Washington Just wow. Washington Is About To Ban EVERYTHING!

[monkeybutler]

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

"The serialized one" was simply a reference to a lower receiver.

Can you make an AR-15 "assault weapon" without a lower?

 

[kurpak]

"The serialized one" was simply a reference to a lower receiver.

Can you make an AR-15 "assault weapon" without a lower?

You certainly can't make one from a barrel, handguard, pistol grip, flash hider, or trigger. The language in the bill is super vague regarding parts, either on purpose or written by someone who doesn't understand how these things work. A "firearm" is universally understood as needing at a minimum a frame or lower receiver, and why those are restricted and serialized while other innocuous parts are not. Frames and lowers are not specifically mentioned in the bill, so one could argue those aren't banned either, although the logical conclusion would be that only frames and lowers are banned, because you can't assemble an assault weapon without them ala CA ban. The intent to assemble an "assault weapon" after the ban goes into effect, with a big pile of parts owned by one person, is specifically outlined however. And there is no explanation as to how those parts could be differentiated between replacement parts for pre ban existing guns, or parts with the intent to build new firearms post ban. I would assume if you somehow acquired a stripped lower post ban somehow, that shows intent to build a new gun. A bunch of barrels and handguards you're swapping out on your lower you bought in 2019 is not assembling an assault weapon. It's really poorly outlined, again on purpose or out of ignorance.
Looking forward to the lawsuits and this stupid thing getting picked apart if signed into law.
The whole thing is unconstitutional not even worrying about parts.

 

[msgriff]

"The serialized one" was simply a reference to a lower receiver.

Can you make an AR-15 "assault weapon" without a lower?

The text of the Bill clearly states "part", which is singular, followed by ",or combination of parts", which is plural. "Part" (singular) means one and only one component, and no where in the bill does "serialized" quantify that singular part.

 

[monkeybutler]

The text of the Bill clearly states "part", which is singular, followed by ",or combination of parts", which is plural. "Part" (singular) means one and only one component, and no where in the bill does "serialized" quantify that singular part.

And what does that part or collection of parts do?

"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;"

2 Can I assemble an AR15 without a lower receiver?

3 If I have an AR before the ban, would any enumerated, forbidden features/parts added later convert it into an assault weapon? No, it always was an assault weapon, by definition of this bill.

 

[kurpak]

The text of the Bill clearly states "part", which is singular, followed by ",or combination of parts", which is plural. "Part" (singular) means one and only one component, and no where in the bill does "serialized" quantify that singular part.

This is where reading comprehension and interpreting the spirit of the bill language comes into play. You're reading it to literally without following through.
Explain how an assault weapon can be assembled from a single part, or combination of parts, not including a lower receiver. You can't. Therefore any single part, or combination of parts, that cannot be assembled into an assault weapon are therefore not banned by the aforementioned criteria. That's why this language is so stupid, because you could buy a stripped lower, and you still don't have a functioning assault weapon without a bunch of other parts.

 

[bcp]

...

3 If I have an AR before the ban, would any enumerated, forbidden features/parts added later convert it into an assault weapon? No, it always was an assault weapon, by definition of this bill.

That would make it assaultier.



Bruce

 

[drstrangelove]

Legally you already own an AW if you own the stripped serialized lower. Built out, it is no more nor less a serialized previously owned AW. I believe they are addressing owning parts constructively as it applies to 80% owners who haven't yet done the milling… and by doing so after the law is signed, would be creating a new AW. That is the ONLY interpretation I can come up with that is within the legal restraints this poorly written law.

What I'm curious about is what is the legal status of someone who uses a 80% AR frame to make a straight pull bolt action variant with no gas tube and a sealed up gas port?

 

[msgriff]

And what does that part or collection of parts do?

"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;"

2 Can I assemble an AR15 without a lower receiver?

3 If I have an AR before the ban, would any enumerated, forbidden features/parts added later convert it into an assault weapon? No, it always was an assault weapon, by definition of this bill.

This is where reading comprehension and interpreting the spirit of the bill language comes into play. You're reading it to literally without following through.
Explain how an assault weapon can be assembled from a single part, or combination of parts, not including a lower receiver. You can't. Therefore any single part, or combination of parts, that cannot be assembled into an assault weapon are therefore not banned by the aforementioned criteria. That's why this language is so stupid, because you could buy a stripped lower, and you still don't have a functioning assault weapon without a bunch of other parts.

There is no such thing as "spirit of the bill language", it is plainly written in the bill. The neo-liberals and ultra-Marxists in Washington will make no distinctions based on logic and reason. They will call it constructive intent, much the same as the BATFE treats a third hole in a lower without a stamp, even if you don't posses a FA FCG.

 

[monkeybutler]

 

[msgriff]

Quoted for posterity

 

[Yarome]

This is where reading comprehension and interpreting the spirit of the bill language comes into play. You're reading it to literally without following through.
Explain how an assault weapon can be assembled from a single part, or combination of parts, not including a lower receiver. You can't. Therefore any single part, or combination of parts, that cannot be assembled into an assault weapon are therefore not banned by the aforementioned criteria. That's why this language is so stupid, because you could buy a stripped lower, and you still don't have a functioning assault weapon without a bunch of other parts.

I would argue that he is trying to interpret the spirit of the law to mean what he wants it to mean. Reading it literally is what has gotten everyone all bothered and excited. By the plain text a single part can in fact be taken to constitute constructive possession.. if they (WA state) want it to.

Say... you own a firearm that isn't an "assault weapon" by their definition. Purchasing a threaded barrel to swap out in and of itself is not illegal, but possessing it can be since if you install it on a firearm that currently isn't an assault weapon... it will be converted to one.

Other examples might be installing a pistol grip on a straight stock firearm. Replacing a forend with a barrel shroud, slapping a vertical forward grip on a single shot hunting rifle, etc etc.

It makes common sense that buying a replacement barrel for an existing firearm is just that. A replacement part and isn't "converting" or "constructing" anything, however.... a threaded replacement barrel "could" be used to construct or convert a firearm into an "assault weapon"... so is it going to get you in trouble? The letter of the law says it can... beyond all common sense... but there you have it!

The attorneys and others intimately familiar with these things being touted as idiots are in fact using their professional training to interpret the exact letter of the law, as it is written, how it may affect you and may be argued in a court of law that might bind someone up.

What "some" people are trying to argue is... "They're stoopid. The laws stoopid. It makes no common sense so it can't mean what it says it means. I can come up with a specific situation that makes it even stoopider so that means the text of the law is moot. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is stoopid."

I would counter... it's pretty stoopid to ignore the text, intention of the authors and how it may be used against you. Understanding allows you to measure your own personal risk and make informed decisions. In the end, it all comes down to an individuals own choices and they are the only one that will be affected by it.

 

[monkeybutler]

Quoted for posterity

I really liked how you quoted me and the other but only responded to the other guy. So I will ask again: How do you make an AR15 assault weapon without a lower receiver?

 

[Yarome]

I really liked how you quoted me and the other but only responded to the other guy. So I will ask again: How do you make an AR15 assault weapon without a lower receiver?

That should have been a heads up. "Trolling brush-off".

 

[monkeybutler]

Oh okay following a point to conclusion through a discussion is trolling.

 

[Yarome]

Oh okay following a point to conclusion through a discussion is trolling.

Stated your opinion, asked, answered, restated, requestion pushing for combative controversy over a common sense topic.... yup. Kinda trolling. Beat yer donkey as much as you like, some people just choose to opt out of playing that game.

What can I say? It's not in their job description so not compelled to play.

 

[Diamondback]

Let's be real, D's always look for the most "creative" (read: "hostile to the enemy of the day") interpretation of law. Never forget, these are people who whack off to fantasies of going Kristallnacht on us like a kid who's just found his dad's stash of old Playboy mags.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consider with Bills , Laws , Restrictions and the like....

Maybe the vague wording , wrong terminology , broad blanket statements , etc....
Are all done intentionally so as to leave the Bill , Law , etc.. open to interpretation..
So as to sow discord as well as providing the legal tool for overreaching and abuse of power.

We see the discord in almost any thread on firearm laws , bans , restrictions , etc...Here on NWFA a pro firearm site.
Just imagine the harm this causes on other not so firearm friendly sites.
Andy

 

[monkeybutler]

Stated your opinion, asked, answered, restated, requestion pushing for combative controversy over a common sense topic.... yup. Kinda trolling. Beat yer donkey as much as you like, some people just choose to opt out of playing that game.

What can I say? It's not in their job description so not compelled to play.

Oh right common sense. Which is why you invoked lawyers in a previous post. Okay, well, enjoy. We'll see what happens with the law.

 

[Yarome]

Oh right common sense. Which is why you invoked lawyers in a previous post. Okay, well, enjoy. We'll see what happens with the law.

Context, buddy! The common sense topic remark was in response to your question.. as quoted in the post (that should have been a clue)....

How do you make an AR15 assault weapon without a lower receiver?

... not something random several posts back in a response to something not specically related to the post in question.

But way to cherry pick random post content to prove.... what exactly????

Your trolling meter's going up and not worth any more of my time. Carry on and enjoy your Sunday!

 

[Yarome]

Something to consider with Bills , Laws , Restrictions and the like....

Maybe the vague wording , wrong terminology , broad blanket statements , etc....
Are all done intentionally so as to leave the Bill , Law , etc.. open to interpretation..
So as to sow discord as well as providing the legal tool for overreaching and abuse of power.

Fully agree! We've seen it enough that there is no wonder it creates a bit of paranoia trying to figure out exactly what the real intent is and how we might be getting screwed even further that may not be readily apparent.

From a lawmakers perspective, it's a sound practice to leave yourself some latitude in order to adapt to issues that might have not been considered at the time of it's drafting. I get that. More often than not though, it works the other way. Adapting the law to further infringe as new more restrictive political policies come into play rather than in response to unforseen "loopholes".