AR Sponsor
Member
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
771
EE: 100% (73)
TN, USA
Posted: 7/4/2026 4:02:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: lugnutwrench2][Edited]
|
My understanding is that FRTs fail Washington's machine gun definition. (31) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second. Sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news man. |
|
I agree. FRT’s would be / are legal in WA if this is the law. The law clearly has an “and” clause. Must meet both prior and post definitions of the law. It has been settled federally that a frt requires a pull of the trigger per round. WA may decide to go after frt owners but that doesn’t change the law. |
|
Originally Posted By Lc17smp: I agree. FRT’s would be / are legal in WA if this is the law. The law clearly has an “and” clause. Must meet both prior and post definitions of the law. It has been settled federally that a frt requires a pull of the trigger per round. WA may decide to go after frt owners but that doesn’t change the law. 100% But who wants to be a test case? |
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
5
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By georgeib: My understanding is that FRTs fail Washington's machine gun definition. There's a couple 'AND's in there that you're missing. A machine gun must 1. Not require the trigger be pressed for each shot, 2. have a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other sepearable mechanism (for carrying/supplying ammo),and 3 .fired at 5+ shots per second. If all 3 conditions are not met, it's not a machinegun. Technically, under state law, and ignoring federal law, if you tuned a full auto gun to fire 3 rounds per second, it wouldn't be classified as a machine gun under state law. FRTs require the trigger be pulled for each shot - this is why they're legal under federal law - and because they require the trigger to be pulled for each shot, it does not meet criteria #1 and the 'is it a machine gun?' test fails. |
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
6
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Binary triggers, ARE illegal, because of the verbiage in state law of trigger press vs function of trigger verbiage under federal law. So, if you can fire more than 5rounds per second from a binary trigger, and clearly an AR has a feeding device, then that would be classified as a machine gun under state law. Even weirder is lowers aren't firearms under state law - because the definition of firearm under state law requires that it be capable of expelling a projectile under force of explosive pressure - -which lowers cannot do -- AND -- technically made things like nail guns 'firearms' under the law... They eventually modified the law adding 'frames and recievers' as firearms, but ONLY in the context of prohibited persons - and removed 'powder actuated tools' as firearms - (20) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. For the purposes of RCW 9.41.040, "firearm" also includes frames and receivers. "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. |
|
Originally Posted By georgeib: (31) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second. So FRT = Legal Binary = illegal |
Member
Joined:
Aug 2025
Posts:
210
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
So, Washington has already legislated Rate of Fire into law. But, they accidentally left language that presently fails to immediately prohibit Assisted Reset Devices. The WA legislature is plainly anti 2A. The reason a manufacturer chooses the safe path and avoids doing business in Washington is: Washington's Firearm Industry Accountability Act It is downright comical to read about the poor Washington folk arguing: sell me a Firearm related device cause the guys that banned binary triggers accidentally left this little door open. So, make a couple bucks now while opening the door wide to court actions that could end your ability to do business in every state. The dilemna stinks. I'd suggest WA folk figure out how to elect legislators that have some respect for your god given and constitutionally affirmed natural rights. |
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
7
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By dredeagle: So, Washington has already legislated Rate of Fire into law. But, they accidentally left language that presently fails to immediately prohibit Assisted Reset Devices. The WA legislature is plainly anti 2A. It went from one of the most permissive states to one of the most restrictive within about a decade. It started with banning private transfers, then quickly escalated. It's all been reactionary, poorly thought out, poorly planned, and VERY targeted at law abiding citizens. They've stopped hiding behind 'it's for public safety!' a long time ago and outright have started saying 'we know this only impacts conservatives, eff them'. Slightly off topic /// The weird thing is, I used to open carry - for educational purposes - Basically as an invitation for people to ask questions - opened up dialog with a ton of fence-sitters. Anyway, I was walking in downtown Olympia back in late '00s and had some Karen start yelling at me from an outside bar area about 'that thing' on my hip. I had a hippie, yes, patchouli oil, white dude, with dreadlocks, multicolor hemp shirt - the whole nine - actually TAKE MY SIDE - and was like 'hey man, this dude's not hurting anyone, just let him be, he's just walking through, he's not hurting anybody, he's got a right to protect himself just like anyone else does, just let him do his thing'... blew my mind. Now? Hah! Good luck. Leftists actively post about how to get police to respond aggressively against anyone they disagree with by mentioning they 'thought they saw a gun in his hand' - Any conservative in WA is 110% behind enemy lines. |
|
Originally Posted By dredeagle: So, Washington has already legislated Rate of Fire into law. But, they accidentally left language that presently fails to immediately prohibit Assisted Reset Devices. The WA legislature is plainly anti 2A. The reason a manufacturer chooses the safe path and avoids doing business in Washington is: Washington's Firearm Industry Accountability Act It is downright comical to read about the poor Washington folk arguing: sell me a Firearm related device cause the guys that banned binary triggers accidentally left this little door open. So, make a couple bucks now while opening the door wide to court actions that could end your ability to do business in every state. The dilemna stinks. I'd suggest WA folk figure out how to elect legislators that have some respect for your god given and constitutionally affirmed natural rights. I'm afraid that time has passed and it's a lost cause. When you have a city like Seattle, and a few surrounding counties full of dip shit liberals and mail in voting at this point there is no figuring out how to elect republicans. |
|
Originally Posted By georgeib: My understanding is that FRTs fail Washington's machine gun definition. (31) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second. Sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news man. Your understanding is wrong. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By Lc17smp: I can think of one guy already. He has been pretty vocal about them being legal. Present! Also- no real concern about anyone going after me. My main worry is the legislature figures out the gaps in the law. Anyone who ended up trying to jam me up would be given quite the education. Then there is a good chance their supervisor might be someone who knows me or worked with me at one point and knows I am squared away on firearms laws. I don’t hesitate to unfuck other LEO’s who can’t understand gun laws, did it plenty, I was the “gun guy” who was asked all the questions, even did it at a police academy when I dropped in to check on our recruits and found that they were using a Mossberg Cruiser (18” barrel Model 500 with pistol grip) as a “Short Barrel Shotgun” in scenario trainings. Lets just say I was not happy and put a stop to that shit. And then also educated them about Mossberg Shockwaves and Rem Tac-14 guns that only have 14” barrels but are not NFA weapons….because I knew they were gonna get that wrong too. Of course most LE doesn’t get much (any) training on firearms technical stuff, too much touchy feely training these days so knowing the law isn’t considered important I guess. But there is an expectation that people be able to read the relevant statute and interpret it correctly, and it would go quite poorly for someone unwilling to look things up before making an arrest on something they don’t understand. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: So FRT = Legal Binary = illegal Exactly. For the moment anyhow, Also- Bump stocks are specifically illegal. But something like a bump trigger, bump cradle, etc is not covered. Just stocks. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By dredeagle: So, Washington has already legislated Rate of Fire into law. But, they accidentally left language that presently fails to immediately prohibit Assisted Reset Devices. The WA legislature is plainly anti 2A. The reason a manufacturer chooses the safe path and avoids doing business in Washington is: Washington's Firearm Industry Accountability Act It is downright comical to read about the poor Washington folk arguing: sell me a Firearm related device cause the guys that banned binary triggers accidentally left this little door open. So, make a couple bucks now while opening the door wide to court actions that could end your ability to do business in every state. The dilemna stinks. I'd suggest WA folk figure out how to elect legislators that have some respect for your god given and constitutionally affirmed natural rights. Don’t give a damn if someone doesn’t want to sell something, because plenty of good manufacturers will. No loss if they have a company policy to that effect, and it is understandable in light of the liability law the state has. What I do want is for some companies to shut the hell up about “XYZ is ILLEGAL in ABC state” when they are not. See the difference? |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By rarecat: Drive to Idaho... Why? Buy from a company that can read the laws. They ship all the time no problem. If you absolutely must have a brand that won’t ship, then yeah, driving to ID doesn’t put you into legal trouble, it is fine. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By JimmyAR: I'm afraid that time has passed and it's a lost cause. When you have a city like Seattle, and a few surrounding counties full of dip shit liberals and mail in voting at this point there is no figuring out how to elect republicans. Yep. The governor election where they kept finding votes in someone’s garage locked in the D party in power…crooked fucks. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By OkieDokieSmokie: Binary triggers, ARE illegal, because of the verbiage in state law of trigger press vs function of trigger verbiage under federal law. So, if you can fire more than 5rounds per second from a binary trigger, and clearly an AR has a feeding device, then that would be classified as a machine gun under state law. Even weirder is lowers aren't firearms under state law - because the definition of firearm under state law requires that it be capable of expelling a projectile under force of explosive pressure - -which lowers cannot do -- AND -- technically made things like nail guns 'firearms' under the law... They eventually modified the law adding 'frames and recievers' as firearms, but ONLY in the context of prohibited persons - and removed 'powder actuated tools' as firearms - Yeah for a few years a lower was one of the only firearms that people could technically skip doing a background check on for private sales. But they fixed that particular loophole. WA has had a backdoor handgun registration for all FFL sales for decades. Now they have one for every firearm except NFA (which is still done federally) Also the state just doubled the background check cost, and said it is subject to sales tax. Unbelievable. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By georgeib: A better explanation: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_db6cc8bf-c586-4d96-98f1-988bbca87365 Blah- fucking AI fails to understand how the state AG argued that case that the AI is relying on to make its mind up. WA AG said that ATF could not return FRT’s to WA residents because ATF had decided that FRT’s were MG’s. Never mind that ATF had been forced to give up that legal determination. A very circular argument, that really should not make it full circle. AI also claiming that FRT’s are machine gun conversion devices is similarly stupid, because when all is said and done, with the parts installed, it does not meet the definition of a MG. And AI agrees that FRT’s don’t fit the state definition of a MG, so how the hell can they be a MG conversion device? We aren’t quite yet to AI being smart enough to rely on for legal determinations. Maybe read the nonsense it spews out before relying on it and posting it. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
9
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By tac556: Yeah for a few years a lower was one of the only firearms that people could technically skip doing a background check on for private sales. But they fixed that particular loophole. @tac556 That's news to me - last I checked frames aren't firearms under the state law - The relevant RCW is below. RCW 9.41.113 Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions. (1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons. Since a frame/receiver isn't a firearm, except in terms of felon in possession/prohibited person, as mentioned previously, then it's still not mandatory transfer a lower private party. If you know something I don't, please let me know. |
|
RCW 9.41.111 Firearm frames or receivers—Background check—Penalty. (1) Beginning on the date that is thirty days after the Washington state patrol issues a notification to dealers that a state firearms background check system is established within the Washington state patrol, a dealer shall use the state firearms background check system to conduct background checks for purchases or transfers of firearm frames or receivers in accordance with this section. (2) A dealer may not deliver a firearm frame or receiver to a purchaser or transferee unless the dealer first conducts a background check of the applicant through the state firearms background check system and the requirements and time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been satisfied. (3) When processing an application for the purchase or transfer of a firearm frame or receiver, a dealer shall comply with the application, recordkeeping, and other requirements of this chapter that apply to the sale or transfer of a pistol. (4) A signed application for the purchase or transfer of a firearm frame or receiver shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court, law enforcement agency, or the Washington state patrol firearms background check program, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to possess a firearm. Any mental health information received by a court, law enforcement agency, or the Washington state patrol firearms background check program pursuant to this section shall not be disclosed except as provided in RCW 42.56.240(4). (5) The department of licensing shall keep copies or records of applications for the purchase or transfer of a firearm frame or receiver and copies or records of firearm frame or receiver transfers in the same manner as pistol and semiautomatic assault rifle application and transfer records under RCW 9.41.129. (6) A person who knowingly makes a false statement regarding identity or eligibility requirements on the application to purchase a firearm frame or receiver is guilty of false swearing under RCW 9A.72.040. (7) This section does not apply to sales or transfers of firearm frames or receivers to licensed dealers. [ 2024 c 289 s 3; 2020 c 36 s 1.] Notes: Effective date—2024 c 289: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 26, 2024]." [ 2024 c 289 s 8.] It went into effect in 2024. They also updated the definition of a firearm (9.41.010) for purposes of crimes under 9.41.040 to include frames and receivers. @OkieDokieSmokie Up until then, frames and receiver indeed did not actually fit the definition of a firearm under state law, so the mandatory background check on private sales did not apply. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
10
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By tac556: [i][b]RCW 9.41.111 It went into effect in 2024. They also updated the definition of a firearm (9.41.010) for purposes of crimes under 9.41.040 to include frames and receivers. @OkieDokieSmokie Up until then, frames and receiver indeed did not actually fit the definition of a firearm under state law, so the mandatory background check on private sales did not apply. @tac556 That doesn't redefine a frame/receiver as a 'firearm'. That is a limitation on dealers, not Joe Blow - ' A dealer may not...'..'A dealer must'... etc. That RCW doesn't apply to a private party. The addition of 9.41.010 is a limitation, not an addition - it's read as 'these are not firearms EXCEPT for the purpose of enforcing against prohibited persons' There is no current law that I see that prevents private sales of completed lowers that are not firearms provided they're both state residents and not otherwise prohibited. |
|
Originally Posted By OkieDokieSmokie: @tac556 That doesn't redefine a frame/receiver as a 'firearm'. That is a limitation on dealers, not Joe Blow - ' A dealer may not...'..'A dealer must'... etc. That RCW doesn't apply to a private party. The addition of 9.41.010 is a limitation, not an addition - it's read as 'these are not firearms EXCEPT for the purpose of enforcing against prohibited persons' There is no current law that I see that prevents private sales of completed lowers that are not firearms provided they're both state residents and not otherwise prohibited. Hmmmm- you may be on to something with that line of thinking. Not really an issue I had researched before much. I don’t see it listed elsewhere either. No surprise if the legislature “fixed” the rcw in 2024 and still got it wrong from what they intended, and only required dealers to treat frames and receivers as firearms, and not private parties…. So they changed the law to require dealers to do background checks on frames and receivers, which we were already required to be doing per federal law anyhow…. Probably declared some big problem solved when they updated it as well. Geez. Reminds me of all the “LE reform” laws, that said we could not do things that were already illegal under other laws, were already illegal under case law, and similar. They “did something” while changing nothing, except making things more complicated and harder to understand… Well hopefully it flies under the radar like FRT’s have. They love to be so specific that they miss easier and simpler ways to define things….not my problem. Fuck em, basically… State dems are likely peeing down their pant legs already knowing that with Circuit Court split decisions, the USSC is going to have to weigh in on mags and “assault weapons” this next year. It will give them something to worry about hopefully that will keep them busy and not making new laws…. @OkieDokieSmokie |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
AR Sponsor