JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Wa gun law guy in that video makes it sound like it's illegal to have SBRs in WA. See timestamp below. Sounds to me like he is more worried about how he appears than being legally correct. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought SBRs were legal in WA. To be correct he should take the time to explain that, not say they are illegal and just leave it at that. Again though, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I seem to recall several SBR applications under the brace rule in WA.

View attachment 1900514

Wa gun law guy in that video makes it sound like it's illegal to have SBRs in WA. See timestamp below. Sounds to me like he is more worried about how he appears than being legally correct. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought SBRs were legal in WA. To be correct he should take the time to explain that, not say they are illegal and just leave it at that. Again though, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I seem to recall several SBR applications under the brace rule in WA.

View attachment 1900514
SBRs are legal in Washington
 
There are some exemptions.

From:

Unlawful firearms—Exceptions.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture, cause to be manufactured, assemble, or cause to be assembled, an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or
(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, bump-fire stocks, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:
(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;
(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or
(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun or short-barreled shotgun was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.
(5) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.



Bruce
 

Thanks for posting that. I saw that the other day.

_______________
_______________

I'm surprised and yet, I'm not. Because.......
Legislators and the appointed (on whatever level Fed, State or Country, city, etc.....) IMHO......should/can "expand" civil rights. They aren't suppose to......."contract/decrease" civil rights.

How does that all work?
Claiming......that there is too much HATE and VIOLENT SPEECH targeted/against "elected, post-elected and pre-elected officials". Say that.....the legislature (keeping it to an elected body, to better illustrate the point) can/could, pass law(s) to outlaw certain speech or words, that would or could be said to be "Hateful Speech". So then, a new Law is enacted......in order to promote "Peace and Love". Let's call it : Anti-Hate Speech Legislation.

BUT, what about "Free Speech" under the 1st A?

Oh well......go to COURT and fight it.

See how that works?

AND MEANWHILE.....I can imagine that the voters....will continue re-elect the fools that backed up such STUPID LAWS.

Well then, next time, just don't vote for them.

MEANWHILE, get use to going to court, on a case by case basis. Oh, such an efficient use of the courts and making lawyers rich at the same time.

Wait....."making lawyer rich"?

Yeah, imagine that. Going to court, again and again. Fighting stuff in the court costs money and they need to get PAID. Be it with Taxpayers money or by private groups. KaChing. Not to mention.......the longer it goes on. Well then, "taking care of lawyers". Yup, with the possibility of them having even more opportunities to make more MONEY.

Hey, you can't talk about LAWYERS that way. So then, let's expand that "Anti-Hate Speech Legislation" to cover LAWYERS too.

Cough, cough.....

Aloha, Mark

PS.........

I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
 
Last Edited:
I didn't see him reversing a single anti gun EO his predecessors had put in place. The 89 ban? Its an EO. .
 
I didn't see him reversing a single anti gun EO his predecessors had put in place. The 89 ban? Its an EO. .
Exactly. A whole bunch of interesting firearms could come into the country again with a stroke of a pen from POTUS. It didn't happen, of course, even from a president who described himself as "biggest Second Amendment person there is". :s0165:
 
Exactly. A whole bunch of interesting firearms could come into the country again with a stroke of a pen from POTUS. It didn't happen, of course, even from a president who described himself as "biggest Second Amendment person there is". :s0165:
If the NRA hadn't stopped by to remind Trump he was pretending to be a republican we'd be in a world of doodoo.

 
Well hopefully we will see Joe reelected. That will be a win for us all over that damn Trump.
Im not sure I see much of a difference. Joe floats stuff he knows will get shot down the same way Trump did. At least with Joe you know you're supposed to be fighting him not having him pull liberal D tactics on you with a bunch of dimwits calling themselves conservatives cheering him on.

Trump came in and the first thing he did was bring in Wilbur Ross , a lifelong liberal Democrat , to run the Commerce dept and then he pushed traditional democratic business platforms the entire time he was in the seat. High Tariffs on imported goods and trade protectionism. Free trade is a Republican platform going back decades. They just abandoned all that. Tariffs are punitive taxes on Americans.
 
So... don't vote for Trump; don't vote for Biden, because Trump publicly went after silencers, bump stocks, and support red flag laws, even though he's pretty much responsible for the SCOTUS getting to a 6-3 "conservative" majority with three of the Justices being nominated by his Cabinet/him (Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh)?

Whereas Biden wrote the 94 Crime Bill with Feinstein's AWB, and has publicly, predicably, consistently called for banning whole classes of guns, has given public support to Dettlebach, ATF, has consistently called for more gun control, has admonished and lamented that Congress hasn't been able to further gun control, and have nominated anti2A politicans in positions, including Justice Jackson?

Clearly Biden is the better choice here :rolleyes:
 
And anything NOT a vote for Trump is at best a tacit vote for Biden. Nobody else has a chance of derailing the Dems' highball-to-Hell...

Donald Trump: Loahsome, repulsive used-car salesman.
Joe Biden: Senile, pedophile, full on Enemy Domestic and collaborator with Enemies Foreign.

The difference between having a turd you need to scrape off your shoe and being thrown headfirst into a sewage vat... easy choice.
 
Or, and just a thought, but maybe we could find a candidate that actually supports 2a and get them in office?
Barely doable, if Trump didn't let his ego and cult of personality dominate his ambition in seeking reelection/3rd chance :rolleyes:

honestly though. The minute Biden was declared winner in 2020, Trump's supporters fired up the pr/reelection/campaign thing... so it was a foregone conclusion that the RNC would run him again :rolleyes:
 
I see this thread getting locked in very short order, but this page reminds me why we have so much trouble politically. Too many on "our side" decide that if they can't have the perfect candidate, they're just going to take their ball and go home. The political reality is that we're simply not going to have a "perfect" 2A candidate running for that office. It's not going to happen, and if it did, they wouldn't have a chance.

And for certain people around here (ahem), the perfect candidate would be a full blown progressive who lets them play with their guns. Does that exist in the world of politics?

Again, if we head down this trail on this thread, Andy's going to lock it any minute...
 

Upcoming Events

New Classified Ads

Back Top