The Washington definition of “firearm” is different than the federal definition of “firearm” (both of them), so there is more than one answer.
Clearly you only bought 1 firearm but it was the "spirit" of the other two you forgot to factor into the equation.The dispute: One (1) milled lower receiver, two (2) 80% lowers, 3 upper builds, optics for each and 40-30rnd mags.
This guy has it down!Clearly you only bought 1 firearm but it was the "spirit" of the other two you forgot to factor into the equation.
Next time, you have to introduce 80% gun builds 20% at a time until complete.
But not all is lost here, what you can do is claim to have screwed up the two 80% lowers bringing you back down to the spirit of only 1 purchased firearm, then... but not all at once, buy 2 more 80% lowers to repair the ones you screwed up. Then much much later on after a lot of work arounds you will "suddenly" figure out how to make the 2 screwed up lowers work again and since those are already accounted for you wont have to buy new diamonds to finish building them and wind up with 5 working guns.
You sayI seem to have gotten into a little hot water, but I disagree with the premise and looking for a little backup here.
The dispute: One (1) milled lower receiver, two (2) 80% lowers, 3 upper builds, optics for each and 40-30rnd mags.
It is MY contention that I've purchased, per agreement and by any legal definition, only ONE (1) new "firearm" this year. Am I wrong???
I've probably told this story half a dozen times here, but I don't care, I still love it. One of my old dealers back home told me about one of their regulars, he'd always split his purchases 3 ways. Some cash, some card, and a check.I vote "tastes great"...
Wrong. You purchased no firearms this year because you went digging in the back of the safe and found stuff you bought years before you even started dating.
Now repeat after me: "Honey there is no way I would spend money on guns when I'm saving up for that necklace/ring/earrings you wanted for our anniversary."