Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 12
- Reactions
- 13
Okay, I tried searching for a bit, and didn't find anything...but if this has already been discussed I apologize in advance.
Since 1639 was introduced, I have been under the impression that the only difference between a SAR purchase and a Pistol purchase is the $18 fee. However, I've recently been challenged on this, with someone telling me there is a mandatory 10 day hold...regardless of whether the application has been approved by the local PD. I've read the law, and I don't come to the same conclusion. The below is my analysis...which of course means precisely crap, but wanted to share it anyway--and ask for comments.
RCW 9.41.090(2) provides that no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser thereof until:
While .092 is more restrictive than .090, it should be considered that the purpose of .090 is to cover the delivery while .092 is to provide a time limit on the hold. It is interesting that in the drafting of the language of .092, they included an earlier of statement for pistols, but not for semi-automatic assault rifles. However, I would propose that given the earlier of inclusion in .090, the inclusion of such in .092 related to pistols is redundant. In any case, I believe that if RCW 9.41.090(2)(b) applies RCW 9.41.092(2) would be irrelevant.
Would love to hear your thoughts, or if you have found anything authoritative out there, besides a dealer saying so...or a random website saying so.
Thanks,
Ryan
Since 1639 was introduced, I have been under the impression that the only difference between a SAR purchase and a Pistol purchase is the $18 fee. However, I've recently been challenged on this, with someone telling me there is a mandatory 10 day hold...regardless of whether the application has been approved by the local PD. I've read the law, and I don't come to the same conclusion. The below is my analysis...which of course means precisely crap, but wanted to share it anyway--and ask for comments.
RCW 9.41.090(2) provides that no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser thereof until:
- the purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that, is appropriately sponsored and covers the minimum training requirements. AND
- The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided in subsection (3)(b) of this section; OR
- The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been satisfied.
While .092 is more restrictive than .090, it should be considered that the purpose of .090 is to cover the delivery while .092 is to provide a time limit on the hold. It is interesting that in the drafting of the language of .092, they included an earlier of statement for pistols, but not for semi-automatic assault rifles. However, I would propose that given the earlier of inclusion in .090, the inclusion of such in .092 related to pistols is redundant. In any case, I believe that if RCW 9.41.090(2)(b) applies RCW 9.41.092(2) would be irrelevant.
Would love to hear your thoughts, or if you have found anything authoritative out there, besides a dealer saying so...or a random website saying so.
Thanks,
Ryan
Last Edited: