SBR in WA

[waltermitty]

No. Form 1 has nothing to do with manufacturing. Its making and registering... Which is much different. You need to be licensed to manufacture guns. Iirc manufacture use a Form 2.

Yet Form 1 is exactly the required form I use to manufacture a sound suppressor and not a Form 2. Tech Branch has not required that I be licensed as a FFL SOT Class 2.

So what is the foundation for having arrived at such a conclusion?

 

[Redtazdog]

ac·quire (ə-kwīr′)
tr.v. ac·quired, ac·quir·ing, ac·quires
1. To gain possession of: acquire 100 shares of stock.
2. To get by one's own efforts: acquire proficiency in math.
3. To gain through experience; come by: acquired a growing dislike of television sitcoms.
4. To locate (a moving object) with a tracking system, such as radar
.
You cant acquier a SBR receiver out of a block of aluminum but you can acquier it from a dealer after its been made via Form 4.
On the Form 1 Line A4 they ask who is the manufacture for that NFA item and that would be you, but because you don't have the license to manufacture with this form 1 you will be the maker .
Nothing about acquiered is making or manufacturing like with a Form 1
But its is with A Form 4
Form 1 is to make/manufacture the NfA item
Form 4 is to Acquier after its been made by a manufacture

 

[jekbrown]

Yet Form 1 is exactly the required form I use to manufacture a sound suppressor and not a Form 2. Tech Branch has not required that I be licensed as a FFL SOT Class 2.

So what is the foundation for having arrived at such a conclusion?

I think you missed the use of the word GUNS...

 

[jekbrown]

.
You cant acquier a SBR receiver out of a block of aluminum but you can acquier it from a dealer after its been made via Form 4.
On the Form 1 Line A4 they ask who is the manufacture for that NFA item and that would be you, but because you don't have the license to manufacture with this form 1 you will be the maker .
Nothing about acquiered is making or manufacturing like with a Form 1
But its is with A Form 4
Form 1 is to make/manufacture the NfA item
Form 4 is to Acquier after its been made by a manufacture

Acquiring does not = buying... that is the confusion here. You can acquire debt... experience... property etc all without buying it. Something does not have to exist prior to acquisition either (like experience). If you have a pistol and want to acquire an SBR you apply to make one, the atf registers it, you receive approval to proceed, and then you make the SBR and THEN you've taken possession (acquire) of the recently/previously registered SBR. You can't take possession of an SBR prior to it being registered when you use a form 1.

All that wa law requires is the sbr be registered prior to acquisition... And with a form 1, used in the SBR making scenario above, it ALWAYS is. To take possession prior to it being registered is a federal crime, no? You can't just apply and attach the stock to your pistol. Federally approved registration happens first, then acquisition second.

 

[waltermitty]

Yet Form 1 is exactly the required form I use to manufacture a sound suppressor and not a Form 2. Tech Branch has not required that I be licensed as a FFL SOT Class 2.

So what is the foundation for having arrived at such a conclusion?

I think you missed the use of the word GUNS...

uhm.... sorry. but a silencer IS legally a firearm

 

[jekbrown]

Maybe... but I still said gun. If you are going to manufacture a gun (that will ever be transferred to another person) you need a license, not a form 1.

 

[telero]

There is no maybe, its yes or no and as long as you have a pistol lower you can build as many short barrel uppers you want.

It could depend on how the person interpreting the " any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle" statement. We all know that a short AR barrel could be used to make a pistol or an SBR. But if you acquired a short barrel and your stated intent was to only make an SBR with it, that could be argued as contraband.

No. Form 1 has nothing to do with manufacturing. Its making and registering... Which is much different. You need to be licensed to manufacture guns. Iirc manufacture use a Form 2.

Your comparing state to federal law. Federally, a form 1 is for non-licensees to make a single item. Manufacturing requires an FFL and SOT. State law though, do they define make vs. manufacture? Dictionary definition is that making something is assembly, and manufacture is making on a large scale. But "it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any short-barreled rifle" seems to imply that an individual can manufacture a single item. Again, federally it might be considered a non-licensee making an item, but the state might consider it a single item being manufactured.

Legally "acquire" means to take possession. Taking possession occurs days after the ATF has registered your SBR. You cannot take possession until after the atf has registered an sbr. Therefore, the current law, with its current language, allows us to acquire SBR via form 1. It's legal to possess, transfer, and acquire. 1 and 3, and compliance with nfa law, is all we need. We don't need a permission slip from the damn AG!

This is what I hope is true for all of you in WA.

 

[telero]

Maybe... but I still said gun. If you are going to manufacture a gun (that will ever be transferred to another person) you need a license, not a form 1.

That's no true. An NFA firearm that is made/registered on a Form 1 can be transferred to another on a Form 4. You don't need to be a licensed manufacturer, but if you do very many, ATF may have something to say about that. Even for non-NFA firearms, you can transfer a homemade to someone else, but you are supposed to include all the markings a manufacturer would normally apply. Quantity limits (arbitrarily set by ATF?) still apply.

 

[jekbrown]

My guess is that the number is arbitrary but if you are manufacturing and selling as a business concern the number is 1.

 

[waltermitty]

Maybe... but I still said gun. If you are going to manufacture a gun (that will ever be transferred to another person) you need a license, not a form 1.

you may have a point of view, or an argument, but you're parsing words and attempting to pass them off as something which has legal merit, when in fact, it's just your own, personal dictionary.

 

[jekbrown]

Not really... my argument has nothing to do with manufacturing. It was an ancillary comment. I see no debunking occurring in which the actual state law wording is referenced. State law says it is lawful to possess and to acquire IF the SBR is registered (check) AND was acquired in accordance with federal law. Not bought...acquired. If you really pay attention to the "ands and ors" and you use the actual definition of acquire, as opposed to inferring that it means "purchase", there is no reason that form 1 / making an SBR is not legal under this bill.

 

[Dogfish]

No. Form 1 has nothing to do with manufacturing. Its making and registering... Which is much different. You need to be licensed to manufacture guns. Iirc manufacture use a Form 2.

Legally "acquire" means to take possession. Taking possession occurs days after the ATF has registered your SBR. You cannot take possession until after the atf has registered an sbr. Therefore, the current law, with its current language, allows us to acquire SBR via form 1. It's legal to possess, transfer, and acquire. 1 and 3, and compliance with nfa law, is all we need. We don't need a permission slip from the damn AG!

Again, you are welcome to your opinion on this matter, but it is being checked out at the moment by the folks who are actually charged with interpretting and enforcing the laws.

 

[jekbrown]

It's not my opinion... it's what the law says. I'd very much like the people who are "checking" to explain exactly what they are checking. Just saying "i'm not sure it's legal" isn't an argument. How could it not be? There is a temporal aspect to the law, "registered" is past tense...and that makes perfect sense because you have to register with the atf prior to making an SBR via form 1. Making it prior to registration is illegal. You can't start making it until after it's registered. Therefore the past tense of register is fine.

 

[Redtazdog]

This entire argument is the reason the Bill needs more language as its not clear, has some grey in it like many
other laws.
We all just proved it needs better language so there is no doubt what can or can not be done.
There is other forums that are having the same debate and waiting for a answer from the Bill/law makers too.

 

[slickx45]

Yes my intent is to make a SBR legally but if we are not able to well guess that is not going to happen. In that case well guess we will have to buy one already manufactured and form 4 it.

Oh and I am sure I am not the only one who wants to build one

Spectra, you are in extremely dangerous territory! Anyone who is in possession of the parts to make a SBR can be charged with constructive intent (look it up, I did). It is a sketchy area, but in the current Federal climate, I wouldn't take any chances. It's not like you are the AG and can get away with violating gun laws!

 

[Nwcid]

Spectra, you are in extremely dangerous territory! Anyone who is in possession of the parts to make a SBR can be charged with constructive intent (look it up, I did). It is a sketchy area, but in the current Federal climate, I wouldn't take any chances. It's not like you are the AG and can get away with violating gun laws!

He is NOT in dangerous territory. Exactly what does he have and how does that make it dangerous?

I have all the parts to make several SBR and I am at NO risk.

The key part you missed is if he has parts that can ONLY be used in making an SBR. All SBR parts I am aware of have legal use in non NFA applications.......

 

[slickx45]

He is NOT in dangerous territory. Exactly what does he have and how does that make it dangerous?

I have all the parts to make several SBR and I am at NO risk.

The key part you missed is if he has parts that can ONLY be used in making an SBR. All SBR parts I am aware of have legal use in non NFA applications.......

In his original post he did not specify what parts he has and maybe I misunderstood his post.

My understanding of the issue of "constructive intent" is that if you have the ability to construct an unregistered SBR you can be charged as such. The advice I was given was to ensure that if you have, for example, an upper with a barrel that measures less than 16" then you'd better have a lower receiver that is registered as a pistol . If he has a complete AR and let's say bought a short upper (completely legal in and of itself) with the idea that he would some day register it as a SBR but he did not have a pistol lower, then he could be in jeopardy at that point. If he currently owns both an AR rifle and an AR pistol then that would make it a different situation.

Again, with the current climate in the other Washington, I would tread very carefully when it comes to matter of legality with firearms.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I knew a fellow who had the M-16 FCG and FA bolt but no stamp; he spent several years in prison even though the parts were not assembled. We were in a full auto state, too.
That made me favor getting the stamp before the parts.

 

[Nwcid]

I knew a fellow who had the M-16 FCG and FA bolt but no stamp; he spent several years in prison even though the parts were not assembled. We were in a full auto state, too.
That made me favor getting the stamp before the parts.

The bolt was not the problem since it can be used in ANY AR.

The problem was the FCG. There is NO legal use for those items unless you have a legal registered gun for it.

Here is the WA law that covers it,

RCW 9.41.220
Unlawful firearms and parts contraband.
All machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles, or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, illegally held or illegally possessed are hereby declared to be contraband, and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found.

 

[telero]

That was my concern with the original post saying he had started gathering parts for an SBR. Who/what determines what a "part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use" is (in this case for an SBR)? Manufacturer description, industry standard, ATF or state prosecutor? Or the stated intent by the person?