Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: What about Any Other Weapons?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    It seems that all the discussion on this forum is about handguns. Does the Wa State open carry laws apply only to handguns, or do they apply to other types of firearms that could be carried without raising undue concern by the public. Specifically, I have a 20 gauge any other weapon with a 7 inch barrel that was made from a Mossburg Cruiser ("shotgun" with pistol grip only - no stock). There are some folks who have made holsters for this type of firearm. I feel that this would be a superior self defense weapon. Any problems with carrying this?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Rifles and shotguns must be unloaded in vehicles even if you have a CPL. Loading and unloading your firearm when you exit or enter your vehicle is not ideal.

    Technically, though, you may open carry any firearm.



  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Krinkovliu wrote:
    It seems that all the discussion on this forum is about handguns. Does the Wa State open carry laws apply only to handguns, or do they apply to other types of firearms that could be carried without raising undue concern by the public. Specifically, I have a 20 gauge any other weapon with a 7 inch barrel that was made from a Mossburg Cruiser ("shotgun" with pistol grip only - no stock). There are some folks who have made holsters for this type of firearm. I feel that this would be a superior self defense weapon. Any problems with carrying this?
    Unless you owned this thing in Washington before 1994, you can't have it here, even registered.
    http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsea...181602&p=1

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Krinkovliu wrote:
    It seems that all the discussion on this forum is about handguns. Does the Wa State open carry laws apply only to handguns, or do they apply to other types of firearms that could be carried without raising undue concern by the public. Specifically, I have a 20 gauge any other weapon with a 7 inch barrel that was made from a Mossburg Cruiser ("shotgun" with pistol grip only - no stock). There are some folks who have made holsters for this type of firearm. I feel that this would be a superior self defense weapon. Any problems with carrying this?
    I believe those weapons are now NFA weapons which makes them illegal in Washington You can't cut down a shotgun or a rifle to make a pistol. Rifle minimum of 16" and shotgun minimum of 18". There is an overall length minimum too.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Guys, the only NFA weapons that are illegal in Washington are: short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and full firearms that were not grandfathered (ie before 1994). You can own silencers (but not use them) and Any Other Weapons, and I think Destructive Devices (e.g., anti tank gun). I had an AOW legally tranferred to me in 1999 and another one transferred in 2003. All of these transfers received approval by ATF which checks with the state AG to ensure that there is nothing illegal about ownership.

    Not that I would do this, but my other AOW is a 5.45 Krinkov which is real easy to load and unload since it is magazine fed. Pulling a Krinkov on a couple of scum bags in Seattle's University District would be fun to do but for all practical purposes a nice handgun would do just as well. On the other hand a 20 gauge AOW with a 7 inch barrel would really make them c**p in their pants.



  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    My humble guess is that legally you're OK on foot. I don't know of a prohibition on AOW. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that if you actually had occasion to use it you would need very high quality legal help fast.

    Regardless, if your crystal ball is working and you can give me 30 minutes' notice before pulling that on a BG in the U District I'd love to see it! I'll even take pictures of the flames it throws for your scrapbook!

    edit: spelling

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    If the AOW is made from an existing rifle or shotgun, then it is considered a short barrel shotgun in this state.

    If it left the factory as an AOW, I believe there is an AG opinion that they would be legal then...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian: The Mossberg 500 left the factory as a "Cruiser". It did not have a stock; it came only with a pistol grip. It was not a kit gun with aremovable pistol grip and removable stock. Consequently, it met the the ATF definition of not being a "shotgun" which is intended to be fired from the shoulder; there was no way to shoot a Cruiser from the shoulder. For a short period of time recently, the current Wa State AG was defining AOWs such as mine as a "short barrel shotgun" but the legal definition prevailed - so long as the smooth bore firearm was never a "shotgun" (intended to be fired from the shoulder) it can be converted into an Any Other Weapon.

    Here is a link to www.serbu.com which makes an Any Other Weapon similar to the one I own.

    http://www.serbu.com/top/superShorty.php

    As you can read, it is made from a Mossberg Cruiser which left the factory without a stock - just a pistol grip.

    Again, I have an ATF Form 4 with a $5 NFA stamp which approved the transfer of the AOW to me. I believe that this federal agency will not approve a transfer if it is violation of local law.







  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Krinkovliu wrote:
    sv_libertarian: The Mossberg 500 left the factory as a "Cruiser". It did not have a stock; it came only with a pistol grip. It was not a kit gun with aremovable pistol grip and removable stock. Consequently, it met the the ATF definition of not being a "shotgun" which is intended to be fired from the shoulder; there was no way to shoot a Cruiser from the shoulder. For a short period of time recently, the current Wa State AG was defining AOWs such as mine as a "short barrel shotgun" but the legal definition prevailed - so long as the smooth bore firearm was never a "shotgun" (intended to be fired from the shoulder) it can be converted into an Any Other Weapon.

    Here is a link to http://www.serbu.com which makes an Any Other Weapon similar to the one I own.

    http://www.serbu.com/top/superShorty.php

    As you can read, it is made from a Mossberg Cruiser which left the factory without a stock - just a pistol grip.

    Again, I have an ATF Form 4 with a $5 NFA stamp which approved the transfer of the AOW to me. I believe that this federal agency will not approve a transfer if it is violation of local law.





    The cruiser is still classed as a shotgun, stock or no. A shotgun with a stock removed and a pistol grip added is still a shotgun. The shorty is based on a 500. Mossberg sends them the parts, not assembled guns and then they builds them. Any other way is illegal. You can carryit but don't be suprised if SWAT shows up.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Krinkovliu wrote:
    Again, I have an ATF Form 4 with a $5 NFA stamp which approved the transfer of the AOW to me. I believe that this federal agency will not approve a transfer if it is violation of local law.
    Yeah and the IRS never screws up either. You have way to much faith in government agencies to believe they care whether they do their jobs right. It's gonna be you who geyts screwed, not them.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Guys:

    I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion about the legality of an Any Other Weapon. However, I leave you with this:

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?s...e&id=14312

    This is the opinion/ruling of the current AG which distinguishes between short barrel shotguns, which are illegal, and any other weapons which are legal.

    I would suggest that if you have any questions call Wades Eastside Guns in Bellevue which is a class 3 dealer and which offers any other weapons for sale. Also, at a recent Puyullup gun show Discount Guns had a Serbu shorty for sale for which requires a $5 transfer fee (NFA).

    If you want to continue to believe that this is illegal be my guest. I will continue to add to my NFA collection by buying more Any Other Weapons.

    I believe that anyone who wishes to buy a short barrel Any Other Weapon to go through the proper channels (e.g., completing ATF Form 4, checking with local law enforcement...) and find out for himself whether the firearm is illegal in Washington State. As I said, I have two ATF approved transfers of Any Other Weapons plus a silencer all in Washington State in the past decade.





  12. #12
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Yes Krink, AOW's and Sound Suppressors are very much legal in WA, as you already know. Unfortunately, we can't use the latter, just own them ().

    If I had the money to buy a Serbu Shorty (that means I bought a whole bunch of other stuff first), then I would certainly do so for the neat-ness of being able to CC a shotgun.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    Jeeze people come on. AOW's are perfectly legal in Washington and they are not short barreled shotguns. A SBS is a shot gun that left the factory with a stock in place and later had the barrel cut down to less than 18" If it left the factory without a stock it can be re-registered as an AOW if you want to put a short barrel on it. As for the legality of carrying it, No law against it so it's legal. The only danger you may run into is, I am sure you already guessed from reading the opinions of some on this thread, Is many people and LEO's couldn't tell the difference between an AOW anda SBS if it was shoved up their butt so I would carry that AG opinion around with you if you open carry it. I do think you would be forced to open carry as the WA permit is a CPL and not a CWP so you would need to make sure your method of carry is RCW 9.41.270 compliant. (Keep State V. Spencer in mind)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Yes Krink, AOW's and Sound Suppressors are very much legal in WA, as you already know. Unfortunately, we can't use the latter, just own them ().

    If I had the money to buy a Serbu Shorty (that means I bought a whole bunch of other stuff first), then I would certainly do so for the neat-ness of being able to CC a shotgun.
    I am starting to agree with Agent47's points that he made to me about that law. It says that we can't "use any device or contrivance to muffle the report of a firearm". Since there is no exception for law enforcement agencies, and since many of the agencies in WA use silencers for their SWAT teams (even at public ranges such as Sam's), the law must be interpretted that a registered suppressor is neither a "device" nor a "contrivance", which means that unless they want to go ahead and charge all of those cops with gross misdemeanors, the only illegal silencers are non-registered ones, such as using a coke bottle to silence a .22.

    So, in effect, it should be legal to use a legal and registered sound suppressor in WA state, but I don't want to be the one to make the case law on this one

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    Way off topic, but we should start a movement to have that say "use any illegaldevice or contrivance to muffle the report of a firearm". I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread talk.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    rysa wrote:
    Way off topic, but we should start a movement to have that say "use any illegaldevice or contrivance to muffle the report of a firearm". I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread talk.
    Actually, I would change it to "use any device or contrivance to muffle the report of a firearm, in the commission of a felony", or just get rid of the law all together, since it benefits no one, except for legislators who have seen too many movies about assassins and don't know the first thing about firearms.

  17. #17
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    expvideo, I agree and I've said before that Agent 47 has a darn good argument, but since there's no test case and there's an AG opinion that says they may not be used, then I'm not really willing to be the "test case".

    Honestly, they should just change it to "any unregistered device or contrivance...", as legal suppressors must be registered under the NFA.

    Plus, by the wording of the law, I do think that the police departments ARE in violation of that law, due to a legal suppressor being a "device", whereas the coke bottle would be a "contrivance".
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    expvideo, I agree and I've said before that Agent 47 has a darn good argument, but since there's no test case and there's an AG opinion that says they may not be used, then I'm not really willing to be the "test case".

    Honestly, they should just change it to "any unregistered device or contrivance...", as legal suppressors must be registered under the NFA.

    Plus, by the wording of the law, I do think that the police departments ARE in violation of that law, due to a legal suppressor being a "device", whereas the coke bottle would be a "contrivance".
    I think their strategy right now is to not touch it. Let it remain as law so that most people won't do it, and don't prosecute the people that do, because then the government can't do it anymore.

  19. #19
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    expvideo, I agree and I've said before that Agent 47 has a darn good argument, but since there's no test case and there's an AG opinion that says they may not be used, then I'm not really willing to be the "test case".

    Honestly, they should just change it to "any unregistered device or contrivance...", as legal suppressors must be registered under the NFA.

    Plus, by the wording of the law, I do think that the police departments ARE in violation of that law, due to a legal suppressor being a "device", whereas the coke bottle would be a "contrivance".
    I think their strategy right now is to not touch it. Let it remain as law so that most people won't do it, and don't prosecute the people that do, because then the government can't do it anymore.
    I didn't want to bring this up because it's drifting off topic, but...

    I wasn't able to get my rep (O'Brien) to ask the AG about it. He did say this, though:

    I will work on the issue this coming session, along with law enforcement, to fix any problems in the law.
    Of course, I strongly suspect his interpretation of "problems in the law" is "there is no LEO exemption"... :X

    I responded:

    I ask you to consider the amendment I have proposed to you in the past:

    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_suppressor.txt

    This would be a much better solution for all Washington citizens than merely adding a Law Enforcement Officer exemption to the existing law.
    ...but now he's asking for a specific situation where it's been a problem.

    Does anybody else have a more amenable rep who could ask the AG about this?



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    ...but now he's asking for a specific situation where it's been a problem.
    Every time I go to the range, it's a problem! I'm prevented from a useful hearing-protection technology by this useless law. I understand that court cases are sometimes hard to bring in terms of finding an actual, harmed plaintiff--but why should a legislator take the same approach?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    ...but now he's asking for a specific situation where it's been a problem.

    Well, I suppose I could just head down to the range, side up next to any LEO who is in there shootingand let loose with my silenced .45. Bet that would get him the "problem" he needs.

    :what::P

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Agent 47, a serious question about your earlier statement:

    ...many people and LEO's couldn't tell the difference between an AOW and a SBS...
    Well, if part of the determination of this is how it left the factory, then the only way to be really sure is by examining the paperwork, right? Or am I missing something?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    Agent 47, a serious question about your earlier statement:

    ...many people and LEO's couldn't tell the difference between an AOW and a SBS...
    Well, if part of the determination of this is how it left the factory, then the only way to be really sure is by examining the paperwork, right? Or am I missing something?
    No, what I am saying is most LEO's would look at a AOW and automatically assume it is a SBS and would refuse to hear anything to the contrary. I have had responses like this from cops when they see my silencers.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Agent 47 wrote:
    John Hardin wrote:
    ...but now he's asking for a specific situation where it's been a problem.

    Well, I suppose I could just head down to the range, side up next to any LEO who is in there shootingand let loose with my silenced .45. Bet that would get him the "problem" he needs.

    :what::P
    Let me add on to your great idea. Next time one of the police departments is shooting suppressed weapons at the range, get one of the bays next to them and start firing your suppressed .45. Get a video recording of the whole incident and see how well that goes. I bet that would be the best way to get the case ruling in our favor. Imagine having a video of an LEO pausing shooting his suppressed weapon to arrest you for shooting yours! That would be the absolute best evidence we could have to get the case ruling the way that we want it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Let me add on to your great idea. Next time one of the police departments is shooting suppressed weapons at the range, get one of the bays next to them and start firing your suppressed .45. Get a video recording of the whole incident and see how well that goes. I bet that would be the best way to get the case ruling in our favor. Imagine having a video of an LEO pausing shooting his suppressed weapon to arrest you for shooting yours! That would be the absolute best evidence we could have to get the case ruling the way that we want it.

    That would be awesome!! :celebrate


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •