Washington I-1639 / More info

[Tony617]

It's the ultimate virtue signal.
I see libtards doing this left and right.
"Look at me! I don't want to ever own a gun and I publicly renounce my rights because I am a good person!"

I think all of the people that don't want to own firearms put a sign out in front of their home saying "our home is a gun free zone".

LEOs do not have a duty to protect you.

 

[GWS]

LEOs do not have a duty to protect you.

Brother, you know it. I bought my first handgun after I read about Warren vs DC

 

[GWS]

I think giving up your gun rights is done when the Judge or Court asks you to do so.

No, It's right there. One could indeed voluntarily renounce their gun rights. I'm sure you've seen the vids of knotheads sawing their AR's to pieces after the Stoneman High or the Las Vegas incidents.
Some people want to virtue signal and this is the best way yet for them to do it.
Frankly, I say let them. If they want to trade liberty for "security". let them and let them take the consequences as well.

 

[IOM]

I-1639 is one more degree added to the pot...
​

 

[rdb241]

OK, an interesting question has come up talking with my FFL. When things go into effect on the first. Does that apply to the initiation date or does that apply to delivery date? In other words. If I purchase a rifle and start the process before the 1st and I get delayed. Can I receive the rifle after the 10 day Federal wait if that falls after the 1st of July with out jumping through 1639 BS?

 

[CDN GUNBUNNY]

In Canada in 1993 we had Major firearms legislation that was introduced by a Vocal Liberal Government. The actual Minister who was responsible for this legislation stated publically that only " The military and Police Should have firearms !" in the 26 years since those regulations were introduced the sport has been nickeled and dimed to death with little bits of our freedom taken away. Be careful my brothers to the south it is a slippery slope you travel.

 

[GWS]

OK, an interesting question has come up talking with my FFL. When things go into effect on the first. Does that apply to the initiation date or does that apply to delivery date? In other words. If I purchase a rifle and start the process before the 1st and I get delayed. Can I receive the rifle after the 10 day Federal wait if that falls after the 1st of July with out jumping through 1639 BS?

If this is not hypothetical, I strongly suggest you just go buy that rifle now.
I-1639 is poorly crafted and so far its implementation is a disaster. Assume that anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong. It's the real plan. To frustrate, delay and hinder the purchase of a semi automatic rifle.
It's not about safety. It's not about "gun crime". It's about making the gun buying process so onerous that people will stop buying guns
Period.

 

[rdb241]

OK, an interesting question has come up talking with my FFL. When things go into effect on the first. Does that apply to the initiation date or does that apply to delivery date? In other words. If I purchase a rifle and start the process before the 1st and I get delayed. Can I receive the rifle after the 10 day Federal wait if that falls after the 1st of July with out jumping through 1639 BS?

OK, I have received a legal answer to my question. This is from a second amendment lawyer in Tacoma who is also a member of this site.

The law states that, on and after 7/1, the dealer must comply with I-1639 in order to "deliver" a semi-auto assault rifle. I interpret this to mean that I-1639 applies on delivery, not purchase. So if the delay extends past 7/1, the dealer will need to comply with I-1639 before you can receive the firearm. You can discuss the issue with your preferred dealer to see if s/he interprets it the same way or not.
Vitaliy Kertchen | Attorney at Law
Kertchen Law, PLLC | 253-905-8415 | kertchenlaw.com
917 S 10th St | Tacoma, WA 98405

 

[Mike33]

So all "other" firearms including lowers are treated like pistols? Does that mean some of the 1639 requirements do not apply to Ar 15 lower receivers because they technically arn't a "semi automatic assault rifle"?

 

[rdb241]

So all "other" firearms including lowers are treated like pistols? Does that mean some of the 1639 requirements do not apply to Ar 15 lower receivers because they technically arn't a "semi automatic assault rifle"?

Yes. I asked that specific question about lowers. Here is the Lawyers response...........

I think the consensus has been that a receiver is not a semi-auto assault rifle, so you can avoid 1639. I would check with your dealer to confirm.
Vitaliy Kertchen | Attorney at Law
Kertchen Law, PLLC | 253-905-8415 | kertchenlaw.com
917 S 10th St | Tacoma, WA 98405

 

[uberguy]

Haven't seen anyone point out the illegality of this new training requirement, since none exists covering all of the provisions (introduced under 1639) covering storage, children/guns consultation, suicide prevention, etc.

I've had more firearms training than most LEOs and view this as the most blatant violation of civil liberties. Naturally that's exactly what the anti-gun crowd intended.

 

[rdb241]

Haven't seen anyone point out the illegality of this new training requirement, since none exists covering all of the provisions (introduced under 1639) covering storage, children/guns consultation, suicide prevention, etc.

I've had more firearms training than most LEOs and view this as the most blatant violation of civil liberties. Naturally that's exactly what the anti-gun crowd intended.

The "safety" training is merely to satisfy politicians that think you and I are not smart enough to operate a firearm. Nothing else. Like you I have military training from the Navy Reserves and a hunters safety course at age 12. I was deer hunting on my own at 12 with my grandfathers 30/30. I am 58 now and never had a problem with safety and firearms. Politicians can kiss my jackass........

 

[Slobray]

The "safety" training is merely to satisfy politicians that think you and I are not smart enough to operate a firearm.

I have disagree with this part of your statement...............

I personally don't believe that is the reason for the "safety training" requirement. I believe that it's required, for one reason and one reason only.................. to inconvenience gun owners, period.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts, that when the anti-gun dems in Oly see that people like @Sporting Systems are doing the training for free and online, there will be a bill filed (or sleepy Jay will do it by bureaucratic fiat) to change the those requirements: it will be headed by the DOL, required length will be a minimum of 8-10 hours and cost no less than $100.



Ray

 

[Sporting Systems]

Yes. I asked that specific question about lowers. Here is the Lawyers response...........

I think the consensus has been that a receiver is not a semi-auto assault rifle, so you can avoid 1639. I would check with your dealer to confirm.
Vitaliy Kertchen | Attorney at Law
Kertchen Law, PLLC | 253-905-8415 | kertchenlaw.com
917 S 10th St | Tacoma, WA 98405

There is no "think" . Lowers are not rifles, nor pistols, they are classified as "receivers" and lumped with frames or others (actions, Shockwaves). Lowers are complicated now because the state has dropped the ball on providing direction for submitting NICS checks data to local law enforcement. This isn't a question, its a fact. It's a federal law. Anti gunners won't care about our free class, they just want to pass more and more laws, they don't care if the laws actually do anything.

 

[GWS]

There is no "think" . Lowers are not rifles, nor pistols, they are classified as "receivers" and lumped with frames or others (actions, Shockwaves). Lowers are complicated now because the state has dropped the ball on providing direction for submitting NICS checks data to local law enforcement. This isn't a question, its a fact. It's a federal law. Anti gunners won't care about our free class, they just want to pass more and more laws, they don't care if the laws actually do anything.

Almost spot on.
I agree that the antis are throwing poop everywhere to see what will stick. If they can discourage one gun buyer, or better still, get a gun dealer to give up, they win.
BUT... If they think they see a revenue stream, they will tack a "fee" on the class or whatever proof off your having taken the class. Count on that.

 

[Basedgreaser]

Will this effect SBR's since filing for an sbr is "creating" a short barreled rifle? I forget the specific term off hand

 

[GWS]

Will this effect SBR's since filing for an sbr is "creating" a short barreled rifle? I forget the specific term off hand

I asked that question a few months back.
As far as the state is concerned you've bought a receiver ( if you're building) or a rifle etc. The sbr is a federal issue only.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Disabled man says I-1639 puts 'ideal' gun out of reach

 

[IOM]

Anyone have any idea how someone gets certified to teach the qualification of receiving the appropriate training for semi-autos...???
Wouldn't prior Military training suffice???

 

[rdb241]

Ef their training.