Is WA 594 on hold?(legally)

[slimmer13]

Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

No one is trying to be clever or skirt the law, but follow it to the letter, and we are only discussing as a hypothetical situation, but it seems crystal clear that under WA law (which is all 594 applies to), that a stripped lower is not a firearm. If you are crossing state lines then obviously Fed law would apply.

Now to me when you are talking about a complete rifle minus a bolt or firing pin, then you are in a much grayer area because the word "may" in the definition of firearm under the RCW could open to interpretation.

 

[etrain16]

And if I sell you a Glock frame for $300 and your buddy a Glock slide for $100 who exactly did I sell a firearm to under the Washington State definition of firearm?

It's always been my understanding that it's the ATF, not the state that defines what is the firearm portion. I can tell you as someone who has purchased both complete uppers and complete lowers of Glocks myself, the ATF considers the lower to be the firearm. I've even bought complete uppers on EBay, no restrictions on those. The state can define what they lump into the 'firearm' definition, but on this piece, I don't think they can trump the ATF.

Whether 594 clouds that for WA residents is something I don't know.

 

[IronMonster]

"it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.'"

-Carl Sagan

When you are in court the prosecutor is simply going to say. " A Firearm is a device from which a projectile is fired by an explosive such as gunpowder, What the defendant sold was a integral part of a firearm which he disassembled with the intent of trying to circumvent the law, However even disassembled it still constitutes a firearm as per the Federal ATF guidelines which state the serial numbered receiver in and of itself is a firearm" The intent of the law matters in court. There are plenty of people who are doing time who thought they found a loophole.

 

[etrain16]

Here is something from the ATF: https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2005-4.pdf

From that document:

The GCA defines the term "firearm" as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any
destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

 

[slimmer13]

Here is something from the ATF: https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2005-4.pdf

From that document:

The GCA defines the term "firearm" as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any
destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

We all know what the BATFE definition of firearm and all GCA laws absolutely apply. The state made up its own set of laws and has its own definition of terms. That's how the guy in NJ can be charged with possession of a 300 yo flintlock even though federally it is not a pistol. Works both ways

 

[blackadder]

Here is something from the ATF: https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2005-4.pdf

From that document:

The GCA defines the term "firearm" as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any
destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

It's my understanding that RCWs contained the same language before 594, but that 594 changed the definition? Correct me if I'm wrong (someone please! [emoji1] ) but if they change the definition, then what the state considers a firearm changes. It is like the flare guns etc, the definition changed, and now they are included as firearms in the language. The frames and receivers language was removed (again, not 100% on this), and therefore no longer applies to issues of Washington law.

 

[blackadder]

Again, this is all theoretical until someone takes it to court

 

[godspyro]

Well I know first hand of two involving firearms. If you want to be a test case be my guest.

So YOU know of 2 cases but are unwilling to share the name of either case?

 

[IronMonster]

David Olofson. Convicted of possession of a machine gun for having a malfunctioning AR-15 and Mark convicted of manufacture of a machine gun for semi auto kit guns he assembled without the full auto parts

 

[AMT]

David Olofson. Convicted of possession of a machine gun for having a malfunctioning AR-15 and Mark Krause convicted of manufacture of a machine gun for semi auto kit guns he assembled without the full auto parts

Not to rain..... but fully auto weapons in WA is different than I594 and the sale/transfer of firearms.

Are you sure they were arrested for violating I594? Just doesn't seem both convictions are in line with violating I594.

Just sayin'....

 

[AMT]

I don't know what's going on in the rest of the state but I have yet to find and FFL in King County that will accept FTF transfers. Checked with 1/2 a dozen dealers in person and not a single one will touch it.

They all say the same thing.
WA state has not provided them with instructions or paperwork to file a personal firearms transfer.
Without an official document from the state they're NOT putting their license on the line for a private sale.
Can't say I blame them.

So, for now I'm stuck;
Say my neighbor wants to buy a low end used shotgun from me. Ok, no biggie.

Now, I have to post it on Gunbroker.
He has to use buy it now to purchase it.
I have to ship it a 1/2 mile to my FFL to complete the transfer.

But, here's the kicker.
Adding Gunbroker listing fee, WA sales tax, ship cost and FFL transfer fee to an old $100 H&R single shot would basically double what I asked for it a couple months ago.

Does he still want it?
Probably not.
Do I want to lose money so he can still have it for a 100 after fees?
Not really.

So there we are.
Everyone has pickup or camping gun they don't care much about. Now we're stuck with it.
Even if I gave it away for free there's still shipping, tax and transfer fees somebody has to pay to make it legal.

I feel kind of burned.
Never gave those old single shot break barrels and bolt action .22's a second thought.
Now I might as well make furniture and wind chimes out of them. At least I could sell those.

If anything 594 has effectively made private firearms sales completely illegal in WA state.

If you know your neighbor, and it is no biggie for you to consciously sell him your shotgun, let him borrow it to see if he really does like it. Ask for $100 from him in case he skips-out and doesn't return it. Write-up an "agreement" that you and him will keep copies of.

 

[Dave Workman]

Again, this is all theoretical until someone takes it to court

Well, SAF has taken it to court.

Meanwhile:

House bill filed to change background check exemptions, define transfers

An eight-page bill that would expand the exemptions to Initiative 594 – the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November – was up for first reading today in Olympia, and it's got the backing of 40 Republicans and two Democrats.

<broken link removed>

 

[Wayne]

State law can add to Federal law but it can not reduce Federal law. Federal law is not changed by State law.

 

[IronMonster]

Not to rain..... but fully auto weapons in WA is different than I594 and the sale/transfer of firearms.

Are you sure they were arrested for violating I594? Just doesn't seem both convictions are in line with violating I594.

Just sayin'....

They have nothing to do with I594, but with being charged and convicted based on definitions that have no basis in reality. That is my point. These guys think because they construe the definition to mean something rather than what was intended that they can sell firearms in Washington without a FFL and have some sort of a legal defense. I'm just saying there are presidents set in firearms cases where definitions where on the side of the defendent and they still went to jail.

 

[blackadder]

State law can add to Federal law but it can not reduce Federal law. Federal law is not changed by State law.

I'm tracking that, but because the background checks are a state requirement, the state defines what needs a background check. In this case, their definition of firearms is all that matters (IMO).

 

[AMT]

They have nothing to do with I594, but with being charged and convicted based on definitions that have no basis in reality. That is my point. These guys think because they construe the definition to mean something rather than what was intended that they can sell firearms in Washington without a FFL and have some sort of a legal defense. I'm just saying there are presidents set in firearms cases where definitions where on the side of the defendent and they still went to jail.

Now I get jest of what you were trying to say in your earlier post.....

 

[blackadder]

They have nothing to do with I594, but with being charged and convicted based on definitions that have no basis in reality. That is my point. These guys think because they construe the definition to mean something rather than what was intended that they can sell firearms in Washington without a FFL and have some sort of a legal defense. I'm just saying there are presidents set in firearms cases where definitions where on the side of the defendent and they still went to jail.

You make a very good point. Only one way to settle this. Not "IT" [emoji1]

 

[AMT]

Well, SAF has taken it to court.

Meanwhile:

House bill filed to change background check exemptions, define transfers

An eight-page bill that would expand the exemptions to Initiative 594 – the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November – was up for first reading today in Olympia, and it's got the backing of 40 Republicans and two Democrats.

<broken link removed>

Thank you, Dave, for keeping us posted on this.

 

[godspyro]

David Olofson. Convicted of possession of a machine gun for having a malfunctioning AR-15 and Mark Krause convicted of manufacture of a machine gun for semi auto kit guns he assembled without the full auto parts

United States v. Olofson was charged in federal court for federal charges using federal definition.
the only thing I can find on Krause is him having a pop can bomb. http://www.carrollconews.com/story/1685955.html

See this is why we ask people who talk big to back their talk with verifiable facts. any other "personal" knowledge?

 

[godspyro]

Well, SAF has taken it to court.

Meanwhile:

House bill filed to change background check exemptions, define transfers

An eight-page bill that would expand the exemptions to Initiative 594 – the 18-page gun control measure passed by voters in November – was up for first reading today in Olympia, and it's got the backing of 40 Republicans and two Democrats.

<broken link removed>

The problem with this is that we dont the bad law validated it needs to be invalidated