JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
24,233
Reactions
36,607
I don't know if this bill will pass but it won't surprise me if it does:
Washington State Legislature

Washingtonians consider yourselves lucky even if SB 5061 does pass. In Oregon we have a similiar ban buried in SB 978-5. Our law does not grandfather in firearms like your bill does. Possession of pre-1968 firearms will be a Class B felony in Oregon, while you folks will be able to possess untraceable firearms manufactured up to July 1st, 2019. If you were thinking about buying some 80% percent receivers or frames, keep an eye on SB 5061 and get ready to buy before July.

"Untraceable firearm" means any firearm manufactured after July 1, 2019, for which the sale or distribution chain from a
federally licensed dealer to the point of its first retail sale cannot be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number
registered with a federally licensed manufacturer imprinted on its major component
.

It's also worth mentioning that possession of illegal untraceable firearm will only be a gross misdemeanor for first offense under WA law. In Oregon it will be a Class B Felony. Oregon seems intent on disarmament imho.
 
Last Edited:
SHB 1739 substitute bill which covers undetectable and untraceable firearms rolled into 1

Washington State Legislature
Does it have the same grandfather date of July 1, 2019 for untraceable firearms?

Nevermind it looks like it does:
"Untraceable firearm" means any firearm manufactured after July 1, 2019, that is not an antique firearm and that cannot be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number affixed to the firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer.
 
Last Edited:
This is the latest on SHB 1739
"Apr 11
Placed on second reading by Rules Committee"



On SB5061 the last action was taken back on

"Mar 18
Senate Rules "X" file
"

a month ago , so it doesn't look to me like that SB5061 is moving regardless of wording in the bills.

Scroll down on those links and it shows where bills are currently at by dates, going through thier paces or not.
 
SB5061 was so badly worded it might have made most commercial guns illegal because it arguably required multiple parts to be serialized (frame/slide, frame/cylinder, receiver/barrel) and few manufacturers do that.

SHB1739 is bad but not as horrid although it is possible the "undetectable" definition will kill off polymer 80% builds depending on how well they show on xray. An "untraceable" (probably non-polymer) gun will be illegal to build only if you intend to sell it.

SHB1739 could very well be on the floor if I understand this correctly (which I may not -- don't take it as gospel): Senate Floor Activity - Regular Calendar (see #79 or do a ctrl-f for "1739")

EDIT: Today, 4-16-19, it's moved up to #31
 
Last Edited:
SHB 1739 Passed today. Undoubtedly the governor will sign it: Washington State Legislature

Yeas: 30 Nays: 18 Absent: 0 Excused: 1

Voting Yea: Senator Billig, Carlyle, Cleveland, Conway, Darneille, Das, Dhingra, Frockt, Hasegawa, Hobbs, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Liias, Lovelett, Mullet, Nguyen, O'Ban, Palumbo, Pedersen, Randall, Rivers, Rolfes, Saldaña, Salomon, Takko, Van De Wege, Wellman, Wilson, C., Zeiger

Voting Nay: Senator Bailey, Becker, Braun, Brown, Ericksen, Fortunato, Hawkins, Holy, Honeyford, King, Padden, Schoesler, Sheldon, Short, Wagoner, Walsh, Warnick, Wilson, L.

Absent:

Excused: Senator McCoy
 
So if he signs we need a photo of the gun with a signed notary to prove we had it prior to July 1st 2019?
Or picture of a news paper w/ the date perhaps? This is just asinine.
 
So if he signs we need a photo of the gun with a signed notary to prove we had it prior to July 1st 2019?
Or picture of a news paper w/ the date perhaps? This is just asinine.

Probably the former. You could be accused of storing a newspaper for a fake date.

The way I read it, that would be a good idea for polymer builds. Metal builds are still OK provided you don't intend to sell them.
 
Probably the former. You could be accused of storing a newspaper for a fake date.

The way I read it, that would be a good idea for polymer builds. Metal builds are still OK provided you don't intend to sell them.

Why the difference? The way I read it, home builds are still ok unless you manufacture with intent to sell, which is the same as federal law. It doesnt say anything about polymer.

I'm not convinced that finished P80 frames without the slide would fall under the WA definition of firearm for it to apply to the undetectable firearm portion.

Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder
. "
 
Why the difference? The way I read it, home builds are still ok unless you manufacture with intent to sell, which is the same as federal law. It doesnt say anything about polymer.

I'm not convinced that finished P80 frames without the slide would fall under the WA definition of firearm for it to apply to the undetectable firearm portion.

. "

There is a difference between "undetectable" and "untraceable". There is no permission to build undetectable firearms no matter your intent with respect to selling. To be sure a firearm is not undetectable, you would have to know for a fact that it provides a good X-ray image of all major parts, including the frame/receiver. If your plastic does show nicely on X-ray, it is not undetectable and thus OK, so long as it is not also untraceable (meaning unserialized and made with the intent to sell).
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the State Senate worked like the US Senate and wasn't just an extra house of reps. Red voted against, yellow voted for, blue was excused and did not vote:

1739.png
 
There is a difference between "undetectable" and "untraceable". There is no permission to build undetectable firearms no matter your intent with respect to selling. To be sure a firearm is not undetectable, you would have to know for a fact that it provides a good X-ray image of all major parts, including the frame/receiver. If your plastic does show nicely on X-ray, it is not undetectable and thus OK, so long as it is not also untraceable (meaning unserialized and made with the intent to sell).
There is a difference between "undetectable" and "untraceable". There is no permission to build undetectable firearms no matter your intent with respect to selling. To be sure a firearm is not undetectable, you would have to know for a fact that it provides a good X-ray image of all major parts, including the frame/receiver. If your plastic does show nicely on X-ray, it is not undetectable and thus OK, so long as it is not also untraceable (meaning unserialized and made with the intent to sell).

Where do you see that? I read undetectable=no go, untraceable for your own use=gtg.
 
Where do you see that? I read undetectable=no go, untraceable for your own use=gtg.

That's how I read it too. Maybe I was unclear.

EDIT: Here is the actual definition:
(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 any
firearm where the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or
receiver
of the firearm would not generate an image that accurately
depicts the shape of the part when examined by the types of X-ray
machines commonly used at airports.

If any one of the major parts of a firearm don't make an image, no go. It is not enough that the barell or trigger group or bolt shows up clearly.
 
That's how I read it too. Maybe I was unclear.

EDIT: Here is the actual definition:


If any one of the major parts of a firearm don't make an image, no go. It is not enough that the barell or trigger group or bolt shows up clearly.

Xray machines dont require metal to get an image. I think that definition just means it needs to look like a gun and you can't make a frame designed to conceal what it actually is. A P80 frame will still generate an accurate image of what if is.

We will see I suppose.
 
Xray machines dont require metal to get an image. I think that definition just means it needs to look like a gun and you can't make a frame designed to conceal what it actually is. A P80 frame will still generate an accurate image of what if is.

We will see I suppose.

As you say, if it generates an image it is not undetectable. It would be prudent however to get an X-ray example to be certain -- guessing it would and being wrong would be a painful experience.
 
Here are some worisome X-rays (remember, even though they are obviously a firearms, 1739 is looking at individual parts, not the whole):

POTD: X-Rayed Lower Recevier -
FNHQ And Undetectable Guns | Extrano's Alley

Here's an interesting one depending on who is interpreting the meaning of "accurately depicts the shape of the part". I would say it does as would likely most here, but if a person is very anti-gun, they could view this differently: http://targetsecurity.co.nz/images/xray_images/security/img_11.jpg

Anyhow -- I don't really know the answer on polymer-80 builds but it is a risk to keep in mind.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top