Washington Homemade firearms & the recent law...

[jassing]

Do any lawyers out there have a feeling of how the new washington state law will impact people that have homemade ("80%") firearms? The way I read it is that if they've already made, that's ok, as long as you don't intend to sell them; any new manufacturing is verboten. Or should the homemade firearms be destroyed to stay out of legal trouble?

Read More

 

[slimmer13]

You can still possess them and build them and sell them. You cannot build them to sell or assist a prohibited person in building them.

 

[HuckFin]

I am not a lawyer but the way HB1739 reads to me anyway is that new bill essentially says the same thing as what federal law already is. The only difference being that Washington State now makes it illegal to manufacture all plastic 3-D guns.
With that being said Polymer80 has decided that they will no longer sell us any more 80% receivers. Washington Arms Collectors (WAC) is checking on why their lawyers came up with this conclusion. Hopefully the NRA will come to our rescue.

 

[slimmer13]

With that being said Polymer80 has decided that they will no longer sell us any more 80% receivers

I heard that, but lots of third party vendors still are.

 

[titsonritz]

Do any lawyers out there have a feeling <snip>

Lawyer don't have feelings.

I think you might be missing the point of 80% lowers.

 

[HuckFin]

I heard that, but lots of third party vendors still are.

So far I have only tried A couple of third party venders that had them on sale and neither one will sell to Washington. Just tried Midway and no luck. One other, forgot the name also will not sell to us.

 

[KKG]

I think until the Courts get done sorting out the recent Washington State RCW changes that thinks like the 80% Guns should be put on hold. IMO

 

[Talos32]

Not to discount the ability of the courts to muck up "interpreting" things as simple as A+B=C, but the law is unenforceable gibberish in my opinion.

First it criminalizes any assistance whatsoever to a prohibited person, including "allowing" them to make a weapon. Are you supposed to tackle them to stop them? Even removing that part, "assistance" could be defined as pretty much anything: loaned your neighbor a cordless drill, posted a comment about a build online, informed someone what an 80% receiver is- any of that could "assist" someone to build a gun.

Then there's the "presumption of negligence" if you don't perform a background check. It's not possible to conduct a background check unless a firearm is being transferred. You can't just call NICS yourself, and getting a background check through an FFL/leo is part of the firearms transfer process, they won't do it if a gun isn't being transferred, and 80% receivers aren't guns. "Negligence" is a departure from expected norms and standards- failure to do the impossible is not negligence.

My guess is that Polymer 80's lawyers told them the law is garbage, but advised them that it may be very expensive to fight it out in court.

 

[HuckFin]

I think until the Courts get done sorting out the recent Washington State RCW changes that thinks like the 80% Guns should be put on hold. IMO

As near as I can tell anyway, Washington States 80% law mirrors federal law. So why put 80% guns on hold? Not sure I get what your saying.

 

[KKG]

As near as I can tell anyway, Washington States 80% law mirrors federal law. So why put 80% guns on hold? Not sure I get what your saying.

I understand what you're saying. They do seem to be very close but still not word for word. I'm saying is that the latest changes are so convoluted that I think it would be a good idea to wait until the Courts settle things and I think that is what the 80% Lawyers are thinking, too.

 

[jassing]

I think Polymer 80 is worried about the actual metal content in the frame/firearm... at least that's the way I read it.
It sucks when a new law comes in that doesn't actually do anything except muck up the existing laws.
Thanks for your thoughts. I won't toss my home builds in the chipper just yet...

 

[HuckFin]

I think Polymer 80 is worried about the actual metal content in the frame/firearm... at least that's the way I read it.
It sucks when a new law comes in that doesn't actually do anything except muck up the existing laws.
Thanks for your thoughts. I won't toss my home builds in the chipper just yet...

Polymer80 doesn't have any say in total metal content in a firearm. The "undetectable" part of the bill is the same as federal law. Metal content is 3.7 ounces of magnetic steel that can be picked up by a metal detector. I believe they used 17.4 PH stainless as an example.

 

[jassing]

Where the metal content differs is the embedded metal, not the metal you slap on.
The frame is the firearm. Not the Barrell, not the slide, not the trigger. Their frame has very little metal embedded in it. That's what's got them scared (I think).
The good news is they'll ship to california (lord knows how california is moving in a better direction than Washington)
'm thinking off getting an AR15 lower to finish off. I will order the jig for "all in one" (ar9, ar10) so if some wants to borrow the jig when I'm done, I could make it available for donations to offset it's cost (but not required)

 

[Pandaz3]

Hopefully the NRA will come to our rescue.

GOOD luck

 

[Goosebrown]

You bought and finished a bunch of 80% lowers before the law went into effect. Got them for cash at a gun show.

 

[jassing]

I bought them because they were legal, and I enjoyed making them. I just wanted to be sure abut keeping them.
When I went to California (for 2 years) I gave up trying to understand ( after talking to laywer) if my AK47, AR15, and a couple odd ball items would be "legal" in california -- the answer is "We'd have to fight it" so I sold them, seemed the easier thing to do; but now that I'm back, find a whole new set of "you're not a criminal" type laws. Very frustrating the way these laws work/react.

 

[Alexx1401]

I have toyed with the idea for years. Even Wife was asking about it as a guy she sees at work does it and was telling her how much he enjoyed it. After this last dust up in TX I decided I am pulling the pin and buying some stuff from 5D. Going to order one complete AR9 kit and at least one extra lower and the jig. Want to make one full size and one pistol with a brace. Been looking at every site I can find and finally just decided to get the full "kit" for the first one and a couple lowers from 5D. Assuming the first one works, will do another lower and get the stuff to make a pistol version while we still can. Kind of looking forward to it but damn is the AR9 stuff is expensive. The full kit version is going to cost more than it would cost me to buy a nice AR but what the hell. If it works when I'm done it will be fun. Not to mention the pistol version would be dandy for keeping in the car with me

 

[awshoot]

You can still possess them and build them and sell them. You cannot build them to sell or assist a prohibited person in building them.

Sell? That's not advisable.

The statute makes it a crime to manufacture an untraceable firearm which is built with the intent to sell. And yes, if you sell one you could argue that you never "intended" to sell it, just got tired of it, but if you find yourself making that argument, you already lost (even if you win) due to the cost of hiring a lawyer.

 

[awshoot]

I am not a lawyer but the way HB1739 reads to me anyway is that new bill essentially says the same thing as what federal law already is. The only difference being that Washington State now makes it illegal to manufacture all plastic 3-D guns. ...

The first sentence is spot on -- 1739 just made certain things illegaler.

As for the second sentence, that's Bob's and the media's hype, but it isn't the case. The law bans undetectable firearms. It is totally possible to print a detectable firearm.

 

[awshoot]

I am not a lawyer but the way HB1739 reads to me anyway is that new bill essentially says the same thing as what federal law already is. The only difference being that Washington State now makes it illegal to manufacture all plastic 3-D guns.
With that being said Polymer80 has decided that they will no longer sell us any more 80% receivers. Washington Arms Collectors (WAC) is checking on why their lawyers came up with this conclusion. Hopefully the NRA will come to our rescue.

I think it is from this section:

(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.

It would be pretty easy for the state to argue that selling an 80% lower to a prohibited person without conducting a BG check was reckless and then hit the seller with criminal penalties. The part that bugs me about this provision, is that it could easily be interpreted to prohibit providing information to the general public (a howto video, a book, or a digital model). That's a restraint not just on the 2A, but the 1A.