Will you be done buying semi-auto rifles on July 1st?

[hunter399]

Yes I will be done buying .I refuse to register with the dmv .
If I feel the need 80 percent all the way.

[Yondering]

Yes I will be done buying .I refuse to register with the dmv .
If I feel the need 80 percent all the way.

The DMV issues drivers licenses. LOL.

80% receivers will be illegal to purchase after July 1, so you're out of luck there as well.

[hunter399]

Yes I will be done buying .I refuse to register with the dmv .
If I feel the need 80 percent all the way.

The DMV issues drivers licenses. LOL.

80% receivers will be illegal to purchase after July 1, so you're out of luck there as well.

Excuse me I guess it's your sheriff office not dmv .
Now you show me where it's says no 80 percent lowers .since you seem to be an expert.

[Windwalker]

Yes I will be done buying .I refuse to register with the dmv .
If I feel the need 80 percent all the way.

The DMV issues drivers licenses. LOL.

80% receivers will be illegal to purchase after July 1, so you're out of luck there as well.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.”

“Untraceable firearm  means any firearm manufactured after July 1, 2019, that is not an antique firearm and that cannot be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number affixed to the firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer.”

HB 1739 makes it illegal to manufacture with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm. 
(Doing so would make you a manufacturer – someone who needs a Federal Firearms License (FFL)

This was already illegal per the Gun Control Act of 1968. Federal law always said you can build a gun at home, but only for personal use.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use
[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

The legislation’s wording doesn’t outright ban “untraceable firearms”.  80% lowers aren’t considered firearms until they’re built.

As long as you’re building your 80% lower and AR-15 with no intent of selling it, you can still build one in Washington.
The legislation passed doesn’t appear to cover 80 percent lowers at all, in fact – only the firearms built using them.

That said- Polymer 80% lowers may be illegal

Once an 80% lower is machined, it’s considered a firearm. But once machined, that polymer “firearm” will not have the necessary 3.7 ounces of steel present that the legislation requires to be legal.

[hunter399]

Yes I will be done buying .I refuse to register with the dmv .
If I feel the need 80 percent all the way.

The DMV issues drivers licenses. LOL.

80% receivers will be illegal to purchase after July 1, so you're out of luck there as well.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.”

“Untraceable firearm  means any firearm manufactured after July 1, 2019, that is not an antique firearm and that cannot be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number affixed to the firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer.”

HB 1739 makes it illegal to manufacture with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
This was already illegal per the Gun Control Act of 1968. Federal law always said you can build a gun at home, but only for personal use.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use
[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

You can’t intend to sell it. Doing so would make you a manufacturer – someone who need a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

The legislation’s wording doesn’t outright ban “untraceable firearms”.  80% lowers aren’t considered firearms until they’re built.

As long as you’re building your 80% lower and AR-15 with no intent of selling it, you can still build one in Washington.
The legislation passed doesn’t appear to cover 80 percent lowers at all, in fact – only the firearms built using them.

That said- Polymer 80% lowers may be illegal

Once an 80% lower is machined, it’s considered a firearm. But once machined, that polymer “firearm” will not have the necessary 3.7 ounces of steel present that the legislation requires to be legal.

Ya didn't say I had intended to sell a 80 percent.
Nothing in the new law covers 80 percent lowers , and are not considered a firearm till finished.

[Windwalker]

 Didn't mean it to sound contentious-
There are too many unanswered questions and undoubtedly questions that haven't been thought of yet.
Hoping this gets fleshed out here as well as can be expected with all the knowledgeable folks that frequent this site.
If enough chime in to steer this in the right direction, end result will provide some insight of what to expect.

[SGTDuffman]

The 3.7oz of steel or steel alloy is for the firearm, not the frame. They define a firearm as being capable of firing a projectile too. So whatever they’re trying to do with that bill, which I suspect is to ban polymer 80s, isn’t actually going to do anything except make them feel better. It’s already prohibited to sell a firearm you produced from an 80% lower under federal law, and all the little caveats they put in there don’t actually effect anything because of how it was written. This point is all just hypothetical though because that bill has not yet passed.

[Special T]

The 3.7oz of steel or steel alloy is for the firearm, not the frame. They define a firearm as being capable of firing a projectile too. So whatever they’re trying to do with that bill, which I suspect is to ban polymer 80s, isn’t actually going to do anything except make them feel better. It’s already prohibited to sell a firearm you produced from an 80% lower under federal law, and all the little caveats they put in there don’t actually effect anything because of how it was written. This point is all just hypothetical though because that bill has not yet passed.

So do you think this is to  do away with the all polymer printed handguns?

I'm assuming that those 80%glock builds have enough steel since the barrel and slide are metal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Windwalker]

FED law makes more sense-  USC 18 § 922
‘‘firearm’’ does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon-
‘major component’’ means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm.

(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

The object suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors is constructed of 3.7 ounces of material type 17–4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun.

The questionable slice of 1739 that casts a doubt is - (comma or) 
, or the frame or receiver of the firearm would not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the part when examined by the types of X-ray machines commonly used at airports.

 "Undetectable firearm"- by definition 'or the frame or receiver' is out of context and not applicable.
Possibly included it to see what sticks knowing it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 

[SGTDuffman]

The "undetectable" language is less concerning than the "untraceable" language.

The undetectable portion talks about the 3.7oz of steel or steel alloy requirement, but it refers to the firearm, which they define as:

"Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or  projectiles  may  be  fired  by  an  explosive  such  as  gunpowder. "Firearm"  does  not  include  a  flare  gun  or  other  pyrotechnic  visual distress signaling device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction purposes."

""Undetectable  firearm"  means  any  firearm  that  is  not  as detectable as 3.7 ounces of 17-4 PH stainless steel by walk-through metal  detectors  or  magnetometers  commonly  used  at  airports  or  any firearm  where  the  barrel,  the  slide  or  cylinder,  or  the  frame  or receiver of the firearm would not generate an image that accurately depicts  the  shape  of  the  part  when  examined  by  the  types  of  X-ray machines commonly used at airports."

Since they are referring to the completed gun, I wouldn't worry about having the 3.7oz of steel or steel alloy in the frame alone. It is odd that they specify a certain type of stainless steel though. The intent for this term is to prevent them from bypassing metal detectors. Which will never happen with any gun because of all the other metal parts (barrels, slides, magazines, springs, extractors, ejectors, trigger bars/connectors, pins, etc.). These legislators are stuck in 1983 and are just now getting around to the fear and paranoia surrounding polymer framed guns when they came out. If these people had any clue how a gun works or ever handled one in their lives, they'd know how ignorant they look and sound. Ignorance is bliss.

""Untraceable  firearm"  means  any  firearm  manufactured  after July  1,  2019,  that  is  not  an  antique  firearm  and  that  cannot  be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number affixed to the firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer."

Because they chose the term "firearm" several times, which they defined above, I don't see how this law changes anything as it pertains to 80% lowers. They are not firearms. Whats more, I don't see how they could possibly enforce this law. Precisely because an 80% lower is not a firearm, it can be shipped directly to your front door. I don't see how they could possibly hope to prove the date of manufacture or construction, outside of finding a receipt, and even then, 80% lowers don't require a "federally licensed manufacturer or importer" because they aren't firearms. Seems like another toothless feel good liberal law.

They made some slight changes to the language between the first version and the version our "Governor" signed, with visions of the White House in his head.

I know reading bills is tedious and people don't like to do it, but a down and dirty is to basically skip through everything until you hit an underlined part. That is a change. You can also do a text search for "new section"(these are frequently near the underlined stuff) and find whole passages that have been added. Then refer back to the beginning of the document for definitions of terms used. It can generally be done pretty quickly. They're almost always adding text or passages to an existing framework, and seldom add more than a few paragraphs to something. A lot of what is added is just the terms they've come up with. HB 1739 is a good example. They made these new terms about "undetectable" and "untraceable", so they just insert those into prior passages. For instance:

"(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a)  Manufacture,  own,  buy,  sell,  loan,  furnish,  transport,  or have  in  possession  or  under  control,  any  machine  gun,  bump-fire stock, undetectable  firearm,  short-barreled  shotgun,  or  short-barreled rifle;
(b)  Manufacture,  own,  buy,  sell,  loan,  furnish,  transport,  or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely  and  exclusively  for  use  in  a  machine  gun,  bump-fire  stock, undetectable  firearm,  short-barreled  shotgun,  or  short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; ((or))
(c)  Assemble  or  repair  any  machine  gun,  bump-fire  stock, undetectable  firearm,  short-barreled  shotgun,  or  short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture  an  untraceable  firearm  with  the  intent  to  sell the untraceable firearm.
2)  It  is  not  unlawful  for  a  person  to  manufacture,  own,  buy, sell,  loan,  furnish,  transport,  assemble,  or  repair,  or  have  in possession  or  under  control,  a  short-barreled  rifle,  or  any  part designed  or  intended  solely  and  exclusively  for  use  in  a  short- barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law."

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1739-S.PL.pdf#page=1

Just for fun.

https://s.abcnews.com/images/WNT/150601_wn_thomas3_16x9_992.jpg

[Windwalker]

Another aggravation.

Is there any leeway for non-resident active duty military stationed in WA State 21 or above to buy a semi-auto?

RCW 9.41.124
Purchasing of rifles and shotguns by nonresidents. (Effective July 1, 2019.)
Residents of a state other than Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns, except those firearms defined as semiautomatic assault rifles, in Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Title IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States secretary of the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are eligible to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in the state in which such persons reside: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter.

And 18 year olds can fight for this country but not buy a 10/22?

What am I missing.

[konradcountry]

I wouldn’t use California as a guide for anything firearms related. And that could be a state law for California. As hard as our legislators are trying, this isn’t California yet. I would follow the pertinent ATF paperwork, ATF guidance, and Federal law.

Well if California dealers can sell them as rifles then the ATF probably doesn't care if Washington dealers do the same.

I'm not saying anyone should comply with dealers that ask. But it is probably legal for them to do this.

[konradcountry]

With the realization this is very fluid with misinformation/interpretation debates.
It would be handy to have a summary and any clarification.
Feel free to correct or edit and see if we can cobble together a reasonable understanding.
What is correct or needs edited?
...
6) Aluminum lowers are legal and background checks unchanged. * Note: DOL (at this time) has no provision to process an 'OTHER' transaction.
 

I read somewhere that this has changed and now there will be a 10 day waiting period with lowers.

[linxx77]

Just went over to Double Eagle and bought one yesterday. Likely won't buy another one unless this law changes.

[wadu1]

Yes I'm done with auto loaders and handguns until they remove HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) waver requirements. The way I read it and from the NRA/ILA reports and FFL dealers you wave your HIPAA rights to purchase.