User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:10:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Mine just got denied tonight for the same reason as well. 3/6 submission.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:13:23 AM EDT
[#2]
I wonder what they have to say about all the approved form 1s already out there?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:19:01 AM EDT
[#3]
 me too????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:23:45 AM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:24:33 AM EDT
[#5]
Yes, Mine just got kicked back tonight too. I applied to do an 80% lower. He wrote in a lot of question marks in his response on mine.. ? I already have several approved so who knows what this means. I was actually logging on to ask if anyone else had done an 80% yet.
CJG |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:29:26 AM EDT
[#6]
mine just got disapproved as well.
"Although RCW 9.91.190(2) exempts the possession, transport, and transfer, it does not exempt your request to make (manufacture) an sbr? therefore you are unable to make the type sbr in wa state, refund in process? tec" I thought we had clarification on this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:31:20 AM EDT
[#7]
Add me to the list. Submitted 3-18
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:33:18 AM EDT
[#8]
Email him, tell him you're getting help in Portland and will be making the SBR there.
On second thought DON'T...the last thing I need is someone closing loopholes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:35:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Email him, tell him you're getting help in Portland and will be making the SBR there. On second thought DON'T...the last thing I need is someone closing loopholes. yes, that is what I was going to do. ship the stock to my cousin in OR, submit the 5320 (or whatever the number is) and drive down there to do the put together. But now, I guess I am SOL! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:37:18 AM EDT
[#10]
Ya i just got back a second one i had submitted a few minutes ago also diapproved... I sent Ted Clutter an email asking whats up. I got a couple through already earlier in the year but I wanted more of course.
This is probably completely due to all the internet chatter about the wording of the law. had pople never brought it into question, never would have been a problem. Instead every time it was brought up, 20 pages later, still the same debate. What i know is that i went to olympia for the hearings and i know the intent of the law and it was never to restrict the making of SBR's. It also passed with like a 97% approval. Thank you all who nitpicked the wording and whoever did the crap writing on the legislation. this will be just like the suppressor law, ambiguous and take 10-15 years to fix. CJG |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:39:29 AM EDT
[#11]
Ted seems to be good people, for a government type. I wonder what he thinks "acquire" means.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law. Of those underlined things, two are related to what you do once you have them....and two are mechanisms for getting them. Acquire can't be the same thing as a transfer, because that is already mentioned. What other legal means other than make are there? Everything else is a transfer, either a taxed one or a tax exempt one. The only other legal means of acquiring an SBR is via making. This is noted, officially, in the bill analysis: A person wishing to acquire a NFA firearm has to obtain a certification from the local chief law
enforcement officer, undergo a background check, obtain prior approval for the transfer, and pay a $200 tax on the transaction. The ATF will not approve a transfer if the transfer would place the transferee in violation of any federal, state, or local law. The ATF also will not approve a transfer of a NFA firearm unless it is registered to the transferor. Unregistered NFA firearms generally may not be lawfully received, possessed, or transferred. Under the NFA, a person is allowed to make his or her own NFA firearm by applying to the ATF and meeting certain requirements. These requirements include: obtaining prior approval and registration of the item, obtaining a certification from the chief of the local law enforcement agency, undergoing a background check, and paying a $200 tax on the item. Full txt available here: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1561&year=2013 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:44:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Yep, just got mine kicked back as well!! WTF!?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:57:12 AM EDT
[#13]
I have two approved and one in review (submitted 4/28). Hopefully they won't get to mine until this is ironed out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:07:23 AM EDT
[#14]
yikes, a friend got denied today by Ted Clutter as well
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:12:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have two approved and one in review (submitted 4/28). Hopefully they won't get to mine until this is ironed out. When were yours approved? Who approved them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:19:24 AM EDT
[#16]
2/14 and 5/3. Putting on my tin foil hat so I'm going to leave out the approver :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:19:38 AM EDT
[#17]
Me too submitted 3/19 for a form 1 sbr
Disapproved 5/27 by Ted E. Clutter ETA the reason for disapproval 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:23:28 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Email him, tell him you're getting help in Portland and will be making the SBR there. On second thought DON'T...the last thing I need is someone closing loopholes. What? Why would it matter if they aren't going to accept them. Ask away IMHO. Regardless of the ATF's interpretation of the poorly written state law. It's quite clear that going out of state and making it is okay. We should be contesting it with that clarification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:28:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Add me to the list, just got back 2 denied forms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:31:22 AM EDT
[#20]
There is no rcw 9.91.190
Stupid atf. Edit to add rcw and fbho |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:34:09 AM EDT
[#21]
submitted 3/10
disapproved 5/27 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:47:47 AM EDT
[#22]
I was going to submit one for my cz evo but I guess its ok I didn't. Damn it Ted. I wonder if a superior told him to disapprove or if he was getting emails from dumbasses. Either way hopefully we can get this cleared up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:57:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no rcw 9.91.190 Stupid atf. Edit to add rcw and fbho Nope it is 9.41.190 ss.2 The will deny our forms for typos but I wonder what the response would be if you said "I am sorry you cannot dey my Form 1 due to the RCW you are quoting does not exist, please put it back in que" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:57:16 AM EDT
[#24]
It wouldn't be the first time a bunch of questions broke things down, but I suspect a bit more guidance was provided.
Looks like anything pending F1/SBR/WA was dumped by Ted this evening. I'm half tempted to resubmit with the full text of the law and the websters definition of acquire only to be constructive to the situation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquire |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:07:35 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wouldn't be the first time a bunch of questions broke things down, but I suspect a bit more guidance was provided. Looks like anything pending F1/SBR/WA was dumped by Ted this evening. I'm half tempted to resubmit with the full text of the law and the websters definition of acquire only to be constructive to the situation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquire That would really be taking one for the team.... I JUST had mine engraved too!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:27:37 AM EDT
[#26]
Yeah, in the same boat of proactive engraving, but whatever, a $80 lower is disposable at this point in time and is fine associated with a trust even in non-SBR form.
FWIW, I sent the standard NFA Questions efile 'contact us or ask a question' a question asking them how the "acquire" "in accordance with federal law" played in here. I suspect a whole bunch of WA SBR submittees have also sent questions, but will be interested to see what their response is in a few days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:29:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, in the same boat of proactive engraving, but whatever, a $80 lower is disposable at this point in time and is fine associated with a trust even in non-SBR form. FWIW, I sent the standard NFA Questions efile 'contact us or ask a question' a question asking them how the "acquire" "in accordance with federal law" played in here. I suspect a whole bunch of WA SBR submittees have also sent questions, but will be interested to see what their response is in a few days. Well mine is a SLR-104UR. I was going to chop the barrel. Can't just ditch a lower..... God damnit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:44:11 AM EDT
[#28]
Dang... I was going to submit another F1 tomorrow. Hope they get this worked out quickly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:45:26 AM EDT
[#29]
yeah, sorry, you are screwed. Hey, I'm in the same boat if previously approved F1's become problematic (only a matter of time I presume unless there is a reversal or clarification).
I did e-mail Mr Clutter simply inquiring how the WA state law usage of the very generic word 'acquire' played in here since that provision was never referenced in the denial. suspect he's swamped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:55:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Considering Ted was the person who approved my last SBR, I wonder who told him to start denying them. With all the approved SBRs out there now, its kinda hard to justify shutting it down now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:01:31 AM EDT
[#31]
not to mention that Form 1s don't allow anyone to manufacture an SBR....manufactures have their own paperwork. The form says "make" right on it, and the two are not interchangeable. Unless I'm making it to sell to someone else, I'm not a manufacturer of SBRs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:08:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not to mention that Form 1s don't allow anyone to manufacture an SBR....manufactures have their own paperwork. The form says "make" right on it, and the two are not interchangeable. Unless I'm making it to sell to someone else, I'm not a manufacturer of SBRs. This! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:33:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Looks like Mr Clutter is out of the office today. I left him a message requesting a call back from him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 9:31:31 AM EDT
[#34]
If this says in effect the only real legal way to do your own build on lowers currently owned will be to send them out of state to a "manufacturer" who will form 1 them into an SBR, then Form 3 them back into this state to an NFA dealer, and then your WA state NFA FFL will have to form 4 it to you. So just tack on another year wait and $ to get the same thing. beuracracy at its finest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 9:50:54 AM EDT
[#35]
Be cheaper to just buy sbrs via form 4 at that point. All those transfers cost $.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:09:59 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like Mr Clutter is out of the office today. I left him a message requesting a call back from him. understandable as it seems like he pulled an all-nighter on the denials yesterday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:32:59 AM EDT
[#37]
Add me to this list as well. I pinged my lawyer that wrote up my trust and I am considering contacting Rep. Reichert. Course the downside of that is Reichert's office will just throw back a form letter like they have in the past that does not touch on anything I wrote about. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:44:07 AM EDT
[#38]
WTF
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:44:55 AM EDT
[#39]
I also wrote an email including the definition of "acquire" and the text of 9.41.190.
I questioned what had changed since he had previously approved form 1's for Washington. I hope that i was polite enough that my dog doesn't end up on a hit list. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:49:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this says in effect the only real legal way to do your own build on lowers currently owned will be to send them out of state to a "manufacturer" who will form 1 them into an SBR, then Form 3 them back into this state to an NFA dealer, and then your WA state NFA FFL will have to form 4 it to you. So just tack on another year wait and $ to get the same thing. beuracracy at its finest. You can find a local FFL/SOT to do a form 2 notification the BATFE and then form 4 the lower back to you. They are exempted under RCW 9.41.190(3)(b) This should be the cheapest option, though it may take a bit for them to figure out pricing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:23:22 AM EDT
[#41]
Why don't we try to address the issue directly instead of coming up with a bunch of expensive, time consuming work arounds?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:50:28 AM EDT
[#42]
RCW 9.41.190
Unlawful firearms—Exceptions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle. (2) It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law. I don't have a dog in the hunt, but you guys got screwed by bad drafting in the bill sponsor's office. I know some of you worked to get the statute amended or passed, and feel for you. I'd be willing to bet that it'll take another amendment in the next legislative session to get the statute changed so that (2) says "possess, transport, acquire, transfer, convert, assemble or repair" before any WA Form 1s for SBRs are approved. Would love to hear the backstory from Mr. Clutter on the explanation on the change in opinion from a week or so ago to current point of view. Good luck to all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:05:40 PM EDT
[#43]
I asked that question in my email. I'm anxiously awaiting his response.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:36:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Jinkins shut down the SBR clarification language bill. Had she allowed that to go through, this wouldn't have been an issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:57:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jinkins shut down the SBR clarification language bill. Had she allowed that to go through, this wouldn't have been an issue. So what can we do? Mass letter/email writing? Do we know any reps who could get the ball rolling on this one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:00:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what can we do? Wait a couple days for Clutter to return to his office and explain his reasoning. It may have been an error. Once he explains then we can formulate an appropriate response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:13:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait a couple days for Clutter to return to his office and explain his reasoning. It may have been an error. Once he explains then we can formulate an appropriate response. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what can we do? Wait a couple days for Clutter to return to his office and explain his reasoning. It may have been an error. Once he explains then we can formulate an appropriate response. Eventually someone is either going to need to obtain an opinion from the WA AG, or maybe go down the LEO approval path until the clarification legislation I highly doubt you stay late, bulk disapprove a large quantity of state-specific SBR applications "without reason". We all believe it was 'in error" but until Mr Clutter gets us more information not sure what we can do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:28:05 PM EDT
[#48]
I have two that still say "SUBMITTED/IN PROCESS", so hopefully this will get sorted out before they get to mine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:39:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have two that still say "SUBMITTED/IN PROCESS", so hopefully this will get sorted out before they get to mine. were those submitted recently? the denials seem to be for march/april submissions, may submissions are still pending |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:48:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
were those submitted recently? the denials seem to be for march/april submissions, may submissions are still pending Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have two that still say "SUBMITTED/IN PROCESS", so hopefully this will get sorted out before they get to mine. were those submitted recently? the denials seem to be for march/april submissions, may submissions are still pending Submitted 4/16 ETA: Just saw a post on Facebook that claims the ATF is going to retract all the approved Form 1's for SBR's in WA too. If true, we really need to light a fire under our Legislator's asses to get this fixed. What happened to getting the AG to issue an opinion? Did he maybe finally issue an opinion that goes against the spirit of the law and that's why this is happening? Makes me wonder. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
