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

Thread: OT? Could we be violating state law accidently?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251

    OT? Could we be violating state law accidently?

    I apologize if this has been done before.

    I was curious about the specifics on SBRs in this state, so I pulled up 9.41.190 which naturally brought me over to 9.41.220, which is the parts contraband law and I found something puzzling. My understanding of 9.41.220 is that it is illegal in this state to possess the parts to make machine guns, SBRs, and SBS'. So what of those that own "pistols" in a rifle caliber along with an equivalent rifle (think AR15)? Perhaps I'm not understanding the verbiage correctly, but to me it reads that it would be illegal to have a spare stock or foregrip laying around for your "real" rifle because it would fall into the "...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,..." category.

    With the possibility of the suppressor law getting changed for the better, this could be another bill proposal that can be brought up. It's another silly law that some might be violating and not realize it.
    Last edited by onlurker; 01-20-2011 at 04:22 PM. Reason: spelling > me

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    I apologize if this has been done before.

    I was curious about the specifics on SBRs in this state, so I pulled up 9.41.190 which naturally brought me over to 9.41.220, which is the parts contraband law and I found something puzzling. My understanding of 9.41.220 is that it is illegal in this state to possess the parts to make machine guns, SBRs, and SBS'. So what of those that own "pistols" in a rifle caliber along with an equivalent rifle (think AR15)? Perhaps I'm not understanding the verbiage correctly, but to me it reads that it would be illegal to have a spare stock or foregrip laying around for your "real" rifle because it would fall into the "...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,..." category.

    With the possibility of the suppressor law getting changed for the better, this could be another bill proposal that can be brought up. It's another silly law that some might be violating and not realize it.
    Probably no harm/no foul on the spare stock or foregrip as these are usable on ordinary rifles and thus not "intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, etc.". The prohibited parts would be things like full auto action components and shortened barrels.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Probably no harm/no foul on the spare stock or foregrip as these are usable on ordinary rifles and thus not "intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, etc.". The prohibited parts would be things like full auto action components and shortened barrels.
    There's a list for AR-15's of "prohibited parts". An auto sear, full auto selector, full auto disconnector, Full Auto Trigger, Hammer with the "hook", and the Full Auto Bolt Carrier. BATF has at various times advised that the FA Bolt carrier is OK as long as when it is installed in the Rifle it does not cause it to be a Full Auto Capable rifle.

    Since the average person is not going to be inspected annually like a Gunsmith or Dealer might be, I doubt that this would become an issue unless there were some other shenanigans going on. Things like making a rifle Full Auto and then bragging to your friends or going out to the gravel pit and firing it on full auto.

    There are lots of ways one can get in trouble but it usually is a series of acts, not just "having" the parts.

    What's funny (not really) is that in the early 80's SGW/Oly Arms actually built AR-15's and CAR-15's with M-16 Fire Control Group parts (escept the auto sear and auto selector). Also made CAR-15's with short (11.5") barrels that had removable 4.5" Flash suppressors. At the time they were legal. Then ATF reversed course and SGW/Oly arms was supposed to "recall" and replace those parts. Who knows how many of those firearms still are in the hands, un-modified, of unsuspecting citizens????
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    On SBR's in Washington

    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post

    With the possibility of the suppressor law getting changed for the better, this could be another bill proposal that can be brought up. It's another silly law that some might be violating and not realize it.
    You mean that when one can own one of these legally:



    It doesn't make sense that one can't own one of these legally in Washington:



    Only difference is there is a Stock on one and a "Nerf" cap on the other.

    Makes tons of sense doesn't it?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Probably no harm/no foul on the spare stock or foregrip as these are usable on ordinary rifles and thus not "intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, etc.". The prohibited parts would be things like full auto action components and shortened barrels.
    I can certainly see that as the intention of the law, but you can own an AR-15 pistol with a sub-16" barrel. According to the law and how I've interpreted it (which could be completely wrong, IANAL), owning the barrel and other parts that would classify a firearm as a rifle by the ATF would be prohibited in this state since they're intended to be used on a rifle. The law doesn't make the distinction that the parts have to be attached, just simply owned or "possessed" as the state puts it. This means to me that you can't have a pile of parts stashed in the gun safe.

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Since the average person is not going to be inspected annually like a Gunsmith or Dealer might be, I doubt that this would become an issue unless there were some other shenanigans going on. Things like making a rifle Full Auto and then bragging to your friends or going out to the gravel pit and firing it on full auto.

    There are lots of ways one can get in trouble but it usually is a series of acts, not just "having" the parts.
    Sure, but it's the letter of the law that is the problem forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to not be so law-abiding. Kind of reminds me of Nevada's definition of concealed. Without a CC permit, you could easily commit a felony and not realize it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post

    Makes tons of sense doesn't it?
    Maybe I'm not understanding your intentions here (reading between the lines isn't my forte), but it doesn't make much sense since the "pistol" is able to exploit a loophole by having the firearm registered as a pistol. As I'm understanding the law, it's illegal to own the shortened barrel.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    Maybe I'm not understanding your intentions here (reading between the lines isn't my forte), but it doesn't make much sense since the "pistol" is able to exploit a loophole by having the firearm registered as a pistol. As I'm understanding the law, it's illegal to own the shortened barrel.
    What loophole does it exploit? The firearm is a pistol because it lacks shoulder stock (and has never had one attached).
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    What loophole does it exploit? The firearm is a pistol because it lacks shoulder stock (and has never had one attached).
    Sure, but is it not against state law to "possess" short barrels and other rifle parts as defined by the ATF according to 9.41.220? Seems to me that registering the firearm as a pistol is a way to get around this, no?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    Sure, but is it not against state law to "possess" short barrels and other rifle parts as defined by the ATF according to 9.41.220? Seems to me that registering the firearm as a pistol is a way to get around this, no?
    Only if you intend to break the law is this a "loophole". If you intend to use the firearm as a pistol, then there's no loophole, as you're not trying to acquire a part you could not otherwise legally own by claiming a lawful purpose while seeking to engage in an unlawful one.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Only if you intend to break the law is this a "loophole". If you intend to use the firearm as a pistol, then there's no loophole, as you're not trying to acquire a part you could not otherwise legally own by claiming a lawful purpose while seeking to engage in an unlawful one.
    Right, but the law is not differentiating between "intentions" and "owning." Perhaps we have different interpretations of what the law is stating.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    There's a list for AR-15's of "prohibited parts". An auto sear, full auto selector, full auto disconnector, Full Auto Trigger, Hammer with the "hook", and the Full Auto Bolt Carrier. BATF has at various times advised that the FA Bolt carrier is OK as long as when it is installed in the Rifle it does not cause it to be a Full Auto Capable rifle.

    Since the average person is not going to be inspected annually like a Gunsmith or Dealer might be, I doubt that this would become an issue unless there were some other shenanigans going on. Things like making a rifle Full Auto and then bragging to your friends or going out to the gravel pit and firing it on full auto.

    There are lots of ways one can get in trouble but it usually is a series of acts, not just "having" the parts.

    What's funny (not really) is that in the early 80's SGW/Oly Arms actually built AR-15's and CAR-15's with M-16 Fire Control Group parts (escept the auto sear and auto selector). Also made CAR-15's with short (11.5") barrels that had removable 4.5" Flash suppressors. At the time they were legal. Then ATF reversed course and SGW/Oly arms was supposed to "recall" and replace those parts. Who knows how many of those firearms still are in the hands, un-modified, of unsuspecting citizens????
    Slight segue here....

    How does state law relate to those little clamp-on trigger thingies that basically turn a semiauto into a gatling gun?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    I apologize if this has been done before.

    I was curious about the specifics on SBRs in this state, so I pulled up 9.41.190 which naturally brought me over to 9.41.220, which is the parts contraband law and I found something puzzling. My understanding of 9.41.220 is that it is illegal in this state to possess the parts to make machine guns, SBRs, and SBS'. So what of those that own "pistols" in a rifle caliber along with an equivalent rifle (think AR15)? Perhaps I'm not understanding the verbiage correctly, but to me it reads that it would be illegal to have a spare stock or foregrip laying around for your "real" rifle because it would fall into the "...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,..." category.

    With the possibility of the suppressor law getting changed for the better, this could be another bill proposal that can be brought up. It's another silly law that some might be violating and not realize it.
    Stop turning something into something it is not...

    A 7.5" barrel has a legal use in an AR pistol, it is not 'solely and exclusively for use in....a short barreled rifle'

    A full auto trigger group and auto sear has no legal purpose, you can't use it. The short barrel does have a legal use, as does the 'FA' bolt carrier, as it works in a semi gun without making it FA.
    Last edited by TechnoWeenie; 01-21-2011 at 12:50 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Slight segue here....

    How does state law relate to those little clamp-on trigger thingies that basically turn a semiauto into a gatling gun?
    The law merely says that a firearm can't fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. Even with the "activator" (name that they used to be sold under) the trigger is only pulled/pressed once per shot. Don't believe there is a "shots per minute/second limit.

    BTW, those "thingies" can really make a Ruger 10/22 lots of fun, especially with a 100 round mag.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    A 7.5" barrel has a legal use in an AR pistol, it is not 'solely and exclusively for use in....a short barreled rifle'

    A full auto trigger group and auto sear has no legal purpose, you can't use it. The short barrel does have a legal use, as does the 'FA' bolt carrier, as it works in a semi gun without making it FA.
    That makes sense when you put it that way, guess I wasn't able to see it before. Thanks for the clarification.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    exploit a loophole
    WTF is a "loophole?"

    Either the law forbids something, or it doesn't.

    In WA the law does not forbid pistols, it does forbid SBRs.

    So what's the loophole?

    The fact that an AR15 pistol looks a lot like an AR15 rifle simply points out how stupid the no SBR law is. Nothing more.

    Let me guess, you're the kind of guy who never tries to minimize your tax burden using acceptable write offs (err, "loopholes!")
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 01-21-2011 at 01:08 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The law merely says that a firearm can't fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. Even with the "activator" (name that they used to be sold under) the trigger is only pulled/pressed once per shot. Don't believe there is a "shots per minute/second limit.

    BTW, those "thingies" can really make a Ruger 10/22 lots of fun, especially with a 100 round mag.
    Heheh, yeah that's what I was thinking, I would NOT want to shoot more expensive ammo any faster than I already do! might pick one up this weekend actually (the Ruger that is)... who makes HUNDRED round 10/22 mags? Most I've seen is 50?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  17. #17
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4
    I'll try to find the reference, but I remember this one came up on one of the AR forums before and the consensus (and I think an answer letter from the AG or ATF) was that you are correct that having both an AR pistol and a spare stock or foregrip (spare as in not 1:1 to rifle lowers) was considered possessing the parts for an SBR and illegal.

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4
    k...I couldn't find the specific letter on this question, but if you write the ATF, I'm sure they'll write a new one. Since SBR's are illegal in WA, and the ATF says that having the parts to make one means you have to get a stamp for it, you'd either be in violation of state or federal law.

    I did find a BATF letter about having spare M16 parts for a legally owned M16 while owning an AR-15 could be considered having an illegal machine gun - http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter90.txt Same parts ownership rules would apply to SBR parts.

    And I know, the Thompson v. US case says that just having the parts doesn't constitute intent to construct, but the ATF has never let things like the Constitution get in their way. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=384293 - bottom of the ATF letter "the United States Supreme Court's decision, United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. applies to this kit exclusively."

  19. #19
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    That makes sense when you put it that way, guess I wasn't able to see it before. Thanks for the clarification.
    Also, my reference in reply to the OP was to "shortened" barrels, aka sawed-off barrels, which would run afoul of the law, not "short" barrels, which would be lawful on say an AR type pistol. I guess I could have been more clear - - IAAL so it happens.
    Last edited by Lammo; 01-21-2011 at 04:18 PM.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  20. #20
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Heheh, yeah that's what I was thinking, I would NOT want to shoot more expensive ammo any faster than I already do! might pick one up this weekend actually (the Ruger that is)... who makes HUNDRED round 10/22 mags? Most I've seen is 50?
    Ramline used to make the 100 round mag. It was kind of a teardrop shape rather than the "banana" that the 50 is. May be discontinued.

    When I bought my 10/22 about 30 years ago I had the choice. Got the 50 and it's enough fun for me.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    I guess I could have been more clear - - IAAL so it happens.
    So does that mean you have to sit in the corner wearing the "hat"?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by xylex View Post
    I did find a BATF letter about having spare M16 parts for a legally owned M16 while owning an AR-15 could be considered having an illegal machine gun - http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter90.txt Same parts ownership rules would apply to SBR parts.
    The rules for SBRs seem to apply only to the short barreled uppers and not the other parts that would classify something as a rifle per the ATF. However, I did find this portion interesting:

    "An individual possessing more than one short (less than 16 inches)
    barreled upper receiver for a registered AR15 machinegun along with
    one or more semiautomatic AR15 rifles would have under their
    possession of control an unregistered short barreled rifle, a
    violation of the NFA."

    I wonder if the same applies to a semiautomatic AR15, since it would appear that the ATF is saying that owning a short barreled upper (like if you're building a pistol) means you're then in possession of an SBR if you happen to own other minimum length AR15 rifles.

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    The rules for SBRs seem to apply only to the short barreled uppers and not the other parts that would classify something as a rifle per the ATF. However, I did find this portion interesting:

    "An individual possessing more than one short (less than 16 inches)
    barreled upper receiver for a registered AR15 machinegun along with
    one or more semiautomatic AR15 rifles would have under their
    possession of control an unregistered short barreled rifle, a
    violation of the NFA."

    I wonder if the same applies to a semiautomatic AR15, since it would appear that the ATF is saying that owning a short barreled upper (like if you're building a pistol) means you're then in possession of an SBR if you happen to own other minimum length AR15 rifles.
    Why you wouldn't be suggesting that someone might own a "pistol" and a "rifle" and then swap them around as they wanted, would you? Why that would just downright be breaking the rules. Nobody would do that, would they?

    If one had a complete SBR upper, ready to be mated to a lower, that would be far different than just possessing the barrel. It takes a little more than just "two pins" to change a barrel.
    Last edited by amlevin; 01-21-2011 at 06:40 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  24. #24
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    So does that mean you have to sit in the corner wearing the "hat"?
    That's why they call it "practicing law" - - someday we may get it right!
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Why you wouldn't be suggesting that someone might own a "pistol" and a "rifle" and then swap them around as they wanted, would you? Why that would just downright be breaking the rules. Nobody would do that, would they?
    Of course not, I'm simply trying to understand this particular law so as to not break it, just like everyone else. The wording in the law just seems a little too ambiguous to me especially when you consider the ATF's interpretation since they're suppose to be the deciding party on such matters.

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
  •