Switch to full style
Current and Upcoming Legislation. Local, State and Federal.

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.
Post a reply

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:33 pm

Selador wrote:
RocketScott wrote:Technically the trigger is pressed by the trigger spring after releasing finger pressure.

The law doesn’t say that your finger has to do the pressing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically... You could justify full-auto by the same argument.


No, because with full auto the trigger doesn't move after the first shot.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:06 pm

MadPick wrote:
Selador wrote:
RocketScott wrote:Technically the trigger is pressed by the trigger spring after releasing finger pressure.

The law doesn’t say that your finger has to do the pressing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically... You could justify full-auto by the same argument.


No, because with full auto the trigger doesn't move after the first shot.

Ok, I can see the point about the trigger not moving any more.

But in the example, the trigger doesn't move the second time, because you moved it with your finger. It moves because of the spring pushing it back. So your finger doesn't move the trigger every time. But it moves the second time, because you pulled the trigger the first time.

In full auto, you pull the trigger, and every firing action after that, happens because of the fact that you pulled the trigger that first time.

One extra action per one trigger pull. Versus many extra actions per one trigger pull. Still extra actions...

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:26 pm

All these technicalities create way too much risk for major legal issues. Is it really worth it to be able to shoot at a high rate of feed? It serves zero purpose other than fun. I don’t disagree that all these laws should be tossed, but the reality is we have to live with them. I am truly fascinated by people trying to manipulate words of laws on these types of things. Is it worth loosing your rights over? If the same money and energy was spent trying to get these BS laws changed we may actually get somewhere. I personally feel these things that skate the edge of legal set us back.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:16 pm

mcyclonegt wrote:All these technicalities create way too much risk for major legal issues. Is it really worth it to be able to shoot at a high rate of feed? It serves zero purpose other than fun. I don’t disagree that all these laws should be tossed, but the reality is we have to live with them. I am truly fascinated by people trying to manipulate words of laws on these types of things. Is it worth loosing your rights over? If the same money and energy was spent trying to get these BS laws changed we may actually get somewhere. I personally feel these things that skate the edge of legal set us back.


If it's time to bury them, it's time to use them...


something, something...

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:41 am

I don't really have any interest in owning one. If I did I'd want some ruling or clarification of the law before buying.

This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

If there were no spring to push the trigger forward you could take your finger off the trigger and the gun would not fire. Yes, practically this would be stupid, but we're looking at this hypothetically.

The gun fires the first time by pressing the trigger rearward with a finger. To fire a second time it needs the action of being pressed forward by a spring. Removing the trigger finger initiates that action, same as release fire shotguns.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:10 am

For a 9mm PDW, they'd be perfect, IMO.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:53 pm

RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:57 pm

Guns4Liberty wrote:
RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Good gawd!

Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.

You KNOW what the intention of the law is.

Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...

Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:27 pm

Selador wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Good gawd!

Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.

You KNOW what the intention of the law is.

Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...

Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...



The intention of the law is to ban a certain item. It's being misinterpreted to ban a different item.

Maybe the state should stop making laws that already exist on the federal level. We don't need 50 different definitions of machine guns, or anything else firearms related.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:30 pm

RocketScott wrote:
Selador wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
RocketScott wrote:This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Good gawd!

Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.

You KNOW what the intention of the law is.

Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...

Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...



The intention of the law is to ban a certain item. It's being misinterpreted to ban a different item.

Maybe the state should stop making laws that already exist on the federal level. We don't need 50 different definitions of machine guns, or anything else firearms related.

That's an answer I can agree with!!!

Instead of picking at nits and in the process making everything ever more complicated, how about we just get rid of the law?

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:35 pm

If we don't explore the boundaries of the law, then we'll never truly know what is permitted and what is not. This thread is such an exploration; if you're not interested, I'm sure there are other threads that you will find interesting.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:18 pm

Guns4Liberty wrote:If we don't explore the boundaries of the law, then we'll never truly know what is permitted and what is not. This thread is such an exploration; if you're not interested, I'm sure there are other threads that you will find interesting.

Really?

Dangit! I wish someone had told me BEFORE I went and got all upset! :wink05:

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:09 pm

Guns4Liberty wrote:...The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.


I don’t think it does. It says what it says.

Fostech made a business decision not to sell to WA. I’m sure our jack wagon of an AG had something to do with it. Legalities don’t seem to matter here and the threat of prosecution is real.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:27 am

RocketScott wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:...The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

I don’t think it does. It says what it says.

Laws are always open to interpretation. That's one of the main reasons why we have scores of attorneys and judges. I don't think this law is any different. Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that these triggers are legal in WA. I'm simply poking at the RCW looking for holes. It's a purely academic exercise at this point; I don't have any interest in owning one, nor would I obtain one without some compelling clarification of the law. But I see no harm in pushing the boundaries of the law to the max; in fact, I think it's a worthy exercise.


RocketScott wrote:Fostech made a business decision not to sell to WA. I’m sure our jack wagon of an AG had something to do with it. Legalities don’t seem to matter here and the threat of prosecution is real.

Agreed.

Re: Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding.....

Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:25 am

Fostech will not ship here, but they will sell it to you at Triggrcon. (At least they did last year)
Post a reply