Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:55 pm


Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms McCallen Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 July 01, 2019.... Is it the end of the world? 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Olympia, WA
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 33915
Real Name: Dan
Guns4Liberty wrote:
Someone on a gun-related Facebook page just pointed..

Yup, this was brought up earlier in this thread. viewtopic.php?f=47&t=101351&start=30#p1006527


Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:31 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Location: Snohomish Co
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018
Posts: 132
Guns4Liberty wrote:
Someone on a gun-related Facebook page just pointed something out that I think is interesting (not saying it's correct, just thought-provoking). He was talking about how transfers of frames/receivers (like AR lowers) will not be able to be processed come July 1 (when FBI discontinues the courtesy instant NICS checks for everything but long guns). The reason is because frames/receivers fall into the "other" category, and the state will have to do the BGCs themselves. But the new state transfer forms (see below) do not have a way to mark the firearm as an "other"; it only provides options for either semi-automatic rifle or pistol. So, with lowers being neither of those, but unable to be processed by NICS after July 1, there will be no way to complete the state transfer application. Thoughts?


The feds need to to more transfers than just long guns, shotguns should be included, does anyone know if they have to do "others" and that is why it is ommited?


Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:54 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: central wa
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011
Posts: 3202
shaggy wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
Someone on a gun-related Facebook page just pointed something out that I think is interesting (not saying it's correct, just thought-provoking). He was talking about how transfers of frames/receivers (like AR lowers) will not be able to be processed come July 1 (when FBI discontinues the courtesy instant NICS checks for everything but long guns). The reason is because frames/receivers fall into the "other" category, and the state will have to do the BGCs themselves. But the new state transfer forms (see below) do not have a way to mark the firearm as an "other"; it only provides options for either semi-automatic rifle or pistol. So, with lowers being neither of those, but unable to be processed by NICS after July 1, there will be no way to complete the state transfer application. Thoughts?


The feds need to to more transfers than just long guns, shotguns should be included, does anyone know if they have to do "others" and that is why it is ommited?

Why isn't the inference that "others/shotguns (including semi-auto SGs?) do not require bgc - they are not on the form, therefore the form does not apply to them?


Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:00 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Auburn, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 12571
Real Name: Rick
quantsuff wrote:
Why isn't the inference that "others/shotguns (including semi-auto SGs?) do not require bgc - they are not on the form, therefore the form does not apply to them?

BINGO!!!
There is our loophole.
Buy an AR shotgun and put on a regular .223/5.56 upper.
You're welcome.
:wagwoot:

_________________
Beyond pissed :angryfire:

I do have good days but Washington State is becoming a shithole faster than I can loose money at a casino.


Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:20 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Auburn, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 12571
Real Name: Rick
For reference:
Quote:
Most AR-pattern shotguns only superficially resemble the modern sporting rifle and use a typical shotgun gas system to operate, but the Omni Hybrid AR-15 .410 shotgun, introduced by American Tactical Inc. (ATI) in 2017, is a true .410 AR upper and magazine combo that can be fitted to any standard AR-15 lower.

The gun is laid out just like a typical AR, but there are some key differences, according to this story from firearmsnews.com](http://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/r ... 10/316579#), which says there are some screws in the lower receiver where ARs normally have pins, and the upper has a roll pin where there typically is none. The Omni Hybrid runs on a gas operated, short stroke balanced piston system.

_________________
Beyond pissed :angryfire:

I do have good days but Washington State is becoming a shithole faster than I can loose money at a casino.


Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:24 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: RENTON
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011
Posts: 10875
Real Name: John
Where did it say you could put a 5.56 upper on that Lower? :popcorn: I didn't see that from the article you posted.

_________________
Mr. Q wrote: so basically, if you have to smoke some asshole, make sure they become fertilizer and then Bounce? got it.

NRA Member/RSO
SAF 5 Year Donor
GOA Member


Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:38 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 6098
Real Name: Curtis
Massivedesign wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
Someone on a gun-related Facebook page just pointed..

Yup, this was brought up earlier in this thread. viewtopic.php?f=47&t=101351&start=30#p1006527

Oops! Somehow I missed that nugget the first go-around.


Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 37998
Real Name: Steve
This is probably a good time to recall that a lower is not a "firearm" per WA state's definition, and if you're doing a private sale, an FFL transfer is not required. thumbsup

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:31 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 6098
Real Name: Curtis
MadPick wrote:
This is probably a good time to recall that a lower is not a "firearm" per WA state's definition, and if you're doing a private sale, an FFL transfer is not required. thumbsup

Preach it, Steve!

I explain this to people all the time, but no one seems to want to listen. It's sad when we voluntarily give up rights unnecessarily because we feel like we have to "play it safe".


Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:05 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Centralia
Joined: Tue Jun 4, 2019
Posts: 33
Real Name: Derek
MadPick wrote:
This is probably a good time to recall that a lower is not a "firearm" per WA state's definition, and if you're doing a private sale, an FFL transfer is not required. thumbsup



What if I wanted to buy a pistol frame/lower does that still count as not a firearm?


Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:27 pm
Profile
Site Moderator
User avatar
Site Moderator

Location: Renton/Kent
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012
Posts: 2366
Real Name: Jacy
When I-594 went into effect, gun owners grumbled and complained but complied for the most part because it was merely an inconvenience. Some owners have continued to buy/sell/trade privately without complying because they saw it as a BS law with no real teeth that would almost never be prosecuted.
With the implementation of I-1639, I personally foresee all of that going out the window and a LOT more gun owners saying “f*ck it” and going back to the old way of private transfers.
Not that I *condone* it, because I never would on a public forum. Especially as a mod.
But I’m happy to get together and just talk about guns offline any time.


Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:06 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: RENTON
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011
Posts: 10875
Real Name: John
DGM33 wrote:
When I-594 went into effect, gun owners grumbled and complained but complied for the most part because it was merely an inconvenience. Some owners have continued to buy/sell/trade privately without complying because they saw it as a BS law with no real teeth that would almost never be prosecuted.
With the implementation of I-1639, I personally foresee all of that going out the window and a LOT more gun owners saying “f*ck it” and going back to the old way of private transfers.
Not that I *condone* it, because I never would on a public forum. Especially as a mod.
But I’m happy to get together and just talk about guns offline any time.


I am in total agreement Jacy. I would never condone breaking any Stupid feel good that does nothing Law, but we can certainly discuss our feelings about that in a more private setting.

_________________
Mr. Q wrote: so basically, if you have to smoke some asshole, make sure they become fertilizer and then Bounce? got it.

NRA Member/RSO
SAF 5 Year Donor
GOA Member


Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:29 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Spanaway WA
Joined: Wed Jul 6, 2011
Posts: 4593
Real Name: Hugo Stiglitz
DGM33 wrote:
When I-594 went into effect, gun owners grumbled and complained but complied for the most part because it was merely an inconvenience. Some owners have continued to buy/sell/trade privately without complying because they saw it as a BS law with no real teeth that would almost never be prosecuted.
With the implementation of I-1639, I personally foresee all of that going out the window and a LOT more gun owners saying “f*ck it” and going back to the old way of private transfers.
Not that I *condone* it, because I never would on a public forum. Especially as a mod.
But I’m happy to get together and just talk about guns offline any time.



+1 Billion


Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:40 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 182
Real Name: Phill
AK_Goes_Bang_Bang wrote:
MadPick wrote:
This is probably a good time to recall that a lower is not a "firearm" per WA state's definition, and if you're doing a private sale, an FFL transfer is not required. thumbsup



What if I wanted to buy a pistol frame/lower does that still count as not a firearm?


There is no such thing as a "pistol lower," legally speaking. A lower is an "other" according to the feds, and a nothing according to the state. Doesn't matter what furniture it has. If there is no barrel, it does not meet any federal definition except "other" because all the specific definitions (pistol, rifle, and shotgun) have barrel specifics in the definition.

Ex: The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

The part in bold is what I'm referring to. If there is no bore at all, it cannot be a rifle. You will find similar mentions of a "bore" and "chamber" in the GCA definition of a pistol.


Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Centralia
Joined: Tue Jun 4, 2019
Posts: 33
Real Name: Derek
Pvanderzee wrote:
AK_Goes_Bang_Bang wrote:
MadPick wrote:
This is probably a good time to recall that a lower is not a "firearm" per WA state's definition, and if you're doing a private sale, an FFL transfer is not required. thumbsup



What if I wanted to buy a pistol frame/lower does that still count as not a firearm?


There is no such thing as a "pistol lower," legally speaking. A lower is an "other" according to the feds, and a nothing according to the state. Doesn't matter what furniture it has. If there is no barrel, it does not meet any federal definition except "other" because all the specific definitions (pistol, rifle, and shotgun) have barrel specifics in the definition.

Ex: The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

The part in bold is what I'm referring to. If there is no bore at all, it cannot be a rifle. You will find similar mentions of a "bore" and "chamber" in the GCA definition of a pistol.


Interesting...
Thank you for further clarifying!


Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:48 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rent Me Pintos NRA SAF CCKRBA
Aldersons e-arms.com


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.772s | 17 Queries | GZIP : On ]