Washington On HB 1240 (2023)

[44Brent]

If you want to see the future of this bill, look at all the lawsuits filed in Illinois state courts and the federal courts. There was a separate lawsuit filed solely to deal with bans on parts. The state was ordered by a judge to produce illustrations of everything banned, and that turned into a big spaghetti mess for them to try to show what was banned. Gun rights lawyers consider that to be a bonanza for the plaintiffs as the state is challenged to actually show what they are banning. If you want more details on how this issue is playing out in the courts in favor of plaintiffs, watch this channel: https://m.youtube.com/@freedomssteel3746/videos

 

[Cotton]

It really helps if folks read and understand the bill before commenting on it.

I found this thread to stomp my feet and complain, not act like a rational adult. Sheesh

 

[kurpak]

If you want to see the future of this bill, look at all the lawsuits filed in Illinois state courts and the federal courts. There was a separate lawsuit filed solely to deal with bans on parts. The state was ordered by a judge to produce illustrations of everything banned, and that turned into a big spaghetti mess for them to try to show what was banned. Gun rights lawyers consider that to be a bonanza for the plaintiffs as the state is challenged to actually show what they are banning. If you want more details on how this issue is playing out in the courts in favor of plaintiffs, watch this channel: https://m.youtube.com/@freedomssteel3746/videos

The IL ban language is nearly identical to the WA bill. I'm still arguing the way it's worded doesn't ban any parts at all. It bans conversion kits, parts, or combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled. The key phrase is "from which". A so called "assault weapon" cannot be assembled from "A" part, or from "some parts", an "assault weapon" can only be assembled from all the parts. If you buy a whole bunch of parts online you can't assemble an "assault weapon" if you don't have all of the key functioning components, and even then there's no guarantee you'll have a functioning firearm, so none of the parts individually can be classified as an "assault weapon" or banned, because as IL is finding out, it's a spaghetti mess of ridiculousness trying to criminalize through vague language trade in plastic and metal inert parts. What they're really trying to do is have their cake and eat it too, trying to ban intent, while simultaneously showing ignorance of the retail AR part industry, and how these things are actually put together and function. The dizzying array of aftermarket AR parts widely available combined with the lack of market awareness the bill authors posses in these matters will be their undoing. They specifically outline in the later sections features of centerfire rifles that are banned, but again those are in their completed assembled form, not the parts individually on their own. Akin to how 1639 only affected completed retail rifles, not stripped lowers. It's almost like they know they can't ban the parts, so they're creating language to throw a wet blanket over the entire industry in the state and restrict trade through perception and legalese nonsense. Release the lawyers!!

 

[monkeybutler]

If you were to purchase an AR lower after that carp became law, what would you expect or intend to do with it? Bake a cake?

Once the gunbanweenies figure out what a lower receiver is, they will go nuts about constructive intent. And then things start to suck even more.

 

[bradsteen]

If you were to purchase an AR lower after that carp became law, what would you expect or intend to do with it? Bake a cake?

Once the gunbanweenies figure out what a lower receiver is, they will go nuts about constructive intent. And then things start to suck even more.

Well, legally you couldn't. The law bans the AR15 platform in all of its forms. So lower receivers would be out.

 

[monkeybutler]

They don't transfer as "AR15 receivers."

 

[bradsteen]

They don't transfer as "AR15 receivers."

*shrug* Guess it'll be up to the FFL to play that game or not. We've had a few willing to stand up and take the legal heat, maybe others will follow suit. But with the anti-FFL bill that is also in the pipeline, no idea how many will be able to do so without completely losing their shirts.

 

[monkeybutler]

Right. It's effectively going to cornhole that option.

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Surely a lower can be used for other guns? I thought there was a bolt action or something out there that uses it? Or maybe a homemade gun that doesn't use any of their banned stuff? All you need is one non AR example.

 

[micdude]

There's no way to ban the parts form assembly I'm not worried as long as you own the federally regulated part before the ban you are good

 

[bigezfosheez]

So what's going to happen to my suppressornthat I ordered in October if this law gets passed before then?

Am I just out $1000 with my suppressor in indefinite limbo?

 

[monkeybutler]

So what's going to happen to my suppressornthat I ordered in October if this law gets passed before then?

Am I just out $1000 with my suppressor in indefinite limbo?

Here's the text of the bill.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1240-S.pdf#page=1

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So what's going to happen to my suppressornthat I ordered in October if this law gets passed before then?

Am I just out $1000 with my suppressor in indefinite limbo?

Does not ban suppressors. Bans semi auto rifles and pistols that have threaded barrels or use muzzles devices.

 

[kurpak]

This exactly. It doesn't ban parts either, if it did it would have to list them all out individually with much more detailed descriptions and criteria like the manufactured rifle list. The bill is banning assembled "assault weapons" that are specifically on the list, or with the features listed in the later sections. Nowhere does it ban any type of part individually. People are just assuming everything is banned without reading and interpreting the bill text. Unfortunately sellers of these parts will just avoid selling to WA because they don't want to even bother with the potential liability, not what the bill actually says. Which is what I think they're ultimately trying to do, discourage and muddy the whole issue by vague language without having to do the impossible task of categorizing every possible permutation of parts, that on their own aren't firearms and they have no way to ban. Just like the braced pistol rule, braces are not banned or illegal. Putting a brace on a firearm with a barrel shorter than 16" is because they think braces are stocks. If you have an existing "assault weapon", and buy some parts and swap them out, you're not assembling an "assault weapon", it's already assembled. They're trying to ban new "assault weapons" from being created with the parts\combination of parts language. At least I think that's what they mean, but the lawsuits will attack this language if this garbage gets passed.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Good projected schedule for last day to buy a semi auto here:


From this video:

Too bad there are so many of exactly the same thread (I think there are 6 now), so this will only reach some members and the other five threads will ask the same question probably.

One thing to keep in mind though is that in the Illinois bait and switch debacle the gov signed the following day. So don't be surprised if bill is signed the day after senate vote, which would move all the dates back accordingly.

And also, BUY BUY BUY! And give to GOA, SAF, and others fighting this.

 

[GrayGoose]

Sure glad the criminals and gangbangers will comply with this.

 

[bradsteen]

 

[monkeybutler]

Well, there's someone I won't be listening to again.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

That's a whole lot of speculation in that video.

Kind of reminds me of this video below which was just all speculation and turned out to be 100% wrong. Seems like a lawyer should know better. I don't question his intention and many of his videos are very helpful but it makes me very wary to listen to what he has to say.