Washington Senate Bill 5061 "Untraceable" Firearms Ban.

[rupey7]

Its wording leads to either or. If the poly lower doesn't pass the metal detector test equal to 3.7 ounces of stainless that's it. Doesn't matter about the magnetometer because it fails at the metal detector.
Unless I'm missing something else.

 

[awshoot]

Its wording leads to either or. If the poly lower doesn't pass the metal detector test equal to 3.7 ounces of stainless that's it. Doesn't matter about the magnetometer because it fails at the metal detector.
Unless I'm missing something else.

I think you are thinking of of the logical xor: Exclusive or - Wikipedia -- useful in programming computers but unless the legislature writes something suggesting xor, I think that means the usual kind of "or". So the way I read this is:

(A) A firearm (meaning the whole enchilada, barrel, bolt, etc. etc.) is undetectable if it won't set off a metal detector like 3.7 oz of stainless would,
OR
(B) A firearm is undetectable if any one of the following parts does not show up clearly on X-ray machines: barrel, or slide/cylinder, or frame/receiver.
​

EDIT: In fact, you raise an interesting question and I can see your point. I'm reading it as: if A or B is true, including the case where A and B are true=trouble . Your reading is that A and B must both be true. My gut feeling is that the legislature would use "and" in that case. I could be wrong though.

EDIT2: On more careful reading, I think I misunderstood what you said. I would agree that if it fails either A or B or Both, it's not legal.

 

[Tomahawk67]

Just say NO to TYRANNY.

 

[gunsmithkinks]

To prove an 80% frame (or anything else for that matter) was purchased prior to July 1st, 2019, keep ALL your "dated" receipts and invoices showing when you bought it etc etc. That's how I'd handle that.
I'd also print backup hard copies of it and lock it away for safe keeping just to keep you covered for future reference.

 

[rupey7]

Awshoot
Your Edit #2 is the point I was attempting to make. Polymer frame won't equal 3.7 ounces of stainless in a metal detector so it fails at this point.

 

[awshoot]

Awshoot
Your Edit #2 is the point I was attempting to make. Polymer frame won't equal 3.7 ounces of stainless in a metal detector so it fails at this point.

Got it -- thank you. So here is why I hope you are wrong. ;-) The definition we are talking about is of "undetectable firearms" not as a poster back in the thread mentioned, of "firearms", but the definition of firearms comes into play. The firearm definition is:

(11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. "Firearm" does not include a flare gun or other pyrotechnic visual distress signaling device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction purposes.
(12) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.

The metal detector section of "undetectable" does not redefine "firearm" but uses the term:

(33) "Undetectable firearm" means any firearm that is not as detectable as 3.7 ounces of 17-4 PH stainless steel by walk-through metal detectors or magnetometers commonly used at airports or [section about plastic parts and X-rays omitted]

So the way I read 33 is that if an "11" (meaning the entire device that throws lead) is as detectable as 3.7 oz of SS, it's OK.

I hope I'm right here, but don't know it. If the legislature meant to change the meaning of firearm in Sec 1 par 11, I think it would have NOT re-enacted that definition. Also, if it meant to exclude all plastic parts in guns, it would have just blended the first part with X-ray section and not even mentioned X-rays. Because the X-ray section is there separately, it should have a separate meaning.

 

[rupey7]

Remember the firearm by definition has always been the lower which is the serialized part of the weapon. If not, we would be able to buy slides and barrels without a background check.
If you want it buy it before the enactment of this proposed law.

 

[slimmer13]

To prove an 80% frame (or anything else for that matter) was purchased prior to July 1st, 2019, keep ALL your "dated" receipts and invoices showing when you bought it etc etc. That's how I'd handle that.
I'd also print backup hard copies of it and lock it away for safe keeping just to keep you covered for future reference.

The substitute bill that passed (1739) doesnt prohibit 80% builds after 7/1, it prohibits undetectable builds and prohibits 80% builds for resale which Fed law already does, so why would you need documentation on the date you built an 80%?

 

[slimmer13]

Remember the firearm by definition has always been the lower which is the serialized part of the weapon. If not, we would be able to buy slides and barrels without a background check.
If you want it buy it before the enactment of this proposed law.

That's Fed law and definition, we are talking state law and definition.

 

[awshoot]

Remember the firearm by definition has always been the lower which is the serialized part of the weapon. If not, we would be able to buy slides and barrels without a background check.
If you want it buy it before the enactment of this proposed law.

That's what the ATF uses but the specific definition here is the one in 1739. Sec 1, definitions, clearly states:

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

What might be worth worrying about and talking to an actual lawyer about, is if a person had a polymer build, Sec 3 of 1739 flat outlaws undetectable firearms and parts without any reference to a grandfather clause.

 

[awshoot]

The substitute bill that passed (1739) doesnt prohibit 80% builds after 7/1, it prohibits undetectable builds and prohibits 80% builds for resale which Fed law already does, so why would you need documentation on the date you built an 80%?

One advantage is that it would give you two reasons why it wasn't an untraceable firearm:
1) It was built before 7-1-19
2) You never intended to sell it.

#1 is easier to prove.

 

[arakboss]

SHB 1739 Passed today. Undoubtedly the governor will sign it: Washington State Legislature

Sorry to hear that. That is a bummer.

 

[NW Backpacker]

SHB 1739 Passed today. Undoubtedly the governor will sign it: Washington State Legislature

Go for the Hail Mary and flood his office with emails and phone calls stating why it is not needed. Probably won't work, but no use quitting before he signs it.

 

[arakboss]

Remember the firearm by definition has always been the lower which is the serialized part of the weapon. If not, we would be able to buy slides and barrels without a background check.
If you want it buy it before the enactment of this proposed law.

That is the feds that consider the finished receivers as firearms. I don't know about WA but in Oregon they consider it a receiver or frame.

 

[jwinwa]

Here is a PSA for anyone who wants very solid proof of ownership of an item before a particular time. What I do is take a picture of the item and include identification in the picture like a sales receipt or note card with my name and info on it then I submit the photo to the bitcoin blockchain by using originstamp.org (not .com) which is a FREE and easy to use service. Once submitted, the timestamp becomes the date of submission. I then download the generated seed file and save the original image along with the seed file on a secure pen drive or online storage. If for some reason there is any question as to when I acquired the item I can supply the original image and seed file and the bulletproof bitcoin timestamp can be looked up world wide. No one can possibly say I did not have access to the item on the date of submission.