JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Keep in mind that the anti-gun types read these websites. Pointing out "hey they missed something" could very well lead them to add new laws to "fix" that oversight.
There is some correct information in this thread, and some incorrect information in this thread. That's all I'll say for OPSEC purposes.
 
I've heard that loophole will be closed at some point. It was kind of like a weird grace period for stripped lower transfers? I might be wrong.
 
Ive bought a Ar15 and a Glock 22, and sold a XD9 this way with no problems and all have been under 30 min
You can only if you pass the BGC while you wait. I have two items on ice at my LGS. They have both been there for a few days and both are over 3000 in the queue. My CCP has expired thanks to Benton County Oregon or it usually would go right through.
 
You can only if you pass the BGC while you wait. I have two items on ice at my LGS. They have both been there for a few days and both are over 3000 in the queue. My CCP has expired thanks to Benton County Oregon or it usually would go right through.
OP is talking about Washington.
 
Why do people frown upon the fact you can transfer just the lower of the gun so the buyer will be able to get it that day without any waiting period
Some people in Washington state. But why they do is because there is potential trouble in the practice. AR lowers not originally assembled as rifles can be transferred as "other" and therefore can go out the door same day with a NICS check. BUT: Breaking down an existing AR rifle to sell in two parts, then reassemble again whole after sale is not what was intended by the law. IF the AG wanted to enforce this, there are ways the origin of a rifle can be traced to prove that it started out as a rifle, therefore should have been transferred with the waiting period per I-1639. Which could result in trouble. Do they have the resources to do this? Probably not. Could they do it if they wanted to make an example of a case resulting from some random infraction or felony? Sure they could and might. They always like to stack charges to get something to stick. As I understand it.

An FFL dealer I use was doing this for a while. As I recall, the AG's office came out with guidance some time subsequent to I-1639 about it. As a result, my dealer stopped doing it. During this time, I sold a couple of AR's on consignment through him. He wanted to sell them in two pieces, no waiting period for the buyer. One was a parts gun, I had no problem with that one. The other was an original, whole piece rifle, I said I don't want to sell it that way and he didn't, he sold it per I-1639. I don't want any potential for stink to come on me because of a loophole back-firing down the road. Just my opinion, anybody else do what you want to do. My FFL dealer liked doing it because he didn't have to store the guns for 14 days extra, less paperwork, etc.
 
It's a licensing thing. Most FFLs don't have manufacturing licensing. To change the AR15 from a rifle to a receiver, it requires a different license. Same goes for FFLs buying a ton of parts and lowers and manufacturing them into rifles when they bought them as receivers. They would require the proper licensing to do so legally.

So in other words, depending on the license the shop has, it is illegal for them (without the proper license) to disassemble an AR15 so it is no longer a "rifle" and transfer it as something else other than what they received it as and recorded as in their books.

If they had the correct licensing, they could make the AR15 rifle into something else, with proper documentation and markings, sell it however they want.

So it may look and sound easy to do, but no FFL is going to do this because you think it will be easier. It's not.
 
Keep in mind that the anti-gun types read these websites. Pointing out "hey they missed something" could very well lead them to add new laws to "fix" that oversight.
There is some correct information in this thread, and some incorrect information in this thread. That's all I'll say for OPSEC purposes.
This. Just shut up about it already!
 
crop.jpeg.jpg
 
It's a licensing thing. Most FFLs don't have manufacturing licensing. To change the AR15 from a rifle to a receiver, it requires a different license. Same goes for FFLs buying a ton of parts and lowers and manufacturing them into rifles when they bought them as receivers. They would require the proper licensing to do so legally.

So in other words, depending on the license the shop has, it is illegal for them (without the proper license) to disassemble an AR15 so it is no longer a "rifle" and transfer it as something else other than what they received it as and recorded as in their books.

If they had the correct licensing, they could make the AR15 rifle into something else, with proper documentation and markings, sell it however they want.

So it may look and sound easy to do, but no FFL is going to do this because you think it will be easier. It's not.
The FFL isn't doing it, you are. There's nothing against saying "hey I like this upper but I want a different lower" and selling the lower if you then change your mind on the upper you can sell it without a bgc. Two transactions, two Bills of Sale.
 
The FFL isn't doing it, you are. There's nothing against saying "hey I like this upper but I want a different lower" and selling the lower if you then change your mind on the upper you can sell it without a bgc. Two transactions, two Bills of Sale.
Ah, I get it. OP wants seller to sell the lower and upper individually, and is finding that people are against it.

I don't see why not. Is there anything that states an assembled lower with a stock on it is a rifle? I guess the seller could just remove the stock too.

Ya, I wouldn't see the problem with that.
 
Ah, I get it. OP wants seller to sell the lower and upper individually, and is finding that people are against it.

I don't see why not. Is there anything that states an assembled lower with a stock on it is a rifle? I guess the seller could just remove the stock too.

Ya, I wouldn't see the problem with that.
As I understand it, it's all a question of: what does the state know?

If you originally bought a lower (FFL as other) and then built it up at home…sure it is a rifle at that point but the State doesn't know that. So, when you go to sell it, it makes all the sense in the world if you end up selling it as just a lower.

But, let's say you sell it as a rifle. Now the State knows it's a rifle. The guy who buys it would do best to sell it as a rifle, or potentially find himself the poster child for this particular "loophole."
 
As I understand it, it's all a question of: what does the state know?

If you originally bought a lower (FFL as other) and then built it up at home…sure it is a rifle at that point but the State doesn't know that. So, when you go to sell it, it makes all the sense in the world if you end up selling it as just a lower.

But, let's say you sell it as a rifle. Now the State knows it's a rifle. The guy who buys it would do best to sell it as a rifle, or potentially find himself the poster child for this particular "loophole."
As long as you are not making NFA goods, I don't think it is against the law to disassemble a Rifle and sell/transfer it as another type of legal firearm. Folks have done this forever. Buy a Remington 700, sell the receiver later. Buy a 10/22, sell the receiver later. The AR is no different.
 
As long as you are not making NFA goods, I don't think it is against the law to disassemble a Rifle and sell/transfer it as another type of legal firearm. Folks have done this forever. Buy a Remington 700, sell the receiver later. Buy a 10/22, sell the receiver later. The AR is no different.
I-1639 may say different. Where's a lawyer when you need one?
 
It's not a loophole, it's following current law. A complete lower isn't a SA, so it doesn't fall under WAs BS SA laws. If the upper is attached, it does.
 
Last Edited:
If its legal, Im not sure why anyone would wait.. you might as well use the legal means to rapidly and legally transfer your private property if the option is there.
WA went full simple jack on that
2 week waiting period "law".
 
It's not a loophole, it's following current law. A complete lower isn't a SA, so it doesn't fall under WAs BS SA laws. If the upper is attached, it does.
Anyone know if this applies to gift transfers between relatives from Oregon to Washington?

Do both the buyer and seller have to agree to forfeit the privacy of their medical records when completing a Washington background check?

Are 80% lowers still legal in Washington?
 
The lower, without a brace or stock is "Other" I can make it into a pistol a semi automatic rifle or a bolt action. Since nobody know what it will be, putting rifle or pistol on the 4473 would potentially be false information, hence Other. and Other has no waiting period.
But wait! You bought that lower with a brace attached. If I attach it to a semi auto upper receiver! Doesn't that make it a semi auto rifle?
Not really because I could detach it from that upper and put a pistol upper and now its a pistol ditto for putting a bolt action upper once that's attached its now a bolt action rifle. The point is that a lower receiver without a stock or upper attached can be anything, hence the term Other and firearms classified as other can be legally transferred with no waiting period.
Will that last? Who knows but it is the law now.
 

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