Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Automatic weapons

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    I was in a Joes Sporting Goods just looking around, and saw an R-15, neat looking weapon but only fires a .22 round, anyhow talking with the clerk i told him i was saving up to buy an AR-15 with a collapsible stalk, (my handy dandy weapon i loved in my military days) he starts telling good luck on that as you cannot own an automatic weapon unless your a LEO,now i know there was a federal law that expired, is there a WA law i do not know about.

    I can’t seem to find a law on this.

    Thanks



  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Yargh. First off welcome to the board. Second there is a HUGE difference between a FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON (which is what the ill informed clerk was saying) and the poorly labeled "assault weapons" which are semi automatic look alikes of real select fire weapons.

    That said there is NO "ASSAULT WEAPONS" BAN IN WASHINGTON. NONE. The Clinton ban has expired and IT NO LONGER APPLYS IN THIS STATE. Years later I cannot believe there are still people who actually believe that there is such a ban. The power of ignorance cannot be underestimated.

    Go and buy the AR you want, they are freely available. Don't look at Big 5 for them though, they don't stock such evil weapons.



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

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    I was in a Joes Sporting Goods just looking around, and saw an R-15, neat looking weapon but only fires a .22 round, anyhow talking with the clerk i told him i was saving up to buy an AR-15 with a collapsible stalk, (my handy dandy weapon i loved in my military days) he starts telling good luck on that as you cannot own an automatic weapon unless your a LEO,now i know there was a federal law that expired, is there a WA law i do not know about.

    I can’t seem to find a law on this.

    Thanks

    Washington has a no auto weapons law. RCW 9.41.220 makes auto weapons illegal in Wahington. So even though the Feds have no problem Washington State does.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.220

    However the semi-auto versions are all legal as long as they meet the federal standards.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Joe Blow cannot own an automatic weapon (An AR15 is not automatic, but semi-automatic and can be purchased by any one that is allowed to purchase firearms. Full Automatic weapons are availble after jumping thru Federal Hoops to get the licence to own one. I do not know what those hoops are.



    Are you sure, Bear, about totally illegal? I thought I've heard of full auto shoots in this state and isn't there a place where you can shoot full auto for a fee + ammo? Just askin', not tellin'





  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    BlaineG wrote:
    Joe Blow cannot own an automatic weapon (An AR15 is not automatic, but semi-automatic and can be purchased by any one that is allowed to purchase firearms. Full Automatic weapons are availble after jumping thru Federal Hoops to get the licence to own one. I do not know what those hoops are.



    Are you sure, Bear, about totally illegal? I thought I've heard of full auto shoots in this state and isn't there a place where you can shoot full auto for a fee + ammo? Just askin', not tellin'



    Read RCW 9.41.220, it is real plain and was enacted because of all the boot legging going on here during Prohibition. Not sure why the Federal law wasn't good enough for them.


    [/b]All machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles, or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, illegally held or illegally possessed are hereby declared to be contraband, and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    On top of that, if it was legal here, don't you think I would have at least one?

    Here's the other part.


    [/b](1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

    (2) 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, 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.

    (3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.

    (4) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    I was in a Joes Sporting Goods just looking around, and saw an R-15, neat looking weapon but only fires a .22 round, anyhow talking with the clerk i told him i was saving up to buy an AR-15 with a collapsible stalk, (my handy dandy weapon i loved in my military days) he starts telling good luck on that as you cannot own an automatic weapon unless your a LEO,now i know there was a federal law that expired, is there a WA law i do not know about.

    I can’t seem to find a law on this.

    Thanks

    Washington has a no auto weapons law. RCW 9.41.220 makes auto weapons illegal in Wahington. So even though the Feds have no problem Washington State does.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.220

    However the semi-auto versions are all legal as long as they meet the federal standards.

    Thanks, and thanks for the link, i will save that.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    On top of that, if it was legal here, don't you think I would have at least one?
    Yeah, i can understand that, i bought an AK-47 from my brother about five years ago, and yes it was full Auto but i had to sell it when times got tuff. I miss it.

    Oh yeah back to the topic, its funny i can own a silencer in Washington but not a full auto, I would think a silencer would be more of a concern then an Auto but i guess i must be living in my own little world, although i would love to have a silencer as well.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Yargh. First off welcome to the board. Second there is a HUGE difference between a FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON (which is what the ill informed clerk was saying) and the poorly labeled "assault weapons" which are semi automatic look alikes of real select fire weapons.

    That said there is NO "ASSAULT WEAPONS" BAN IN WASHINGTON. NONE. The Clinton ban has expired and IT NO LONGER APPLYS IN THIS STATE. Years later I cannot believe there are still people who actually believe that there is such a ban. The power of ignorance cannot be underestimated.

    Go and buy the AR you want, they are freely available. Don't look at Big 5 for them though, they don't stock such evil weapons.

    Thanks and any recommendations for stores around the renton area.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    So I guess AOWs and DDs are legal here?

  11. #11
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    On top of that, if it was legal here, don't you think I would have at least one?

    Here's the other part.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.

    (2) 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, 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.

    (3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.

    (4) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.

    Oddly enough, I'm not sure how they get around this law, but you can walk into Wade's range in Bellevue and rent one of three 9mm fully-auto firearms they have and shoot it.

    They're obviously legal to own it, as they're an FFL 01, but I'm not sure how they allow their customers to "have under control" any of those firearms.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    Oh yeah back to the topic, its funny i can own a silencer in Washington but not a full auto
    Just to be clear, in WA you can own a silencer but you may not USE it. That is illegal.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Oddly enough, I'm not sure how they get around this law, but you can walk into Wade's range in Bellevue and rent one of three 9mm fully-auto firearms they have and shoot it.

    They're obviously legal to own it, as they're an FFL 01, but I'm not sure how they allow their customers to "have under control" any of those firearms.
    The reason that Wades and KRRC have them is that they are licensed by the state and Fed to conduct training with the Feds and state LEO. Wades also is licensed to gunsmith and sell those same full autos to the Fed and state LEO. That's why they're able to have them. Once I have my Class II FFL, if I had a contract with the military, state or Fed LEO, then I could manufacture, and possess them, though I could not sell them to persons not able to own them. At Wades and KRRC, they're able to permit people to shoot them because that isn't exactly against the law. While the person is shooting them and technically possessing them, the firearms are still technically under Wade's control. If on the otherhand a person took it out of the building, then the law applies.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    Oddly enough, I'm not sure how they get around this law, but you can walk into Wade's range in Bellevue and rent one of three 9mm fully-auto firearms they have and shoot it.

    They're obviously legal to own it, as they're an FFL 01, but I'm not sure how they allow their customers to "have under control" any of those firearms.
    The reason that Wades and KRRC have them is that they are licensed by the state and Fed to conduct training with the Feds and state LEO. Wades also is licensed to gunsmith and sell those same full autos to the Fed and state LEO. That's why they're able to have them. Once I have my Class II FFL, if I had a contract with the military, state or Fed LEO, then I could manufacture, and possess them, though I could not sell them to persons not able to own them. At Wades and KRRC, they're able to permit people to shoot them because that isn't exactly against the law. While the person is shooting them and technically possessing them, the firearms are still technically under Wade's control. If on the otherhand a person took it out of the building, then the law applies.
    Thanks: You explained why I was Corn-Phused.........:shock:Bear ain't no help

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    BlaineG wrote:
    sirpuma wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    Oddly enough, I'm not sure how they get around this law, but you can walk into Wade's range in Bellevue and rent one of three 9mm fully-auto firearms they have and shoot it.

    They're obviously legal to own it, as they're an FFL 01, but I'm not sure how they allow their customers to "have under control" any of those firearms.
    The reason that Wades and KRRC have them is that they are licensed by the state and Fed to conduct training with the Feds and state LEO. Wades also is licensed to gunsmith and sell those same full autos to the Fed and state LEO. That's why they're able to have them. Once I have my Class II FFL, if I had a contract with the military, state or Fed LEO, then I could manufacture, and possess them, though I could not sell them to persons not able to own them. At Wades and KRRC, they're able to permit people to shoot them because that isn't exactly against the law. While the person is shooting them and technically possessing them, the firearms are still technically under Wade's control. If on the otherhand a person took it out of the building, then the law applies.
    Thanks: You explained why I was Corn-Phused.........:shock:Bear ain't no help
    Hell, I've been trying to uncorn-phuse you for at least 10 years and nothing works. It's like

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Read RCW 9.41.220, it is real plain and was enacted because of all the boot legging going on here during Prohibition. Not sure why the Federal law wasn't good enough for them.



    All machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles, or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, illegally held or illegally possessed are hereby declared to be contraband, and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found.
    Hey bear, your close but all NFA was allowed in Washington until 1994 and some citizens have been able to bring NFA into WA by proving that they owned it prior to the 1994 cutoff not to be confused with the 1986 Hughes amendment.

    To anyone interested we are trying to restore our NFA rights
    http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...5&t=317766

    the ATF has approved 688 short barreled rifles as legal in the state of Washington already along with 646 short barreled shotguns, 1,346 silencers and 3,380 machine guns, and these numbers are as of 2005. I've only been able to find two violent crimes by lawfully possessed NFA weapons in the country, one was a off duty LEO who killed a drug dealer. These are when lawfully possessed the safest group of weapons possessed by the safest group of people.

    BlaineG, there is no incredible hoops or special license, it's not much worse than a really intense version of getting your Concealed Handgun Permit, for a personal form 4 (the form used to transfer a NFA weapon between two parties where at least one doesn't have a FFL)
    You need two passport photo's
    two sets of filled out fingerprint cards
    a signature from a Chief law enforcement officer or a judge/official who is able to issue a felony arrest warrant when my sheriff signed any of my form 4's he did his own background check before signing just like he would for a CHP (using a trust or purchase by a corporation gets around this and is how a LOT of people are acquiring these right now)
    $200 this is not a license fee or a yearly fee, it's a tax on the transfer of the weapon, This is how back in 1934 they used congress' power to regulate interstate commerce to ban weapons when the public wouldn't allow government bans on weapons unlike now when the people as a whole doesn't care about the second amendment.


    After you've shot suppressed weapons you wont want to have to shoot without one again unless a slight increase in muzzle weight REALLY bothers you. Not needing earplugs. Not having to worry about the guy next to you shooting while you aren't ready or doing that to a person nearby. Even with earplugs you still have some damage to your hearing from behind the ear, ear muffs help but do not allow a good cheek weld, plus a suppressor will not render a shot "silent" most of the quietest suppressors even with subsonic .22 rimfire are still putting out a decibel pulse of around 115 decibels 140 is the threshold for impulse blasts damaging hearing, a 45 from a handgun is around 158 decibels. Also suppressors appear to do a tremendous job of removing airborne lead most .22 rimfire cans will collect enough lead after 10k-15k rounds that they need rebuilt which doesn't require paying the transfer tax again unless the outer tube is extensively damaged.


    If anyone has any NFA ownership questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer or find a answer for you

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Gainesville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Machine guns are legal for members of the armed services to possess personally as the law has been stated by the AG of WA to not apply to them.

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?s...ve&id=7708

    AGO 1991 No. 26-July 24, 1991 back Ken Eikenberry | 1981-1992 | Attorney General of Washington FIREARMS ‑- MILITARY ‑- Application of machine gun prohibition to members of the armed forces.
    RCW 9.41.190 prohibits the ownership or possession of a machine gun. This prohibition does not apply to any officer or member of the armed forces. The exception to the machine gun prohibition for officers or members of the armed forces is not related to the discharge of the officer's or member's official duties.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    July 24, 1991
    Honorable Gary A. Nelson
    State Senator, District 21
    9710 Wharf Street
    Edmonds, Washington 98020
    Cite as: AGO 1991 No. 26
    Dear Senator Nelson:
    By letter previously acknowledged you asked for our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
    Do the prohibitions relating to the transportation or possession of machine guns set out in RCW 9.41.190 apply to members of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington during times when they are not engaged in the performance of their official duties?
    We conclude that the answer to your question is "no" for the reasons set forth in the following analysis.
    ANALYSIS
    Your question focuses upon RCW 9.41.190 which reads:
    It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun or any part thereof capable of use or assembling or repairing [[Orig.Op.Page2]] any machine gun: Provided, however, That such limitation shall not apply to any peace officer in the discharge of official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington: Provided,further, That this section does not apply to a person, including an employee of such person, who or which is exempt form or licensed under the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. section 5801 et seq.), and engaged in the production, manufacture or testing of weapons or equipment to be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States, and having a United States government industrial security clearance.
    This statute, as originally enacted into law, was virtually identical to the present form of the first proviso which excepted from the machine gun prohibition "any peace officer in the discharge of official duty" and any members "of the armed forces of the United States or the State of Washington." Laws of 1933, ch. 64, § 1, p. 335. In addition to certain other minor grammatical changes to RCW 9.41.190, its second proviso (exempting federally licensed persons engaged in the manufacture or testing of machine guns for use by the armed forces of the United States from its ban) was added in 1982. Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 47, § 2, p. 1322. The legislative history of the act, as originally adopted, and the 1982 amendment do not provide background or insight into its meaning.1/
    Our task, as always, is to ascertain legislative intent. As phrased by the Court of Appeals in Labor & Indus. v. Baker, 57 Wn. App. 57, 59-60, 786 P.2d 821 (1990):
    [[Orig.Op.Page3]]
    First in the analysis, as always, is the language of the statute itself. Two familiar principles apply to this case: (1) where the Legislature used different language in different sections, it can be assumed that legislative intent was different (United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Department of Rev., 102 Wn.2d 355, 362, 687 P.2d 186 (1984)); and (2) plain words are to given their plain meanings. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. v. Department of Rev., 40 Wn. App. 237, 698 P.2d 100,review denied, 104 Wn. 2d 1006 (1985).
    The statutory language of RCW 9.41.190 is plain and unambiguous. The Legislative made it unlawful for any person to be involved with machine guns and further provided that "such limitation shall not apply ... to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington ...." Neither is the "official duty" requirement of "peace officers" applicable to "members of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington." Where a statute is unambiguous, it is not to construction or interpretation. Crown Cascade, Inc. v. O'Neal, 100 Wn.2d 256, 262, 668 P.2d 585 (1983). The rules of statutory construction can only be used to ascertain the meaning of the statute and may not be used to modify it. State ex rel. Thigpen v. Kent, 64 Wn. 2d 823, 826, 394 P.2d 686 (1964). Moreover, a court may not read into a statute language which it might conceive that the Legislature has unintentionally omitted. Id. at 827.
    In addition, the last antecedent rule supports this interpretation. This rule of statutory construction states: "Where no contrary intention appears in a statute, relative and qualifying words and phrases, both grammatically and legally, refer to the last antecedent." Davis v. Gibbs, 39 Wn.2d 481, 483, 236 P.2d 545 (1951). The last antecedent rule, as applied to RCW 9.41.190, means that the qualifying phrase "in the discharge of official duty" refers to the last antecedent "peace officer." It does not refer to the subsequent phrase "any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington".
    A recent decision identifies the separation of powers doctrine as the basis for application of this rule by explaining that the Legislature possesses the exclusive power to create laws and define standards of conduct. A court may to usurp the Legislature's function. The drafting of a statute is the [[Orig.Op.Page4]] function of the Legislature and not of a court.2/
    A court may not read an exception into a statutory prohibition in any way other than to give meaning to the plain words used by the Legislature.
    The courts may not read into a statute things which it conceives the Legislature has left out unintentionally. Enloe, 47 Wn. App. at 170. Therefore, if conduct such as Danforth's is to be prohibited, such a prohibition must be created by the Legislature. We may not do so.
    State v. Danforth, 56 Wn. App. 133, 137, 782 P.2d 1091 (1989).
    It is, therefore, our opinion that the Legislature has exempted members of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington from the prohibitions found in RCW 9.41.190. There is no indication in the statutory language that the exemption was to be conditioned upon the performance of official duties of such military personnel. Therefore, your question must be answered in the negative.
    We hope this opinion will be of assistance to you.
    Very truly yours,
    KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY
    Attorney General
    J. LAWRENCE CONIFF
    Senior Counsel
    Assistant Attorney General
    *** FOOTNOTES ***
    1/In 1989 there were additional laws enacted relating to machine guns. The House Bill Report on Senate Bill 58.53, which amends RCW 9.41.200 and added a new section codified as RCW 9.41.225, provided the following background information to the House Committee on Judiciary:
    Current law prohibits any person from manufacturing, owning, buying, selling, loaning, furnishing, transporting, possessing or controlling machine guns. Persons violating this prohibition are guilty of an unranked felony. Specified law enforcement personnel and related persons are exempt from this prohibition.
    (Emphasis added.) House Bill Report, SB 5853 (1989) at 1. The emphasized sentence is supportive or our conclusion but does not indicate that there was any analysis of your question or legislative awareness of the issue. In any event, RCW 9.41.190 was not amended.
    2/It is clearly within the prerogatives of the Legislature to modify the exemption language and limit it to military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties, should it choose to do so.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    That may be, but with the '94 ban the price skyrocketed and normal people can't afford them. If there are so many auto guns in Washington, how come there are no auto shoots, like happen regularly in Oregon?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Near Pullman, ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    So I guess AOWs and DDs are legal here?
    Yes.

    IIRC DDs are a $200 stamp

    AOWs are $5.00 if on a form 3 or 4, $200 if Form 1

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    holepoker wrote:
    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    So I guess AOWs and DDs are legal here?
    Yes.

    IIRC DDs are a $200 stamp

    AOWs are $5.00 if on a form 3 or 4, $200 if Form 1
    form 3's are a dealer to dealer, no tax on the transfer

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    That may be, but with the '94 ban the price skyrocketed and normal people can't afford them. If there are so many auto guns in Washington, how come there are no auto shoots, like happen regularly in Oregon?
    there are auto shoots, but not anywhere near as many, the one at Memaloose in Oregon last weekend had probably 50, the figures quoted also include LEA guns and post '86 dealer samples which cant be transferred from an authorized dealer to private citizens. It seems that the further you get away from the Oregon border they rapidly decrease in number. I dont know about the east side.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    I'm confused as to how an AR-15 with a collapsible stock has anything to do with a rifle's ability to be fully automatic? Anyhow here in WA, you can have collapsible stock, flash hider, pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable mags, and supressors.

  23. #23
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    jchen012 wrote:
    I'm confused as to how an AR-15 with a collapsible stock has anything to do with a rifle's ability to be fully automatic? Anyhow here in WA, you can have collapsible stock, flash hider, pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable mags, and supressors.
    Yup... the guy was bloody ignorant. It burns my britches everytime I hear about someone in some sort of position to be authoritative on a subject (like being at a gun counter and someone asks about guns) that doesn't know crap about said subject and then goes on here-say or, worse, makes it up to sound like they know what they're talking about.

    It's this kind of "authoritative misinformation" that is likely hurting us the most out there. Lies that turn into rumors that then become truth in the eyes and hearts of the voting public... even though it's far from the truth. This is part of what we, as OC'ers, combat on a daily basis... the truth is out there... and we're it.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    jchen012 wrote:
    I'm confused as to how an AR-15 with a collapsible stock has anything to do with a rifle's ability to be fully automatic? Anyhow here in WA, you can have collapsible stock, flash hider, pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable mags, and supressors.
    Yup... the guy was bloody ignorant. It burns my britches everytime I hear about someone in some sort of position to be authoritative on a subject (like being at a gun counter and someone asks about guns) that doesn't know crap about said subject and then goes on here-say or, worse, makes it up to sound like they know what they're talking about.

    It's this kind of "authoritative misinformation" that is likely hurting us the most out there. Lies that turn into rumors that then become truth in the eyes and hearts of the voting public... even though it's far from the truth. This is part of what we, as OC'ers, combat on a daily basis... the truth is out there... and we're it.
    They're frickin' salemen. They don't usually know anymore than is necessary to sell whatever they are peddling. If they don't know the facts they just make it up.




  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    FE427TP wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    That may be, but with the '94 ban the price skyrocketed and normal people can't afford them. If there are so many auto guns in Washington, how come there are no auto shoots, like happen regularly in Oregon?
    there are auto shoots, but not anywhere near as many, the one at Memaloose in Oregon last weekend had probably 50, the figures quoted also include LEA guns and post '86 dealer samples which cant be transferred from an authorized dealer to private citizens. It seems that the further you get away from the Oregon border they rapidly decrease in number. I dont know about the east side.
    I know they have the full auto shoots in Oregon on a fairly regular basis, but the only ones in Washington, I've ever heard of were for political hacks, etc put on by the lobbyist for the FA manufactures. Nothing for the public to attend or participate in.

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
  •