Washington I-1639 / More info

[TCOV]

I think he meant manually operated, straight pull bolt action.

I think those have been available for awhile. Not affected by I1639.

 

[GWS]

I predict WA will either postpone implementation 6mos to a year, OR will continue forward and face lawsuits of unbelievable proportion.

Lol
Why would they care about lawsuits?
They aren't paying for them. You and I will be on the hook for the defense of 1639, as well as funding the lawsuits against 1639.

 

[rdb241]

AGAIN.....stripped receivers everyone...............build what you want. Receivers are not covered by the Washington State definition of assault rifle. AK receivers, AR receivers, HK receivers, what ever receivers............So you do not have to comply with I-1639.

 

[yubariver]

Buy receivers now, or you may have to wait till the paperwork for FFL's is sorted out by the state after July1.

 

[User 1234]

If you can find any receivers left, from what I hear most FFLs have been selling out.

 

[BSG 75]

If you can find any receivers left, from what I hear most FFLs have been selling out.

Plenty available online. $39.95 Anderson Manufacturing AR-15 Stripped Lower Receiver AR-15-A3

 

[Boss]

Lol
Why would they care about lawsuits?
They aren't paying for them. You and I will be on the hook for the defense of 1639, as well as funding the lawsuits against 1639.

Exactly. Not only that, but our own tax dollars will be paying for our opposition, at least to some degree, to fight us.

If it were the other way around (pro-2A legislation advancing), you can bet there'd be all kinds of arguments from the other side that '...in light of all the pending litigation and/or confusion, X,Y,Z needs to be postponed/stayed/whatever...'

The extremists on the other side DO NOT CARE. If they cared...at all, we wouldn't be where we are now (blatant signatures/single-topic requirements non-compliance). For the firearms prohibitionists, whatever they have to do/can get away with is justified to them, because in their minds, guns are evil, and by extension, those that own them are evil...no matter how decent, just, or peaceful. Gun owner = evil.

Terms like 'safety,' 'needs,' 'public health crisis' and 'weapon(s) of war' are the buzzword catalysts the blissful sheeple will follow. It baffles my mind how willing some are to not just surrender, but demand, their Rights be taken. The Rights their forefathers fought and died for.

One next tactic appears to be mandating liability insurance for gun owners. Comply or massive fine (like $10K). That'll be just piling on to this train wreck. I'm sure no exploitation there, and of course they won't want to know makes/models/serial numbers, etc. (ie registry).​

The sad thing is you can see 10's of thousands of people lining up for Republican rally's...how the h*ll are Repubs/conservatives NOT getting voted more into office and these laws not getting quashed...not just here, but places like CO and VT? And now CA residents are going to need BGC's to buy ammo, and non-residents won't be able to purchase...at all.

As said before, we need to go on the offensive legislatively...or its only a matter of time.

Once again, and share:

Click here to support 1639 Legal Defense Fund organized by Daniel Mitchell

BOSS

 

[rdb241]

If you can find any receivers left, from what I hear most FFLs have been selling out.

At the June WAC show. That was the hot item. I watched one guy buy 10 receivers. A couple of commercial vendors In know there. Totally sold out all of their receivers.

 

[Talos32]

At the June WAC show. That was the hot item. I watched one guy buy 10 receivers. A couple of commercial vendors In know there. Totally sold out all of their receivers.

May be getting close to too late, but if you're near a Cabela's they want $50 for Anderson lowers online and ship to store for pickup with no FFL fee since they're the seller. They estimate 5-8 days for shipping.

 

[rdb241]

May be getting close to too late, but if you're near a Cabela's they want $50 for Anderson lowers online and ship to store for pickup with no FFL fee since they're the seller. They estimate 5-8 days for shipping.

No it will not be too late. If you had read the above posts. Per I-1639 language, Washington State definition of "assault rifle", which is wrong label by the way, does not include a stripped receiver. After 7/1 you can still purchase a stripped receiver with out going through the I-1639 BS. A receiver is the part to track with numbers but a stripped receiver is not an assault rifle per the new definition. It's merely a receiver. You still have to go through a back ground check like you do today. If there id a delay you wait the 10 days and then take it home. That's any stripped receiver. AR, AK, HK, etc.

 

[SCARed]

No it will not be too late. If you had read the above posts. Per I-1639 language, Washington State definition of "assault rifle", which is wrong label by the way, does not include a stripped receiver. After 7/1 you can still purchase a stripped receiver with out going through the I-1639 BS. A receiver is the part to track with numbers but a stripped receiver is not an assault rifle per the new definition. It's merely a receiver. You still have to go through a back ground check like you do today. If there id a delay you wait the 10 days and then take it home. That's any stripped receiver. AR, AK, HK, etc.

That's all good and nice, but the way the roll out looks to be happening, there is NO WAY to process a receiver. FFLs will not be able to sell you one because there is no paperwork for them to fill out to process it.

 

[rdb241]

That's all good and nice, but the way the roll out looks to be happening, there is NO WAY to process a receiver. FFLs will not be able to sell you one because there is no paperwork for them to fill out to process it.

OMG. You still have to fill out paperwork like you do now. It will be the very same form. Yes there will be paperwork.

 

[User 1234]

^^^^ Read Sporting Systems' posts on the receiver and "other firearm" debacle. After July 1st no "others" can be transferred by a dealer in WA until the state figures out how to process it.

But yes, it is true that receivers are not "semi automatic assault rifles."

 

[SCARed]

This was what SS has posted.

"Lowers are not part of 1639, but they are caught up in the NICS changes that Washington did not address in the previous 2 years. WSP, DOL , WASPC and the AG have been sent a letter from several republican legislators in my district about this issue and demanding a speedy resolution. As of right now, there is no way to request a background check on those itesm (actions, frames, receivers or Mossberg Shockwave type firearms). This one is messy."

 

[GWS]

Exactly. Not only that, but our own tax dollars will be paying for our opposition, at least to some degree, to fight us.

If it were the other way around (pro-2A legislation advancing), you can bet there'd be all kinds of arguments from the other side that '...in light of all the pending litigation and/or confusion, X,Y,Z needs to be postponed/stayed/whatever...'

The extremists on the other side DO NOT CARE. If they cared...at all, we wouldn't be where we are now (blatant signatures/single-topic requirements non-compliance). For the firearms prohibitionists, whatever they have to do/can get away with is justified to them, because in their minds, guns are evil, and by extension, those that own them are evil...no matter how decent, just, or peaceful. Gun owner = evil.

Terms like 'safety,' 'needs,' 'public health crisis' and 'weapon(s) of war' are the buzzword catalysts the blissful sheeple will follow. It baffles my mind how willing some are to not just surrender, but demand, their Rights be taken. The Rights their forefathers fought and died for.

One next tactic appears to be mandating liability insurance for gun owners. Comply or massive fine (like $10K). That'll be just piling on to this train wreck. I'm sure no exploitation there, and of course they won't want to know makes/models/serial numbers, etc. (ie registry).​

The sad thing is you can see 10's of thousands of people lining up for Republican rally's...how the h*ll are Repubs/conservatives NOT getting voted more into office and these laws not getting quashed...not just here, but places like CO and VT? And now CA residents are going to need BGC's to buy ammo, and non-residents won't be able to purchase...at all.

As said before, we need to go on the offensive legislatively...or its only a matter of time.

Once again, and share:

Click here to support 1639 Legal Defense Fund organized by Daniel Mitchell

BOSS

The best way to go legislatively will be for us to get my initiatives on the ballot and then passed
In a nutshell--
I-1: If a legislator proposes, sponsors or votes for a law that is passed and later found to be unconstitutional, he or she will be personally held financially liable for all of the court costs of the lawsuit, including those of the plaintiff(s).

I-2: Before any new law can be put on the ballot for a vote it must be held up to strict scrutiny as to it's constitutionality. If it does not pass muster on constitutionality, it cannot be put on the ballot.

If we can get these passed we will never have to worry about silly crap like what we are facing now.

I am now returning to my other pipe dreams.

 

[quneur]

Question: Rifle/pistol conversion. As I understand it, federal law does not recognize rifle to pistol conversion. Adding a shorter barrel it becomes a SBR and making your wallet $200 lighter. Pistol to rifle conversion is allowed. Now with this new law, semi rifles more egregious to obtain and own than pistols (with the new education requirements.)

So, under federal law, you can't convert a rifle to pistol. Under I-1639, it should be'unlawful' to convert pistol to a rifle due to having to take a class before possession of a rifle. Or would you have to take a class before conversion?

What if you already own a pistol and convert it after July 1? Grandfather clause?

 

[Kid@Heart]

Am I misreading the initiative or just ignorant?

I didn't see anything about needing to take a class to own an "assault rifle", just to buy one.

 

[11Charlie]

I didn't see anything about needing to take a class to own an "assault rifle", just to buy one.

You are correct my friend.

 

[DB is Here]

I didn't see anything about needing to take a class to own an "assault rifle", just to buy one.

Thankfully I don't own any...I can't afford a $20,000.00 machine gun.

 

[Kid@Heart]

Thankfully I don't own any...I can't afford a $20,000.00 machine gun.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it will be a comfort.

The new law defines what the State considers an "assault rifle ". You can ignore the facts at your own peril.