yes, it accepts a detachable magazine
Yes, it has almost all the scary features of an EBR
But, it fires rimfire cartridges.

So, by the letter of the law, I would think it would legal under the law.

 

[Alexx1401]

By that logic, simply putting a scope on one or inserting a magazine would turn it into an assault weapon.

I don't really need a brace, or attachment that looks like a stock. I just need something on the tube that's legal. I have a cheek rest/ riser that I could use. Some say it's legal, some say it's not, and some says its a gray area.

I'm about to move to a freedom state. But in the meantime I'm still trying to work within the law.

Another "gray" area is carrying a loaded AR pistol in a vehicle. Consensus is it's legal but...

Assuming we are talking WA, and again assuming you have a WA CPL. What would matter if it went to court was how did WA transfer the AR you had. If it was transferred as a pistol, and no brace on it? Then the "law" would have nothing to go against you, they did the definition. Now if they run the serial # and it was papered as a Rifle, or the lower was bought as "other" then turned into a pistol? Now you "could" end up needing a lawyer "IF" some agency decided to give you grief for it. What would "concern" me about keeping one in the vehicle loaded, is "some" LEO's both know little too nothing about the law, and don't like the "public" keeping a loaded gun. They are rare but they are out there. So if one decided that in their opinion you were violating the law and cite you? It would at best be a hassle and at worst mean you would need to hire a lawyer.
How I did this when I had one? Mine was a Casper gun. I did carry it. I did NOT have it in the open where it could be seen. This is NOT me recommending this. No longer have it now as when they started to get nasty about these things, the pistol with brace I got rid of the brace and the lower. Again that's just "me". Not a lawyer and not offered as advice.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So from the Definitions section (right after the bigass table of sweet rifles that have been banninated), there is this definition of an "assault weapon":

(iv) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

And then they go on to list all the scary superficial features of EBRs.

My point is, because the definition speaks specifically to centerfire rifles/cartridges, would something like a S&W M&P 15/22 still be legal?

Yes, it's a semi-automatic rifle
Yes, it accepts a detachable magazine
Yes, it has almost all the scary features of an EBR
But, it fires rimfire cartridges.

So, by the letter of the law, I would think it would legal under the law.

I thought you were talking about mags.

For AW, for the 15-22 I think it depends on how one interprets "ar-15 in all its forms". This is the first box on the securite flowchart and before "is it rimfire" considerations. This is under section 2.a.i. The one you are talking about is 2.a.iv. It would be illegal if it meets any of those, for example 2.a.ii

Again I think following the flowchart is the simplest and most accurate way to answer the AW question for any gun. I can say that I've heard several reports of people buying the hammerli tac R1 22lr. Probably because tac r1 isn't on the banned list.

 

[monkeybutler]

Otherwise, Clear as mud.

Yeah exactly.

There is the argument that it is a named, banned item, but only sort of because it is a 22 version. as Sobo pointed out.

If it uses a standard AR receiver, then it is either constructively an evil gun, or a conversion assembly. In my half-arsed search, it seems like the lower may be polymer, and its geometry looks kinda off to me as a standard receiver. Both suggest non-standard.

So if not a standard AR lower, then it is not a centerfire rifle or potential conversion kit. Meaning as long as mags are limited to 10 rds, it is, technically, legal to buy.

Or at least someone might try to make that argument. It does have logic. But… maybe does not matter pragmatically.