Washington Just wow. Washington Is About To Ban EVERYTHING!

[Andy54Hawken]

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.

Yep.
I am tried of getting screwed without even a kiss first....
Oops....maybe I posted this in wrong forum...
Andy

 

[Yarome]

Yep.
I am tried of getting screwed without even a kiss first....
Oops....maybe I posted this in wrong forum...
Andy

Confusing prepper'n'grinder again are ya?


Too much?

 

[P7M13]

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.

Aaannnnddd, with that and your follow-up, betcha a beer you'll be ignored. I second your interpretation of "trolling brush-off".
I used to dislike the ignore feature on NWFA, but once MB ignored me, I found the forum much more enjoyable.

 

[drstrangelove]

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?

The serialized FFL-transferred AR15 lower receiver is, legally, an "AR15 in all its forms", so if you already own that before 1240, there will be not problem doing what you want with it. You are not retrofitting a non AW into an AW.

Now say you already have a Glock 19 and want to put a threaded barrel on it… that WOULD be converting a nonAW into an AW. Need to have that TB before the ink dries. Good luck proving the when if you paid cash.

You cannot have a featureless AR that is not an AW, because the frame is defined as such already. As I mention before, I don't even think building your frame into a pump action AR would meet nonAW status because the frame is already the AW In "all its forms".

I'm no attorney, but that's how I interpret what I've read, and frankly, as long as you don't do something stupid with you gun, like commit a felony, or even worse, register it, you should enjoy your gun and stop worrying. When it's time to sell, list it for out of state sale, or bequeath it.

For the record, I'm a FUDD and don't own any evil black fully semiautomatic rifles. Had one once and sold it pre 594 when it hurt my shoulder to shoot it. It was a high power 223 and had too many bullets in the clipazine.

 

[Yarome]

The serialized FFL-transferred AR15 lower receiver is, legally, an "AR15 in all its forms"

It is legally a "firearm", but it's not by default an "assault weapon". For legal purposes, "AR15" and "assault weapon" are not interchangeable. Your firearm must meet the definition requirements. That's what we're talking about here though. The law being an "assault weapon" law... not a "firearm" definition law.

Replacement parts are the gray area but the proposed law has no clarification, or more importantly, distinction between prohibited to possess parts or under what conditions they may be exempt from prosecution.

 

[drstrangelove]

It is legally a "firearm", but it's not by default an "assault weapon". For legal purposes, "AR15" and "assault weapon" are not interchangeable. Your firearm must meet the definition requirements. That's what we're talking about here though. The law being an "assault weapon" law... not a "firearm" definition law.

Replacement parts are the gray area but the proposed law has no clarification, or more importantly, distinction between prohibited to possess parts or under what conditions they may be exempt from prosecution.

I would have you test your theory by trying to purchase/transfer an AR15 frame at an FFL in WA after the ink dries. Please post your experience.

 

[Martini_Up]

"tyranny amok and I whimper from my cozy couch…".

 

[Yarome]

I would have you test your theory but trying to purchase/transfer an AR15 frame at an FFL in WA after the ink dries. Please post your experience.

How/where exactly did you read into it that I said an AR receiver wouldnt be considered a firearm and wouldn't be impacted by the new law???

I'll wait......


Hint: You're talking about legal definition of an AR receiver vs. classification requirements under the new law and lumping them together as if they are one and the same and interchangeable. That has nothing to do with the legality of purchasing an AR type receiver after the law is enacted.

 

[Yarome]

Aaannnnddd, with that and your follow-up, betcha a beer you'll be ignored.

You win!

Troll then ignore the ones that won't follow the rules to your game, I guess. That means I won a prize too!!

 

[40man]

It is legally a "firearm", but it's not by default an "assault weapon". For legal purposes, "AR15" and "assault weapon" are not interchangeable. Your firearm must meet the definition requirements. That's what we're talking about here though. The law being an "assault weapon" law... not a "firearm" definition law.

Replacement parts are the gray area but the proposed law has no clarification, or more importantly, distinction between prohibited to possess parts or under what conditions they may be exempt from prosecution.

Actually, the bill defines an AR-15 as an assault weapon.

 

[Yarome]

Actually, the bill defines an AR-15 as an assault weapon.

Yup. It does. AR15's are classified as assault weapons. Does the bill change the legal definition of a lower receiver, a "firearm", into an "AR15"? What does it say on your 4473 when you buy one?

By WA states own definition, a receiver is just a "firearm" and has never been subject to their mandatory waiting periods. Begging the question... if a receiver is not defined as an AR15 until it is built/assembled then does the law classifying AR15's illegal apply? Does the pre enactment grandfathering clause apply? Some of the characteristics do fall into the parts category of items that may be used to construct an AW, but I don't know if you can call it possession of a grandfathered assault weapon if it hasn't been built/assembled yet... and especially if you don't even have the parts for it yet. Those parts aquired after enactment certainly might fall within constructive possession.

 

[GrayGoose]

....blahblahblah...
You cannot have... blahblahblah...

No, they can just eat a big bag of dicks!

 

[Diamondback]

No, they can just eat a big bag of dicks!

While being gangraped by giant syphilitic porcupines.

 

[FourTeeFive]

I was surprised that the folks at Skagit Arms in Burlington, WA, the largest gun store in the Skagit and Whatcom county area, said that ALL parts are going to be banned and they are not going to stock any AR parts of any sort. Seemed like an odd interpretation to me.

 

[Nosferatu]

I was surprised that the folks at Skagit Arms in Burlington, WA, the largest gun store in the Skagit and Whatcom county area, said that ALL parts are going to be banned and they are not going to stock any AR parts of any sort. Seemed like an odd interpretation to me.

I'm afraid that's going to be the reaction of national retailers as well. It's just easier to engage in prohibition than figure out what's actually legal.

 

[FourTeeFive]

I'm afraid that's going to be the reaction of national retailers as well. It's just easier to engage in prohibition than figure out what's actually legal.

The flip side is that some internet sellers are just saying FFL items for now and are still shipping all other parts.

 

[monkeybutler]

PSA has apparently hired a lawyer who can read English competently.

 

[msgriff]

PSA has apparently hired a lawyer who can read English competently.

I believe that your statements regarding Palmetto State Armory are misleading, at best.



Cut and paste from the link below:

"Washington State
We are monitoring HB 1240 Bill and how it will impact future sales. We will prioritize shipment for all Serialized Orders made before Midnight (EST), Thursday April 13th, 2023."

PSA shipping restrictions - WA

 

[monkeybutler]

OMFG Did you happen to notice that one of those statements has been updated and another has not?

Hey did you figure out how to build that AR without a lower yet?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

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.

Re purchasing a lower by itself. Seems to me that if there is an example of a bolt gun or single shot or whatever that uses an AR lower, and none of the other banned features such as flash hider, then lowers could be purchased legally. It would be a part that the buyer intends to build a WA-legal gun with.