OT? Could we be violating state law accidently?

onlurker · Jan 20, 2011

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.

Lammo · Jan 20, 2011

onlurker said:
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.

amlevin · Jan 20, 2011

Lammo said:
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????

amlevin · Jan 20, 2011

On SBR's in Washington

onlurker said:
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?

onlurker · Jan 20, 2011

Lammo said:
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.

amlevin said:
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. :uhoh:

onlurker · Jan 20, 2011

amlevin said:
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.

Tawnos · Jan 20, 2011

onlurker said:
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).

onlurker · Jan 20, 2011

Tawnos said:
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?

Tawnos · Jan 20, 2011

onlurker said:
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.

onlurker · Jan 20, 2011

Tawnos said:
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.

Metalhead47 · Jan 20, 2011

amlevin said:
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?

TechnoWeenie · Jan 21, 2011

onlurker said:
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.

amlevin · Jan 21, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
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.

onlurker · Jan 21, 2011

TechnoWeenie said:
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.

Dave_pro2a · Jan 21, 2011

onlurker said:
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!")

Metalhead47 · Jan 21, 2011

amlevin said:
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?

xylex · Jan 21, 2011

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.

xylex · Jan 21, 2011

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."

Lammo · Jan 21, 2011

onlurker said:
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.

amlevin · Jan 21, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
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.

OT? Could we be violating state law accidently?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member