SBR in WA

[Glockenspiel]

Why ask for a letter from the AG? We will be legal to possess in a few days. The only reason to deny per the form is if we cannot possess. As for the silly debate whether we can or cannot manufacture, the simple answer is NO. Read the law, we cannot manufacture SBR's inWASHINGTON! But that does not stop anyone from driving across the border into Oregon to "make" our SBR's. Just make sure you have your permission slip from BATFE to take your baby across state lines.

From BATFE NFA handbook:

Section 6.4 Approval of Form 1. Non-FFL/SOT's may seek approval to manufacture an NFA firearm (e.g., short-barreled rifles, short-barreled, shotguns, wallet guns, etc.) via submission of an ATF Form 1. Upon receipt of the completed Form 1, ATF will process the application and, if approved, a tax stamp will be affixed to the original of the form and the approved application will be returned to the applicant. Approval by ATF will effect registration of the firearm to the applicant. Upon receipt of the approved application, the applicant may make the firearm described on the approved Form 1. The approved form must be retained by the applicant and made available at all times for inspection by ATF officers or investigators. Note: Under no circumstances may the firearm in question be made prior to receipt of the approved Form 1.

The approval of the Form 1 application authorizes the applicant to make the firearm. The approval does not authorize the applicant to convey or ship the firearm to another person to manufacture the NFA firearm. If another person will manufacture the NFA firearm, the other person would be the maker and the application must be submitted by that person. Subsequent to the making, the firearm could then be transferred, subsequent to an approved Form 4 application, to the person who wanted the modification to be made.

If the applicant on the Form 1 lacks the skill, ability, and/or equipment to manufacture the NFA firearm, the applicant, after receipt of the approved Form 1, can have the firearm created or modified at a premises other than shown on the approved Form 1 as long as the creation or modification was done under the direct oversight of the applicant, thus having the applicant retain custody and control of the firearm. If the location is outside the applicant's State and the firearm being made is a short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, destructive device, or an unserviceable machinegun which is being reactivated, the applicant will also need to request permission to transport the firearm interstate as required by 27 CFR 478.28.

 

[jekbrown]

That may be an option, but I still believe an individual can make an SBR in WA. The Form 1 is to "make and register a firearm". It says so right at the top. Form 1 also says, right on the definitions page, what "make" means:

The term "make", and the various derivatives of such word,
shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in
such business under the NFA) , putting together, altering, any
combination of these, or otherwise producing a fiream.

This clearly suggests that you can make an SBR via means other than manufacturing. Otherwise, they would just use the word manufacturing and skip make/making/maker all together. Manufacturing is different. Popping one upper off of an AR and putting a different one on is not the same as manufacturing...if it was you'd have to do all the things required of a manufacturer when they manufacture guns. Licensing, reporting, blah blah blah. Based on everything I have read from the ATF, manufacturing is intimately linked to the sale or commercial modification of what the ATF considers to be "a firearm". They even refer to people who 'manufacture' a rifle for their own personal use as a "maker"...not a manufacturer. At other times they contradict themselves. In any event, in WA on 6/12/14 it will be legal to "acquire" SBRs, so long as that acquisition is registered in compliance with federal law. Form 1 is a means of acquiring a registered SBR.

Text of the bill...with bold added for emphasis:

(1)Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; 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; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

(2) It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Does subsection 1 say manufacturing is illegal? Yes, it also says possession is illegal. No problem. The key to the entire sentence is "except as otherwise provided in this section". Note that subsection 2 uses the word "acquire"...and NOT "buy" as is used in subsection 1. Acquire = "take possession" in legal terms. It doesn't mean buy. If it did, they would have used buy...again. How can you legally, per the NFA, acquire an SBR? There are only two ways. 1: to transfer it. 2: to make it. #1 is specifically mentioned in subsection 2, and as a result it can't be the reason for using the word "acquire". The only method left is via making / Form 1. That is ALL that "acquire" could be referring to. There is literally no other legal means of acquiring, that aren't transferring. If acquiring isn't a reference to making, what is it a reference to?!

The legislative notes also specifically mention making SBRs, and they do not refer to it there as manufacturing...

Under the NFA, people may make their own NFA firearm by applying to ATF and meeting certain requirements. These requirements include obtaining prior approval and registration of the item, obtaining a certification from the chief of the local law enforcement agency, undergoing a background check, and paying a $200 tax on the item.

It would have been a lot cleaner to just strike all references to SBRs in state law....but the current law, which goes into effect on 6/12, allows for 'making' according to the letter of the law. The AG/BATFE may, and they often do, hoist wacky interpretations of laws upon us...threatening us with prison time if we don't bow down to their interpretation...but the fact remains, the text allows for it and anything they do to the contrary will be just that, contrary to the text and intent.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I agree with jek, this is certainly not the first -nor only- poorly written statute in the RCW's.

Disagree that it's a "silly debate". It is relevant and important, how BATFE will interpret and the courts will rule on the acquiring by manufacturing issue.

In point of fact, we were dealing with another badly written statute earlier this week when serving a summons on a difficult defendant; what it came down to was the general knowledge of what the legislature intended, rather than what they wrote.

 

[jekbrown]

It's also worth noting that the atf regularly approves form 1s for Washingtonians that want to make suppressors. In the language of the suppressor bill, the only thing it formally authorizes is possession if legally registered. No transferring, no making, no manufacturing... and yet form 1s get approved by the BATFE. Interesting...

 

[Glockenspiel]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Asking a democrat AG for an answer to a gun question you don't know the answer to is crazy talk IMO. We will get our form 1's approved because BATFE only cares about whether one can possess, this I am confident. Whether you MAY commit a crime in the process of making one is not really their problem. Hence, why I posted BATFE rule on making NFA item out of state. Step 1-get form 1. Step 2- get permission from BATFE to take approved SBR to a friendly state. Step 3-build/make/assemble whatever you got approved to make. Step 4-come home with newly acquired SBR. Oregon and Idaho should thank our lazy legislators for omitting making language because now I will be spending money in those states for my form 1 SBR's. The solution is simple, build in Oregon.

 

[jekbrown]

actually, you were plenty clear, I just stopped reading after you said 'read the bill, it's illegal in WA". Having adjusted myself, your line of reasoning certainly makes sense. I suppose that also explains the issuance of Form 1s for suppressors to, even though making/manufacturing isn't listed as being legal in state law. Possession is, and that's all the ATF cares about. Niiiice. Checks are already written. $600 (plus the form 1s, 922 compliance, and trust docs, all in duplicate) going out FIRST THING on Thursday morning. 8:00:01AM baby. Can't wait. I never have been, nor will I ever be again, this happy about sending the federal government money!

 

[Dogfish]

Good luck.

 

[PDXSparky]

Actually, I believe that wait times have trended downwards recently. Even if they aren't the longer you wait to submit the paperwork, or efile, the longer you will have to wait overall.

 

[jekbrown]

Moar good news from the NFA Handbook:

§ 5845 Definitions.

(i) Make. The term 'make', and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.

(m) Manufacturer. The term 'manufacturer' means any person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms.

Good thing I'm not in the business of manufacturing firearms! Form 1, w00000t!

 

[Fumes]

Jek if yours work , you know I'll be next, all so I can pay $400 for. $200 stock...

 

[jekbrown]

Yeppers. Dude on arfcom called the NFA branch today, person on the other end said Form 4 and Form 1 are allowed. Yes, I know it means nothing legally....but it's a good sign IMO that specialists at the NFA branch believe all is good in WA law...

 

[Modeler]

Actually, I believe that wait times have trended downwards recently. Even if they aren't the longer you wait to submit the paperwork, or efile, the longer you will have to wait overall.

Yep! My last paper Form 4 took a little over 7 months, which is better than the 10-11 months it was at this time last year. Of course, with all you guys flooding our shared examiner with Form 1's it may slow down again

 

[jekbrown]

Michigan legalized both SBR and SBS at the end of March....and they love their guns out there. They don't call it Militiagan for nuttin'. Add in the flood from the state of WA...and I dunno if stamp wait times that people are getting now (ie that were submitted in 2013) are indicative of what we are going to be facing now. I'm predicting 1 full year. If it takes less, I'll just be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Glockenspiel]

It appears the first SBR form 1 was approved per NFAtracker. One should note that in spite of what the Feds call "manufacturing" state law is likely much more broad, and will not require you to make such devices for a living to qualify as manufacturing for state law purposes. Translation: if you are in a jurisdiction where the county prosecutor hates guns (Kitsap) you better build/chop/whatever your SBR in a state other than WA and have pictures to prove it just to be safe.

Put another way, no one is going to believe your story that you only "assembled" the SBR but didn't manufacture it, despite your name being engraved on the gun. A trip to Portland or Post Falls is tax loss penalty to WA for passing the current iteration of the RCW.

 

[Diatribe]

I just got my permission slip from the ATF to transfer my SBRs from Oregon to my home here in WA. Once I get back from vacation I'll make a quick trip to Portland to fetch them. Micro Galil, B&T TP9 and SBR'ed AR lower come to daddy. Woot!

 

[coctailer]

I've been selling Colt SBRs as fast as they come in.

Wait times are at 8 months right now for my Form 4s.

Still have 6921, 6943, and 6945CQBs landing regularly, so the form 3s are even going faster at 30 days.

 

[jekbrown]

It appears the first SBR form 1 was approved per NFAtracker.

I suppose anything is possible, but unless you have pictures/video of the head guy at ATF with a goat, I doubt you can get a Form 1 approved in a month and a half....

Unless someone submitted a form in anticipation that the bill would pass and the ATF didn't care about the whole "you can't sign a form 1 until AFTER the bill becomes law, because if you do you're making a false claim on a federal document and the cat stompers will come kill you!!!!!"

***edit***

Says they e-filed on 3/14. I dunno...that's still pretty damn fast, and the law definitely wasn't in effect at that time. Apparently the ATF isn't as anal about all of these things as some would have us believe.

Now I feel like a big dummy for patiently waiting for 6/12!

 

[Glockenspiel]

That's alright. I ordered my sbr 10 minutes after the gov signed, but feel equally stupid for not efiling my form 1. I filed prior to june as well, because atf only cares about possession as of approval date.

 

[Topper]

as posted on other sites, there have been more confirmed WA form 1 approvals!

Not only that, but the form 1 wait time just dropped considerably cause the ATF just started approving eforms submitted when the system came up on 6/24. Which means I could have my own form 1's approved in a week or so!!!

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Well that settles the SBR manufacturing question, seems like.