Washington ffl transfer and 1639

[rdb241]

I was talking to another lawyer friend of mine about this and we're under the impression that a lower or receiver would not constitute an AR under WA state law. A lower or receiver is a "firearm" as defined by federal law, but not WA state law. Since I-1639 is a state initiative, the state definition would apply. If someone has a different take on it, I'm all ears.

Thank you for responding to my question. I guess that will have to be challenged when the time comes. That's good news for everybody.

 

[TCOV]

I was talking to another lawyer friend of mine about this and we're under the impression that a lower or receiver would not constitute an AR under WA state law. A lower or receiver is a "firearm" as defined by federal law, but not WA state law. Since I-1639 is a state initiative, the state definition would apply. If someone has a different take on it, I'm all ears.

My ffl told me the same thing and his intent after the law goes into affect is to stock less complete rifles and more receivers as there is no change in transferring them. Not a semi rifle until the barrel is installed.

 

[arakboss]

They sure didn't see us voting against I 1639! No one did!

Maybe not voting against I-1639 is part of our master plan. If so that is diabolical. Can't wait to see our master plan take effect. /s

 

[No_Regerts]

Maybe not voting against I-1639 is part of our master plan. If so that is diabolical. Can't wait to see our master plan take effect. /s

We for them right where we want them...

 

[arakboss]

My ffl told me the same thing and his intent after the law goes into affect is to stock less complete rifles and more receivers as there is no change in transferring them. Not a semi rifle until the barrel is installed.

Forgive my ignorance but can't 18 to 20 year olds still buy manual loading rifles for example straight pull or side charging ARs. Do you think dealers will be stocking those?

 

[Slobray]

Forgive my ignorance but can't 18 to 20 year olds still buy manual loading rifles for example straight pull or side charging ARs. Do you think dealers will be stocking those?

They might, but it would be easier to sell the lower and upper separately.



Ray

 

[surevaliance]

Ain't gun manufacturers happy?

 

[Sporting Systems]

And don't forget the cost of your assault weapons safety class.
When do we start suing the state?

We did, last Thursday. Sporting Systems in Vancouver is the lead plaintiff in the NRA/SAF lawsuit.

 

[Sporting Systems]

This video addresses the bulk of the details...we produced it to help everyone see the details.

 

[Sporting Systems]

By the definition of "Assualt Rifle" in this bill. Does a stripped New AR receiver fall into this? Do we have to wait 10 days to pick up a receiver and go thorugh all the hoops?

no, it does not...watch the video we just posted.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Lest we forget, the Washington State Constitution has tremendous privacy protections and firearms rights provision....

And a pre-emption on local governments for firearms law.

Even though the 2nd is the only Amendment that people feel comfortable limiting, we have a state constitution that counts...

Preemption will be dissolved in February. The democrats in the state legislature have made it a priority for next session.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Actualy full auto BB guns are already ilegal. The full auto definition says any projectile that is repeated by only one pull of the trigger.

No, they aren't. Its not a firearm. We have them for sale in store. pretty fun.

 

[GWS]

Preemption will be dissolved in February. The democrats in the state legislature have made it a priority for next session.

Let's hope . Consequences never enter into liberal thought. They think that what they want to happen will be the only result. This move, if they are stupid enough to do it, will definitely have unintended consequences that will bite them on the bubblegum.

 

[rdb241]

No, they aren't. Its not a firearm. We have them for sale in store. pretty fun.

I was told that by a gunshop owner and FFL way back in the 90's.

 

[Slobray]

Let's hope . Consequences never enter into liberal thought. They think that what they want to happen will be the only result. This move, if they are stupid enough to do it, will definitely have unintended consequences that will bite them on the bubblegum.

Um, let's hope not, because once it's gone, it's gone for good. It will never come back, especially here.
As to the "unintended consequences" hurting them, never going to happen in WA, way too many prog libs who despise everything that has to do with the Constitution and guns.



Ray

 

[GWS]

Um, let's hope not, because once it's gone, it's gone for good. It will never come back, especially here.
As to the "unintended consequences" hurting them, never going to happen in WA, way too many prog libs who despise everything that has to do with the Constitution and guns.

Ray

My point is that everyone east of the Cascades and south of Olympia would also be able to do as they please in this situation. So yes, Seattle could declare the Second Amendment null and void but Spokane or Kelso could become Second Amendment sanctuary cities
Sauce for the goose...

 

[Slobray]

My point is that everyone east of the Cascades and south of Olympia would also be able to do as they please in this situation. So yes, Seattle could declare the Second Amendment null and void but Spokane or Kelso could become Second Amendment sanctuary cities
Sauce for the goose...

It won't work that way, especially as eliminating preemption is only their first priority. Here's the wording from last year's bill

This chapter does not affect, modify, or limit the power of a city, municipality, or county in this state to adopt an ordinance or regulation relating to firearms that is in addition to or more restrictive than the requirements of this chapter.

Pay particular attention to the underlined. It means those "sanctuary cities" cannot have less restrictive laws, but any place controlled by dims can pretty much outlaw concealed carry and all guns at will.*


Ray
* Yes, I know they can't legally outlaw all guns, but they will be able to have those ordinances in place for years............. Well actually, the way SCOTUS has been behaving, they my be permanent.

 

[Phantom Man]

Fleece fee..!

 

[GWS]

It won't work that way, especially as eliminating preemption is only their first priority. Here's the wording from last year's bill



Pay particular attention to the underlined. It means those "sanctuary cities" cannot have less restrictive laws, but any place controlled by dims can pretty much outlaw concealed carry and all guns at will.*


Ray
* Yes, I know they can't legally outlaw all guns, but they will be able to have those ordinances in place for years............. Well actually, the way SCOTUS has been behaving, they my be permanent.

Sweet Jesus!

 

[arakboss]

I have read all 30 pages of 1639 and there is not one single word addressing the 80% market. Most of the general public has no clue about 80%ers. For now. Once someone starts to make an issue about it and it gains momentum. 80%ers will be on the hit list. They want nothing but 100% total control.

The anti gunners in congress know about the 80% stuff.