Washington Just wow. Washington Is About To Ban EVERYTHING!

[Yarome]

"This will not impact sales of non-serialized gun parts & kits."

Finally a correct interpretation of what the bill actually says. Every "youtube lawyer" video I've seen is saying parts are banned.

You're going to trust PSA's interpretation and prediction of how WA state is planning on implementing a WA state law? To each their own, I guess.

I believe that it is in part correct, just as many have said (if you listen to what some of those lawyers are actually saying), that the parts and such are not actually "banned" or illegal to purchase. The problem becomes that "possessing" those parts which can be used to modify a firearm into their definition of an "assault weapon" will be illegal.

IOW, "effectively banning" those parts.

 

[doninoregon]

have they banned sights and optics yet?

They will ban "sniper rifles" (anything with a scope) as soon as a few assassinations happen.

 

[Diamondback]

They will ban "sniper rifles" (anything with a scope) as soon as a few assassinations happen.

They've openly SAID as much in their long terrm playbook. It never fails to floor me how many people are fundamentally unable to read...

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” – Ethics Alarms

Posts about “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” written by Jack Marshall

ethicsalarms.com

http://86262a2d5a8678610839-0d14e49ee6aa00b4013e3b6293913ee7.r99.cf1.rackcdn.com/Gun%20ViolenceMessaging%20Guide%20PDF-1.pdf

https://gunresponsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/messaging-guide.pdf

 

[2506]

So our political system is supposed to have three independent branches. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. When the governor and the state AG script bills for the legislature, the independent nature described becomes blurred.


This you can count on. Another monkey-see, monkey-do from California politics.

AG is part of the Executive, not Judicial, branch. My guess is this doesn't get past the state Supreme Court level, it's so unconstitutional

 

[Diamondback]

AG is part of the Executive, not Judicial, branch. My guess is this doesn't get past the state Supreme Court level, it's so unconstitutional

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Have ya SEEN the state Supreme Court's record lately? It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the King Kounty Kommunist Kleptokracy...

 

[Tinman357]

Yeah, the courts in WA do exactly what they are told by Inslee and Ferguson.

 

[Diamondback]

Yeah, the courts in WA do exactly what they are told by Inslee and Ferguson.

You mean by their puppetmasters in Seattle... neither of those two is smart enough to unzip his own fly without someone pulling the strings.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Gun show was hopping today...Lots of folks there looking.
Many were there 'cause they "heard" something about upcoming laws / bans / etc....
Not sure if these same folks were willing to vote or otherwise be politically aware of what our so-called representatives are doing.

Most vendors were unsure if gun shows were going to be a thing in the future.
Not like they thought that they were going to be banned , just that it is too much of a hassle to be legal...*

All in all , no one was happy about the upcoming laws / bans and the like.

* Which of course is something the anti gunners want....
More hassle to be legal...so more folks don't go to gun shows , buy guns or parts etc...
Andy

 

[djm68]

A few questions:

1) If this legislation passes, what will happen to WA state residents whom already own ARs et al.? Are they 'grand fathered' in?

2) What about someone moving to WA state who owns ARs et al. that were bought before the WA state ban went into affect? Are you allowed to move into WA state with said firearms?

 

[kurpak]

You're going to trust PSA's interpretation and prediction of how WA state is planning on implementing a WA state law? To each their own, I guess.

I believe that it is in part correct, just as many have said (if you listen to what some of those lawyers are actually saying), that the parts and such are not actually "banned" or illegal to purchase. The problem becomes that "possessing" those parts which can be used to modify a firearm into their definition of an "assault weapon" will be illegal.

IOW, "effectively banning" those parts.

One of the big concerns is buying replacement parts for existing rifles, not necessarily buying all the parts you need to build a new "assault weapon" after the ban goes into effect. Everyone is just blanket saying parts are banned, which if you read the text of the bill, I would argue it doesn't really say that. Hopefully this whole junk bill will get tossed sooner than later so we don't need to legally test what the state thinks about buying uppers or bcgs from PSA. I think the authors of the bill knew they couldn't ban unserialized parts, so they made the language as nebulous as possible to cause legalese confusion or voluntary avoidance of Washington by retailers to skirt the whole issue.

 

[monkeybutler]

This is nuts!
Get ready Washington.

That video guy is nothing other than a sensationalist idiot. Sure, the new law sucks, but his nonsense about "everything is banned? and "parts are banned" means his literacy level is far too low for him to understand the emergent law. The whole thing about "train cars" is so hideously wrong - and massively disrespectful to those who had ancestors loaded onto train cars - that he should be ridiculed mercilessly. Once again, we're our own worst enemy.

 

[monkeybutler]

Everyone is just blanket saying parts are banned, which if you read the text of the bill, I would argue it doesn't really say that.

Right, the bill does not say that. It effectively bans AR lower receivers, but not really anything else. You can't make an :assault weapon" out of a "parts kit" without the lower receiver. So there is no constructive possession.

 

[Yarome]

Right, the bill does not say that. It effectively bans AR lower receivers, but not really anything else. You can't make an :assault weapon" out of a "parts kit" without the lower receiver. So there is no constructive possession.

The part your missing is that if you have a legal grandfathered lower..... there are any number of parts that would be constructive possession to obtain after the enactment date. Legal to buy, but illegal to possess. Like a threaded replacement barrel, muzzle device, a grip, handguard, etc etc etc.

"Parts kits" if you were not aware can all contain such. IE., PSA is one of the leading "parts kit" retailers which would contain any number of items that can qualify for construtive possession by adding them to a receiver.. legally owned or not... you are constructing a new firearm.

 

[msgriff]

That video guy is nothing other than a sensationalist idiot. Sure, the new law sucks, but his nonsense about "everything is banned? and "parts are banned" means his literacy level is far too low for him to understand the emergent law. The whole thing about "train cars" is so hideously wrong - and massively disrespectful to those who had ancestors loaded onto train cars - that he should be ridiculed mercilessly. Once again, we're our own worst enemy.

Cut and paste from the actual Bill. I wonder how Herr Fuhrgeson will interpret it.

(2)(a) "Assault weapon" means:

(iii) A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which 2 an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be 3 converted into an assault weapon if those parts are in the possession 4 or under the control of the same person; or

 

[gmerkt]

AG is part of the Executive, not Judicial, branch.

Exactly right, so the executive branch (gov. AG) is scripting bills for the legislature which blurs the notion of independent action, even if both are of the same dominant party. I used the word "blur" because it is pretty normal in the US system of governance for presidents and governors to make requests. But I don't know how far that goes in actually preparing/writing the bills. At some point, the puppet strings become visible.

The judiciary in Washington state is dominated by the Dems due to institutional reasons. Vacancies are appointed by the governor and serve until the next election, then are up for reelection. Holding the governor's office in the hands of one party for 40 years offers the opportunity for many appointments. And how many voters look into or care about supreme court justices? Mostly, if they check the box at all, they vote for the incumbent. Who isn't identified by party affiliation. Once in a while, a GOP supreme court candidate comes onto the court from out of left field but it's rare and of course their voice is muted in a Dem. dominated court.

 

[monkeybutler]

The part your missing is that if you have a legal grandfathered lower..... there are any number of parts that would be constructive possession to obtain after the enactment date. Legal to buy, but illegal to possess. Like a threaded replacement barrel, muzzle device, a grip, handguard, etc etc etc.

"Parts kits" if you were not aware can all contain such. IE., PSA is one of the leading "parts kit" retailers which would contain any number of items that can qualify for construtive possession by adding them to a receiver.. legally owned or not... you are constructing a new firearm.

I would not build a new rifle from a lower I already possessed. If I had any lowers - and of course I have none of those kinds of things - they would all be built into rifles before the ban was signed. There is nothing in the ban preventing someone from pulling apart an upper, changing a handguard, a muzzle device, whatever, and putting it back on a lower which was part of that rifle. Golly, one could put an entirely different upper on it and it would still be the same "assault weapon." No new assault weapon is created. If you had three lowers built into rifles before the ban, you got three after the ban. Swapping a muzzle device won't change the status of assault weapon for any of the three. Folks will be able to buy parts just fine.

Thread the muzzle of your old Remington semi-auto hunting rifle, then you just created a new assault weapon.

 

[monkeybutler]

Cut and paste from the actual Bill. I wonder how Herr Fuhrgeson will interpret it.

(2)(a) "Assault weapon" means:

(iii) A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which 2 an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be 3 converted into an assault weapon if those parts are in the possession 4 or under the control of the same person; or

Can you assemble an assault weapon from a parts kit? Seems to me there is a missing part. The serialized one.

 

[Yarome]

I would not build a new rifle from a lower I already possessed. If I had any lowers - and of course I have none of those kinds of things - they would all be built into rifles before the ban was signed. There is nothing in the ban preventing someone from pulling apart an upper, changing a handguard, a muzzle device, whatever, and putting it back on a lower which was part of that rifle. Golly, one could put an entirely different upper on it and it would still be the same "assault weapon." No new assault weapon is created. If you had three lowers built into rifles before the ban, you got three after the ban. Swapping a muzzle device won't change the status of assault weapon for any of the three. Folks will be able to buy parts just fine.

Thread the muzzle of your old Remington semi-auto hunting rifle, then you just created a new assault weapon.

... in your layman's opinion. As @msgriff said, it depends on how far WA politicians decide to take it and/or if yours ever even comes under scrutiny or not. The situation you described is not the one and only for all and the concern is that ordering any new parts post enactment that may be trackable to you "may" be considered constructive possession that "may" put you in a position to have to justify/defend/argue your case.

But you probably know better than anyone else and are able to predict the future so... if you're confident... no ones stopping you.

Personally, I think your thought process "may be" flawed. Changing an upper does in fact constitute assembly of a firearm... by their definition... but could they prove it? Would they even try?

Whatever floats your boat but reading the text of the law and having no case study to determine how it will actually be implemented, you're just guessing and kind of rediculous to draw a line in the sand that you are right and everyone that doesn't agree is just stoopid.

All that matters though is your willingness to pay the piper if you're wrong and it's no skin off anyone elses nose.

 

[monkeybutler]

 

[msgriff]

Can you assemble an assault weapon from a parts kit? Seems to me there is a missing part. The serialized one.

Please point out the portion of the Bill that states that a "serialized" component must be included along with the other parts.
Link to Bill