I see the angle you're looking at there. What I struggle with is that, logically, one cannot assemble an assault weapon from a single part. So prohibiting exactly that is unlikely to have been the point. And while I recognize that text vs. intent are not always the same, I do think that the ambiguity doesn't necessarily work in our favor, especially in light of the current political climate. For now, I'm sticking with the strict interpretation, until I see something more compelling and/or concrete establishing the contrary.

HB1240 says, in part:





Dreadi has posted a couple of examples of Form 4 approvals by the ATF for suppressors in Washington. So, it appears that the ATF doesn't believe that a suppressor is now illegal in Washington, so this is a good data point.

As I read the bill, a suppressor is in the same category as a flash hider, a folding stock, a vertical foregrip, and a host of other "evil features" that are mentioned. So if a suppressor is not an assault weapon, then those other parts aren't either.

Possible test case for Guns4’s analysis:

Poor Joe has a spare flash hider. Under the wording, that evil device could be applied to another firearm without any existing features, making the rifle an AW. Therefore, on its face, the flash hider is an AW because it is a part “from which an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon”.

Theoretically, so is the “other” rifle because it could converted, too. So Poor Joe has two evil AW’s.

Those that are going to comply will quietly do so, others will quietly not and adapt. I don’t think we will see much of this law unless from a vendor or the poor sap who is selling unserialized out of the trunk if the car.

I don't think this example works, because a threaded barrel is an evil feature. So if you have a centerfire, semi-auto rifle with a threaded barrel, it's already an AW -- adding the flash hider won't change that.

Maybe that's what makes the suppressor good to go . . . the barrel is already threaded, so adding the suppressor doesn't change anything.

Granted, there are ways to attach suppressors and other devices without threading, so I guess in those scenarios the attachment of such devices might turn the gun into an AW.

Theoretically it is possible to make a firearm that is not an "aSsAuLt WeApOn" that is made salty by adding a suppressor/flash hider to it (ie, a Browning bar with a custom three-lug barrel), but presently no firearm exists that can be made illegal by adding a suppressor.

You are right, I picked a poor example and I need to think about it some more.

As was posted, “intent” matters here and we don’t know for sure.

It seems their misguided intention of the parts and kits was to prevent people from doing this, *pic borrowed with appreciation from Atlantic Firearms



and then building their receiver out of a shovel.

Problem is they--the dear leadership--are also mostly all lawyers of the nefarious variety so they knew it was a slam dunk to, in the words of one of our less esteemed former staff members, "feign innocence" and bulk ship it all together like a big bucket of Winco trail mix, only to be able to pretend later it was an 'aw shucks' type of over-reach, but since mass shootings are still happening, we're just gonna leave it as-is for now, until we wring the last little bit of leadership out of the current pawns, then move on to phase 12.

Soros probably said that, somewhere, or at least something similar to it.

#WillNotComply?

What about a threaded barrel for a bolt action glock pistol?
As to the stock, why would a folding/telescoping stock for a rifle that normally has a fixed stock make it an assault weapon?

Illegal, intent doesn't matter, it's a part that can be used to 'convert' an assault weapon.

Here's the deal, the way the law is worded... EACH part, IS an assault weapon. They tried to copy the BATFE 'a suppressor part is a suppressor' language.. You buy a parts kit, and there's 15 charges for you.....each for 'illegal transfer of an assault weapon'...



There are multiple sections to this, and are read separately, with the OR separating them.... They're highlighted in different colors...

So.

Can these parts be....

A) 'from which an assault weapon can be assembled'
or
B)From which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon if those parts are in the possession or under control of the same person

But because an assault weapon 'part' by definition, IS an 'assault weapon', it's a recursive definition.. It uses its own definition to define itself.

A takedown pin IS an assault weapon, because it can be used to assemble an assault weapon, and because it's an assault weapon part, it IS an 'assault weapon.

Constitutional issues aside, the person who wrote this should be (COC VIOLATION) for their horrible language skills.





The threaded bbl 'can be used' to create an assault weapon... therefore it's banned. Even if it's not used to create one.. That's the way the law reads.

I tried explaining this before, it's not an additive clause, it's an OR clause... A OR B, not A AND B...


Due to the shitty wording, the rule of lenity should apply, and it should, theoretically, be strewn as banning constructive possession, not just parts that might work in an otherwise legal firearm. So, it should only ban 'a combination of parts that could be used to construct an assault weapon, but again, by defining A part, in addition to plural partS, the law would see that part as an assault weapon in of itself. Otherwise, it wouldn't say a singular 'part'... unless they meant it to be constructive possession wording, which they failed at miserably. I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


Of course, and as mentioned, since an AR15 is, by definition, and assault weapon, ANY AR15 PART is also an assault weapon.

I do believe this is why many companies are refusing to ship AR parts, as their attorneys are seeing it the same way I do, that any AR part is a defacto assault weapon. Also, the new law that makes dealers and manufacturers liable if their guns/parts are used in crime.... means they probably don't want the liability anyway.

Dang, I didn't consider that.



Not just any rifle, but a semi-auto centerfire rifle. A folding/telescoping stock is one of the "evil features."

I notice they use 'silencer' as a banned pistol item... but I'm not seeing the definition of 'silencer' anywhere in the RCW....

Glad you enjoyed the pistol article

For the rifle, I agree in principle, but as a practical matter I'm not aware of a rifle that isn't an assault weapon that could be made into one by the addition of a folding/telescoping stock. There's a crowdsourced list of legal semiautomatic weapons on Reddit, and AFAIK none of them have an adjustable stock option. Maybe the Ruger PC Carbine?

No argument from me on that … my position is highly theoretical.

The presence of a silencer on a semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is an evil feature. They omitted that from the pistol category. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a silencer is an evil feature on both semiautomatic centerfire rifles and semiautomatic pistols. (Note that detachable magazine includes almost everything including Garand en block clips).