I just spoke with another WA FFL and was told this:



I like this answer as it makes sense, so I'm going to pin my assumption of correctness on it and not be bothered by the non-4473 "transfer" of the item into my Trust.

The more I think about this, the more it makes perfect sense. The transferrer and trasnsferee are the same person, so what would be the point of a 4473 in the eyes of the State? The actual person owning the item does not change.

-Doc

The whole I594 trust "problem" is actually only a problem for multi-member trusts that have their own TIN (for tax reporting and distribution of trust property upon dissolution). A single member trust (what the vast majority of us have) uses the grantors social security number for identification and is a extension of you. Being that it is your social security number, you file taxes for it as an extension of you (if for some reason it was to make money), it defaults back to your personal will for guidance for unoutlined property when you die, and you as the grantor are still the legal owner of the property it holds. So with all that being said, there really is no "transfer" taking place but rather its just been moved so you don't have to deal with the whole CLEO sign off.

But on that note, that doesn't apply to corporations, multi member trusts that have TIN's and single member trusts that decided to get a TIN.

Also, Guns4Liberty makes a good point about the stripped glock frame (and any frame/receiver) not being a "firearm" in the eyes of the state and it can be transferred without going through the whole FFL process. If you have a corporation or trust with a TIN, thats the easiest way to do it.

594 defines person as "any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity."

Again, are you delivering the firearm to "another" person?

Mine is a multi-member Trust with no TIN, so I assume I'm good to go?

The whole thing about the State not seeing stripped receivers as firearms boggles the mind. To be clear though, does that only apply to a stripped receiver that has never been 4473'd as a defined firearm? That would make a *little* more sense.

-Doc

Yes...you would be. From Benja455 to Benja455 NFA Trust...just as if you were transferring the firearm from Benja455 to ANZAC. Which is reason #7654324567543 why 594 sucks.

Then again, if he strips the Glock down to just the frame...it's not a "firearm" according to 594 (that's reason #633545 why 594 sucks).

I can't see a procecution being attempted on the former unless you really really really ask for it. Even then, it probably wouldn't succeed, but that would be little consolation to your legal bills.

As for the latter, does the status of the frame/receiver only fall under "not a firearm" if it has never been transferred via form 4473, which is where it's legally defined as a "Pistol", "Rifle", etc? Otherwise you could in fact strip a pistol down and sell it to a 19 year old, dishonorably-discharged vet with a felony record, and not be breaking the letter of the law. (Which then lands you in the scenario I outlined in the first paragraph, of course.)

Hell, if anything, you could print this thread out and show it in court for your defense in that you did your due dilligence and found it impossible to come to any solid conclusion. :-)

Check the definition of a firearm under 594. A stripped receiver/frame doesn't not meet that definition.

I have a feeling that will be ammended the second someone gets caught doing something stupid with that info. "No, I did not give a gun to that kid who shot up his school. I gave him a stripped receiver and the next day a box of all the missing parts. That's legal, so neener neener."

That's why it would make more sense if what they had intended was to exclude anything that's already designated as a firearm, which we all know is whatever the serialized portion of the firearm is. That's been the definition for yonks, so whatever the wording is in 594, making the above, albeit extreme for the point of illustration, scenario legally definsible would not have been the goal.

I realize this is going a bit off topic, but this is all I could find in the RCW regarding the definition of "firearm" and "gun":

RCW 9.41.010 (9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

RCW 9.41.010 (10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.

I don't think there is anything specific in the RCW for 594 in regards to these definitions, and that the new legeslature borne from it utilizes the above definitions. (From what I've found, anyway.)

So one would be betting that a court would agree that taking the firearm apart causes it to no longer be a regulated item for the purpose of transferring it to a different owner. I would not want to make that bet.

Doc- Since you are not using your social security number for possible tax reporting (and can not because there are other members), you can't claim the "transfer" as movement of your own property that hasn't changed hands because its technically moving to a truly separate entity. To do it right and legally, it either needs to just get moved as a stripped lower or have a FFL do the paperwork side of the "transfer". 594 really was not thought out and this is a prime example of that.

If you bought a stripped receiver yourself from a dealer, it was put on the 4473 as "other", then you transferred it to the trust without it being assembled, it would be legal. If its an assembled "firearm" (by 594's definition) and you transfer it to the trust without going through an FFL, its illegal.

But as far as 594 goes, "firearms" and "parts" are somehow different in the same way that a car without wheels on it somehow is no longer a car.

Also, nothing said on an online forum should ever be used as a legal defense. We all wear tin foil hats, get incredibly spooked when someone turns around in our driveways, eat the squirrels that come through our yards because we don't trust what the gov'ment puts in our food and for some weird reason openly make posts online for the world to see, even though almost all of us don't have a law degree.

Thanks for chiming in: every little bit of info helps!


I'm curious about this widely-held notion of a stripped receiver not being a firearm. I looked through the RCW and can only assume that people are translating this:

RCW 9.41.010 (9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

into this:

"Therefor a stripped receiver is not a firearm because, by itself, it can't do that."

I get that ... looks like a perfect loophole. (And if it were, it might work once before it gets shored up to keep it from working again.)

However, I believe that these types of situations were both easily foreseen and remedied by those who drafted the law, and their way of dealing with it is the line right above the list of definitions:

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

In short, the Court gets to apply common sense (context) to the definitions to nullify "strictly speaking" arguments such as a stripped lower (or a lower with the upper removed, a shotgun with the barrel removed, a pistol with the slide removed, a revolver with the cylinder removed, etc.) is not a firearm by the definition in the RCW.

Granted she knows nothing about firearm law, I bounced this off a close friend who is a lawyer and she pegged that immediately as the fallacy of the assumption. In her opinion, that single line is all the Court needs to counter the argument. She also pointed out that once it's (seemingly inevitably) brought before the Court and ruled on, it will become citable "case law" and will then be all the more difficult to try to use as a defense.

Let me say that this is just my opinion based on my sense of logic, the way the law's written, and a fairly informed opinion from someone else as to how the verbiage of laws work in general. I could me missing a whole piece of the puzzle that nulifies my current opinion. But as it stands, unless there is current case law showing that this defense works, I am all but certain that when the time comes, it won't.

-Doc

This is BS(that frame's magically fall outside of 594). And also not a title-II conversation.

The wosrt they could do is say that, yes, you have to have an FFL transfer the firearm from "You" to "You, as a representitive of the Trust" so that you're in full compliance with 594.

Despite it seeming silly, it fills the gap and full compliance is had.

The hard part might be finding an FFL who doesn't look like a deer in headlights when you ask them about doing it, as they have been so far when I've called them for their input.

The whole frame thing is taking the definition of a "firearm" as the absolute and literal letter of the law. The federal view of what is and is not a "firearm" does not quite match the state law (like silencers are accessories and can be privately transferred, so long as you do the federal paperwork). For the time being everyone is running with this seemingly ludicrous (but to the literal letter) law, at least until someone eventually does something stupid, goes to court and creates a foundation for it to change due to case law.

Pretty much no one is going to sell anyone just a frame without going through a FFL but for the time being, that's how a lot of people are handling their trust acquisitions. I personally just buy what i've wanted and had it transferred to my trust (with the exception of a pre-594 form 1 SBR) but I know that not everyone wants to deal with the whole trust transfer hassle.

double post