Washington I-1639 / More info

[Talos32]

The definitions of "pistol" and "semi automatic assault rifle" are not limited by date of purchase, neither is the 9.41.139 mandate for continuing eligibility checks for persons who purchased a pistol or semi auto rifle pursuant to any provision of 9.41. A court might interpret this as I-594 and later.

The pistols they could maybe use the waiver on the old forms, but rifles no way. For one, you didn't sign a waiver when purchasing one prior to 1 Jul. Two, I'll stand by the definition of "acquired pursuant to this chapter" requires that the item existed at the time you acquired it. No one "acquired" a "semiautomatic assault rifle" prior to 1 Jul because they did didn't exist. You acquired a rifle. They can change the definition moving forward, but at the time of acquisition it was just a rifle.

The state can conduct a "background check" on whoever they want at any time, but accessing certain information (health records) requires either a release or a law enforcement exception. For rifles purchased prior to 1 Jul they have no release express or implied, and suspicionless blanket searches don't qualify for a law enforcement exception.

 

[ActionHero1980]

the paranoid people still paranoid. the backround check isn't going to change from what it was before though going full retard might be a good reason you shouldn't own guns

Just paranoid. Not like anyone is openly talking about confiscation. The powers that be in WA. would never use deception or underhanded tricks to disarm law abiding citizens. This (and whats coming next) is all just about keeping people safe.

 

[DB is Here]

Getting a little chippy Gentlemen, let's elevate the conversation, thank you.

 

[quneur]

https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652001a.pdf

Here are the new forms look at section C 4

"DEALER: This form must be completed in full and TYPED."
"Race (choose all that apply) _American Indian/Alaska Native _ Asian _Black _Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander _ White"

They forgot one option: "_See Census information"

 

[Ops]

they did omit Hispanic or latino or not Hispanic or latino. I guess they don't really care whats on the 4473

 

[quneur]

Just want to toss an idea out there. Tthe gun community could use their collective power to make lawmakers take notice.

Firstly, I like to say I'm a supporter of law enforcement. That said, create a campaign for pro-gun individuals and companies to not provide service to law enforcement agencies who enforce I-1639. Recreate the shortage of a few years back when ammo, reloading components, etc. I understand law enforcement probably order out of state but if not it would tag on shipping costs and additional time.

I know police departments have armorers but armorers need supplies to do their work. Gun smiths can refuse to service law enforcement. People can email firearm supply companies to possibly stop selling supplies to WA State law enforcement.

If we could put a little dent in law enforcement budgets, law makers should take notice. They may dismiss their constituents but they can't dismiss law enforcement.

 

[Griff411]

I hear you on this, but I'd say that lawmakers are almost as anti-law enforcement as they are anti-gun. They'd probably love to see law enforcement have a shortage of their "tools of violence and oppression". I agree with you that law enforcement shouldn't enforce these laws, but I'm not sure that this is the answer. Let's keep brainstorming, though.

 

[Talos32]

Just want to toss an idea out there. Tthe gun community could use their collective power to make lawmakers take notice.

Firstly, I like to say I'm a supporter of law enforcement. That said, create a campaign for pro-gun individuals and companies to not provide service to law enforcement agencies who enforce I-1639. Recreate the shortage of a few years back when ammo, reloading components, etc. I understand law enforcement probably order out of state but if not it would tag on shipping costs and additional time.

I know police departments have armorers but armorers need supplies to do their work. Gun smiths can refuse to service law enforcement. People can email firearm supply companies to possibly stop selling supplies to WA State law enforcement.

If we could put a little dent in law enforcement budgets, law makers should take notice. They may dismiss their constituents but they can't dismiss law enforcement.

Frankly, all it would take is Glock, Smith, FN, and Colt to refuse to sell to or service weapons to any government agency that supported or enacted: (your list here) to shut down most gun control nationwide. But they won't.

Same held true when Microsoft was feuding with the federal government over antitrust allegations about 20 years back. All they had to say was no Windows products anymore for the federal government and I'm moving my company and all its assets to Canada and they would have gotten their way. The only real alternatives were Linux or Macintosh, and it would have cost billions to reconfigure the entire federal government computer network to use those options.

Ultimately businesses are there to make money, and they will bend over backwards far enough to snap your spine before they will go for a nuclear option with regulatory bodies. I think they feel, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly, that over the long run they will make more money playing ball then putting up a fight.

 

[MDL]

I am wondering how much of a loss companies in WA will take since the implementation of 1639. Last summer when I talked with Sportmans Warehouse and Cabelas they were reluctant to take a stand in opposition of 1639 because they did not want to put off non firearm customers.

 

[Sporting Systems]

I am wondering how much of a loss companies in WA will take since the implementation of 1639. Last summer when I talked with Sportmans Warehouse and Cabelas they were reluctant to take a stand in opposition of 1639 because they did not want to put off non firearm customers.

My reply, then stop selling firearms. If you cant commit to the industry, why are you a part of it? Like X products.

 

[rdb241]

I am wondering how much of a loss companies in WA will take since the implementation of 1639. Last summer when I talked with Sportmans Warehouse and Cabelas they were reluctant to take a stand in opposition of 1639 because they did not want to put off non firearm customers.

Then both their CEO's are wussies. Anybody that walks in those stores, knows there are guns for sale.

 

[Boss]

Just want to toss an idea out there. Tthe gun community could use their collective power to make lawmakers take notice.

Lacking collective power is the pro2A side's biggest weakness, along with lack of $$...we don't have billionaires openly backing us.

Look at Sporting System's GFM...hit $100K+ (Bravo!). But that took ~7 months by ~2200 people. And it has been shared far and wide numerous times.

There's ~600K CPL holders in WA (probably ~10% of the eligible population). Where are the other ~598K?

If just 10% of CPL holders donated $25, that would be around $1.5M. Now add in some more regular non-CPL holders...

Again, wayyyyyyy too much apathy/complacency/blissful ignorance on our side out there. Folks want this trend to end? Vote! Joint a big organization like NRA or SAF, and donate.

NRA with 15M members would be a different story...which is probably why so many try so hard to vilify it...so folks will be shamed into NOT joining.

My $.02 worth as we head towards celebrating our independence...people should remember what that means.

Boss

 

[bgdawgrr]

Why does everyone refer to "striped lowers" vs. any lower? All are considered "other" whether striped or complete AFAIK.

 

[Unka-Boo]

Why does everyone refer to "striped lowers" vs. any lower? All are considered "other" whether striped or complete AFAIK.

"Complete" lowers will have a stock or a brace ....sold as rifle or pistol respectively. Even if they dont have an upper attached.

 

[American123]

"Complete" lowers will have a stock or a brace ....sold as rifle or pistol respectively. Even if they dont have an upper attached.

The 4473 has a box that says "other" this is where lowers go, my understanding is whether they are completed or not. Unless something has changed

 

[Unka-Boo]

The 4473 has a box that says "other" this is where lowers go, my understanding is whether they are completed or not. Unless something has changed

Stripped lower is "other" because it hasnt been built into anything. Somewhat unique to ARs because the same receiver can be used for both ( yes, there are others )...Ive done all three over the years multiple times, "complete" with stock was transferred as a rifle, braced lower was as a pistol.

 

[American123]

Stripped lower is "other" because it hasnt been built into anything. Somewhat unique to ARs because the same receiver can be used for both ( yes, there are others )...Ive done all three over the years multiple times, "complete" with stock was transferred as a rifle, braced lower was as a pistol.

ATF: Putting a Stock on an AR-15 Lower Does Not Make it a Rifle

It would appear there is differing opinions on what the ATF considers a rifle, vs pistol, vs other.

Pretty sure every lower I've ever bought regardless of the stock it had on the end of it was transferred as an "other"

 

[Unka-Boo]

could be the specific dealer too...

 

[User 1234]

The 4473 has a box that says "other" this is where lowers go, my understanding is whether they are completed or not. Unless something has changed

Most people are probably like me, I would prefer to buy them stripped. It is none of the government's business whether I build it as a rifle, pistol, or leave it stripped (unless filing for a stamp).

 

[American123]

Most people are probably like me, I would prefer to buy them stripped. It is none of the government's business whether I build it as a rifle, pistol, or leave it stripped (unless filing for a stamp).

I specifically remember working with an FFL to transfer completed lowers and me designating "it's a pistol lower" because it has the SBA3 brace on it, and the response was "it's a lower, it's other" on the 4473 because it's only a lower.

I then considered the common sense of that sentiment, that the compliance of NFA laws and what length barrels were on what type of firearms had more to do with completed firearms (uppers and lowers put together) than they did about the specific title of the lower on the 4473 form.