JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Don't know, increasingly don't care. Can't describe the situation any different than what an enemy would seek to do, and why would I follow the path an enemy had pushed me to go.

Clearly they don't care about the constitution, and only their agenda. They'd just as soon sick the police on me with the same guns they claim aren't fit for civilian ownership, while they sit in buildings guarded by guns.

Better it boil over already than continue down the path of slow, but perpetual decay.
A term from the '60's...CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE...has been mentioned recently.
 
when will enough be enough? when it hits the federal level pr we just gonna bend over then too? when will Americans act versus talk crap about law makers on the internet?
 
It will result in any WA resident with a pending Form 1 for their braced pistol being denied tax stamp.
I think there's a route here, optimistically, where they aren't denied, Because you already have a "SBR" here and it's not following the "normal" Form1 process where it's approved before creation. Of course, that means the ATF would have to do the right thing... which has low likelihood of happening.
 
I don't see that at all in my reading of it. I think they aren't regulating each individual part. You can buy a flash suppressor for example. That is the same category as suppressor to them.

I read that as if a person bought a complete kit (or a combination of parts that makes a complete kit) to build a banned weapon that woudl be a violation.

By reading it as any "part", then any part at all that could be used to make an "assault rifle" would be illegal. A part by itself does not constitute an "assault rifle".

Now if you had all the parts together in a box? Then I think they are saying that would be an "assault rifle". That's how I read it anyway.
You are reading it wrong.
The ONLY intent of this legislation is to infringe upon rights, and persecute those that exercise those rights.
Every jot and tittle of the text will be twisted and molded to getcha.
 
So with this.....
The legislature finds that assault weapons are not commonly used in self-defense and that any proliferation is not the result of the assault weapon being well-suited for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes. Rather, increased sales are the result of the gun industry's concerted efforts to sell more guns to a civilian market. The legislature finds that the gun industry has specifically marketed these weapons as "tactical," "hyper masculine," and "military style" in manner that overtly appeals to troubled young men intent on becoming the next mass shooter. The legislature intends to limit the prospective sale of assault weapons, while allowing existing legal owners to retain the assault weapons they currently own.

So what I'm reading, the state is admitting the guns that the police use aren't particularly suited for their jobs. So they should be getting rid if them too.
 
...

Similar to what the alphabet is doing with braces. "Technically" legal to buy and own, but if there is any demonstrable intent to use it to make what they now want to call an SBR.... they "could" try and jam you up for constructive possession.

....
Yes. Constructive possession is it. When the prosecutor throws the book at someone, these rules+laws gives more things that might stick, but "parts" (pistol grips, muzzle device, barrel shroud) will still be legal to buy and own IMO.
Pretty sad, going down the road to state compliant configurations.
 
I think there's a route here, optimistically, where they aren't denied, Because you already have a "SBR" here and it's not following the "normal" Form1 process where it's approved before creation. Of course, that means the ATF would have to do the right thing... which has low likelihood of happening.
As I read it, the star does the check and after the governor signs it they want to be able to run a check if it meets the requirements of their infringing bill
 
I think there's a route here, optimistically, where they aren't denied, Because you already have a "SBR" here and it's not following the "normal" Form1 process where it's approved before creation. Of course, that means the ATF would have to do the right thing... which has low likelihood of happening.
WA Gun Law guy agrees....interesting.

 
The problem is that your rifle is. It is semi auto, accepts a detachable magazine and had a hand guard that protects part of all of the barrel.
Problem is, that YOU don't know what a BAR MkII is. It doesn't accept a detachable magazine. And the proposed law is about hand gaurd that completely surround all or part of the barrel, to protect the hand from heat. The BAR MKII has a wooden fore stock attached to the bottom of the barrel, specifically mentioned in the proposed law as the only legal stock.
 
🤓 Hear me now and believe me later...

"It's for your safety"
not-bad.jpg

1679785446484.png

CAMPGUNFREE.jpg


Aloha, Mark
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
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