User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/13/2023 11:56:45 AM EDT
[#1]
I'm not a lawyer and Don't give legal advice but as far as I know SBR's are legal in WA as long as you have the federal tax stamp. At least today, who knows how long till they're illegal.
You can file on line for a form 1, go to the ATF web site for information. The ATF will accept your application along with your $200. and send you a cover letter via email then return the cover letter with your finger print cards that you can get from the ATF, |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2023 8:21:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Guess it'll depend how the AWB hearings wash out.
Right now the bill has grandfathering so I'd assume if you want to SBR there's no stopping you legally. However they're going after parts/kits as part of the ban so if you want to build one in the future to SBR, better get your stuff NOW before the word gets out and wasingtonians swap the venders. I assume you're SBRing due to the rule drop for braces? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 11:10:37 AM EDT
[#3]
What's the eform submission site address? I have the forms, but don't know where to initiate the submission process.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:24:02 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 10:30:08 PM EDT
[#5]
What parts would be banned if this passes?
Lower parts? Including BCG? Charging handle? What about upper receivers and upper parts? Presumably you can still put those on a legal gun or are they somehow still planning to ban that too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 11:20:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guess it'll depend how the AWB hearings wash out. Right now the bill has grandfathering so I'd assume if you want to SBR there's no stopping you legally. However they're going after parts/kits as part of the ban so if you want to build one in the future to SBR, better get your stuff NOW before the word gets out and wasingtonians swap the venders. I assume you're SBRing due to the rule drop for braces? I think it depends on the definition of "manufacturing". The bill makes that illegal. ATF considers attaching an upper to a lower to be "manufacturing" a SBR. You can't "manufacture" your SBR until ATF approves your application. But maybe the word means different things in the State law vs ATF regulations. If I'm the State law it actually means drilling holes in the receiver it should be ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 1:46:21 AM EDT
[#7]
If a FFL puts a lower and upper together it is manufacturing since your converting a receiver to a rifle or pistol.
It is not manufacturing for a non FFL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:20:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What parts would be banned if this passes? Lower parts? Including BCG? Charging handle? What about upper receivers and upper parts? Presumably you can still put those on a legal gun or are they somehow still planning to ban that too? They have no idea, and will never clarify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2023 5:35:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If a FFL puts a lower and upper together it is manufacturing since your converting a receiver to a rifle or pistol. It is not manufacturing for a non FFL. So why do we need to engrave it when we Form 1 to change a pistol/rifle to an SBR? Will we still be able to do that under this law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2023 6:52:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What parts would be banned if this passes? Lower parts? Including BCG? Charging handle? What about upper receivers and upper parts? Presumably you can still put those on a legal gun or are they somehow still planning to ban that too? Read bill 1180 page 2 line 34, then read page 4 line 31 through page 5 line 2. It seems to mean that not only are complete rifles defined as an AW but so are parts. Therefore whatever complete rifles you buy before the ban, INCLUDING parts for those guns, are covered under the grandfathering. So if you had a pile of parts (complete uppers, BCGs, triggers, pins, springs, etc...) before the ban was inacted your good to go for ownership. They're gradfathered. From how I read the whole bill, there's no ban on actual assembly of your parts, just no more buying/selling of those parts. Another interesting thing about the mag ban RCW 9.41.370, it only says manufacturing is illegal. By definition manufacturing is making something from raw materials. No one is creating springs, bodies, followers from raw plastic and metal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 6:26:24 AM EDT
[#11]
What we’re concerned about is the Form 1 not being approved before a ban happens here that cuts off ‘manufacture’.
Maybe we’re overthinking it since our trust will be the ‘maker’ and not the ‘manufacturer’. I certainly hope I’m getting the distinction correct because if ATF denies it, we’re going to be stuck with it in pistol configuration and no brace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 9:25:43 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What we’re concerned about is the Form 1 not being approved before a ban happens here that cuts off ‘manufacture’. However, SBRs are not being banned. Maybe we’re overthinking it since our trust will be the ‘maker’ and not the ‘manufacturer’. I certainly hope I’m getting the distinction correct because if ATF denies it, we’re going to be stuck with it in pistol configuration and no brace. SBR’s are being banned under the new AWB. Says no rifle under 30”. Also says no transfers after the law goes into effect. So if you are waiting for a form 1 or form 4 to transfer after the law goes into effect, you are screwed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 11:25:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SBR’s are being banned under the new AWB. Says no rifle under 30”. Also says no transfers after the law goes into effect. So if you are waiting for a form 1 or form 4 to transfer after the law goes into effect, you are screwed. Oh dear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 12:14:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also says no transfers after the law goes into effect. So if you are waiting for a form 1 or form 4 to transfer after the law goes into effect, you are screwed. Wait, does that mean we wont be able to send our guns off to the manufacturer for repairs??! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 1:13:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Well, if it makes any of us feel any better a TRO was already granted against the new Illinois AWB. Now, why the frick can't Dimke grant us a TRO against the mag ban?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 1:40:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @cops66 Wait, does that mean we wont be able to send our guns off to the manufacturer for repairs??! I thought I read repairs were ok |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 1:43:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, if it makes any of us feel any better a TRO was already granted against the new Illinois AWB. Now, why the frick can't Dimke grant us a TRO against the mag ban? I think the TRO in Illinois was for 866 plaintiffs who paid the attorney $200.00 each. Everyone else still has to go by the law. As far as WA goes, I have no faith in our liberal courts/ judges. If this AWB goes through, I think we are on our own for awhile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 2:11:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought I read repairs were ok Reason I asked is you brought up transfer of AWs being illegal. Its been a LONG time since I sent a gun in for repair. Does it get shipped straight back to us or does it go to a dealer? I have several threaded guns. Threads are going to be a no-go after this |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 2:23:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reason I asked is you brought up transfer of AWs being illegal. Its been a LONG time since I sent a gun in for repair. Does it get shipped straight back to us or does it go to a dealer? I have several threaded guns. Threads are going to be a no-go after this Most firearm companies send the firearm back to you. I even had an FN Scar once that had to be replaced and they send me the new firearm with a new serial number directly to my residence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 2:33:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most firearm companies send the firearm back to you. I even had an FN Scar once that had to be replaced and they send me the new firearm with a new serial number directly to my residence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 5:39:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Never mind... It does specifically ban SBRs...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2023 10:35:31 PM EDT
[#22]
I am tired of putting up with this crap.
I hope the new flood of anti-gun laws around the country after Bruen will kick SCOTUS into action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 2:01:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK, whew thats good to know. Thanks! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Most firearm companies send the firearm back to you. I even had an FN Scar once that had to be replaced and they send me the new firearm with a new serial number directly to my residence. Yes, there's actually a provision in the bill that specifically states that transfers to and from a gunsmith for service or repair is allowed. (previous version SB 5217 Section 2). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 3:39:35 AM EDT
[#24]
Regarding efiling, is it best to submit payment by CC, or check? If the latter, how is the check sent so that payment will be matched with the submitted forms?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:48:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SBR’s are being banned under the new AWB. Says no rifle under 30”. Also says no transfers after the law goes into effect. So if you are waiting for a form 1 or form 4 to transfer after the law goes into effect, you are screwed. Comming at this from the other angle once you sign the kings ledger and accept the amnesty you are admitting it's a sbr and always was according to what most people are saying. Would this not mean it is grandfathered? I'm doubting a regular form 1 would make through in time and could take a year or more with all the people getting "free stamps". I'm starting to think i need to run this by a Lawyer. Has anyone done so or could recomend someone? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 12:02:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Comming at this from the other angle once you sign the kings ledger and accept the amnesty you are admitting it's a sbr and always was according to what most people are saying. Would this not mean it is grandfathered? I'm doubting a regular form 1 would make through in time and could take a year or more with all the people getting "free stamps". I'm starting to think i need to run this by a Lawyer. Has anyone done so or could recomend someone? Interesting idea… ATF said two things however: 1). They will not approve applications where SBRs are banned. (Obviously we would need clarity on how this would apply to WA, but their attitude on 922r is an indicator, that is not promising.) 2) If applicant is denied, it can trigger an ‘enforcement action’. EDIT: As far as an attorney is concerned, can we start with William Kirk? EDIT2: I looked over the bill and it does seem like we may have an avenue here. Furthermore, I wonder if we even need to show that we possessed it as an amnesty qualified SBR if we can show that it already met the definition of an AW under another portion. I’m guessing this has come up with other states though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 3:01:14 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting idea… ATF said two things however: 1). They will not approve applications where SBRs are banned. (Obviously we would need clarity on how this would apply to WA, but their attitude on 922r is an indicator, that is not promising.) 2) If applicant is denied, it can trigger an ‘enforcement action’. EDIT: As far as an attorney is concerned, can we start with William Kirk? EDIT2: I looked over the bill and it does seem like we may have an avenue here. Furthermore, I wonder if we even need to show that we possessed it as an amnesty qualified SBR if we can show that it already met the definition of an AW under another portion. I’m guessing this has come up with other states though. This needs clarification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:36:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting idea… ATF said two things however: 1). They will not approve applications where SBRs are banned. (Obviously we would need clarity on how this would apply to WA, but their attitude on 922r is an indicator, that is not promising.) 2) If applicant is denied, it can trigger an ‘enforcement action’. EDIT: As far as an attorney is concerned, can we start with William Kirk? EDIT2: I looked over the bill and it does seem like we may have an avenue here. Furthermore, I wonder if we even need to show that we possessed it as an amnesty qualified SBR if we can show that it already met the definition of an AW under another portion. I’m guessing this has come up with other states though. While I'm completely out of my depth here my thinking is the amnesty acts as a time stamp. On a regular form 1 assuming they ever post the rule, once the 120 days is up if you don't have your stamp yet you have to remove your brace. Once removed it's now a pistol and recieving a stamp creates an AW. I've been reading a ton and it's hard to keep it all sorted but iirc even if the Wa law doesn't ban sbr they are still AW and thus cannot be created. Mr. Kirk's website was one i looked at yesterday but it's hard to tell who's legit and who's a huckster. Do you have personal experience with him? Seems like there's a lot of people in Wa in this boat who probably don't realize it. If possible pooling resources and having a single representative would be ideal. Not so much a class action but rather a person to make inquiries on behalf of a group. The important thing imo is to get something in writing. I could call the atf and they could tell me I'm right but if the person doing my form 1 doesn't know about this it will still be rejected if the Wa law has gone into effect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:48:36 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While I'm completely out of my depth here my thinking is the amnesty acts as a time stamp. On a regular form 1 assuming they ever post the rule, once the 120 days is up if you don't have your stamp yet you have to remove your brace. Once removed it's now a pistol and recieving a stamp creates an AW. I've been reading a ton and it's hard to keep it all sorted but iirc even if the Wa law doesn't ban sbr they are still AW and thus cannot be created. Mr. Kirk's website was one i looked at yesterday but it's hard to tell who's legit and who's a huckster. Do you have personal experience with him? Seems like there's a lot of people in Wa in this boat who probably don't realize it. If possible pooling resources and having a single representative would be ideal. Not so much a class action but rather a person to make inquiries on behalf of a group. The important thing imo is to get something in writing. I could call the atf and they could tell me I'm right but if the person doing my form 1 doesn't know about this it will still be rejected if the Wa law has gone into effect. I would agree with this approach. Based on past behavior on the part of the state AG, I would also tend to think that things are being left intentionally unclear regarding apps still in process if/when the law gets signed. A class action would be welcome news, BTW. I'll donate to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 4:33:07 PM EDT
[#30]
In regards to Mr Kirk mentioned above his org or firm is called Washington Gun Law. He also has a bunch of videos on youtube and seems to be well regarded. He seems to be as good a place to start as any.
This is his original take on the pistol ruling from 8 days ago. In this or one of the other videos he makes it sound like he has braced pistols himself. 20 min long but very even handed not alarmist trying to get clicks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvPdE75qZs This is his take on the 88 day rule. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ocVVgRFw1oQ This video is about trusts and makes an interesting point about those of us who have assigned braced items to our trusts without yet filing for a stamp. Form 4473 only allow items to be owned by an individual. This would imply that while they can be put in a trust they are not owned by the trust like a form 1 or 4 which has the option to assign several different ways. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mTGfhG-kpVE |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 5:03:19 PM EDT
[#31]
We had ours notarized to our trust last week. This is a hedge in case we want to go the amnesty route and have it go directly into our trust vs having to transfer after approval. This can be undone and wouldn't be needed if going the traditional form 1 route which we were leaning towards until we found out how the new Wa awb might effect things. After talking it over with the notary they attached a form to the inventory list to notarize it. What effect the info in the video above had on this I'm not sure.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 6:52:43 PM EDT
[#32]
If this AWB passes, we all need to become plaintiffs and hire WA Gun Law Mr. Kirk. I have spoke to him already about some pending NFA stuff and he is a good dude and has our best interests at heart.
We will need to get a TRO, so all of us that do have any NFA items pending can get this done and hopefully get all this BS thrown out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 7:55:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this AWB passes, we all need to become plaintiffs and hire WA Gun Law Mr. Kirk. I have spoke to him already about some pending NFA stuff and he is a good dude and has our best interests at heart. We will need to get a TRO, so all of us that do have any NFA items pending can get this done and hopefully get all this BS thrown out. I was already talking to my buddies and two FFLs about this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 8:33:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was already talking to my buddies and two FFLs about this. The more the better. This is the way we fight this because we know our phone calls and 10-1 con over pro doesn’t seem to mean shit to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:19:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this AWB passes, we all need to become plaintiffs and hire WA Gun Law Mr. Kirk. I have spoke to him already about some pending NFA stuff and he is a good dude and has our best interests at heart. We will need to get a TRO, so all of us that do have any NFA items pending can get this done and hopefully get all this BS thrown out. What is a TRO? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:31:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is a TRO? Temporary Restraining Order |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2023 1:09:41 PM EDT
[#37]
IN!
Very concerned about my existing SBRs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2023 8:06:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the TRO in Illinois was for 866 plaintiffs who paid the attorney $200.00 each. This seems like the way. I bet there's way more than 866 in the same boat in Wa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2023 8:28:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This seems like the way. I bet there's way more than 866 in the same boat in Wa. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the TRO in Illinois was for 866 plaintiffs who paid the attorney $200.00 each. This seems like the way. I bet there's way more than 866 in the same boat in Wa. Keep in mind that they got that restraining order there because the legislature did not follow the proper procedure for passage of a bill and figured it was the fastest way to stop it. They plan to file a proper suit once they have their case written up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 12:40:57 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Keep in mind that they got that restraining order there because the legislature did not follow the proper procedure for passage of a bill and figured it was the fastest way to stop it. They plan to file a proper suit once they have their case written up. They also got it because it’s a blatant violation of the 2A and completely goes against the resent Bruen decision. I’m glad people are starting to stand up to the tyrannical sons of bitches and we all better do the same here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 8:38:50 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This seems like the way. I bet there's way more than 866 in the same boat in Wa. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the TRO in Illinois was for 866 plaintiffs who paid the attorney $200.00 each. This seems like the way. I bet there's way more than 866 in the same boat in Wa. Say who/what/where/when & I'll chip in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 12:50:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Say who/what/where/when & I'll chip in. x2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 1:54:58 PM EDT
[#43]
So if we are going to do a group effort the 1st thing that needs to be decided is what the goal is. This started by the OP as an nfa thread and my primary interest is in getting my pistols through the sbr process before any ban. I would love to see a tro put on the awb if/when it passes but the atf may very well reject our nfa items because the law passed even if it is on hold.
As far as the awb itself the 1st thing I'm going to do is look around and see if there is any organized effort already forming up. A bunch of small groups are far less likely to get it done than if everyone comes together. To this end anyone that is already aware of any ongoing efforts please post them here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 2:23:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They also got it because it’s a blatant violation of the 2A and completely goes against the resent Bruen decision. I’m glad people are starting to stand up to the tyrannical sons of bitches and we all better do the same here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Keep in mind that they got that restraining order there because the legislature did not follow the proper procedure for passage of a bill and figured it was the fastest way to stop it. They plan to file a proper suit once they have their case written up. They also got it because it’s a blatant violation of the 2A and completely goes against the resent Bruen decision. I’m glad people are starting to stand up to the tyrannical sons of bitches and we all better do the same here. They are also focusing on the equal protection clause and how it is violated by some of the bill carve outs. Spoiler, WA state constitution has the same clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 12:00:55 PM EDT
[#45]
So I sent Mr Kirk a message through their website. If I don't hear back in a few days I'll give them a call.
Hi my names xxxxxx and I am a resident of Washington state. Being unfamiliar with nfa rules and owning a couple of braced pistols I've been doing a lot of reading and have a basic grasp of what is happening in that regard. I have run in to something that concerns me in regards to how Wa laws will effect the nfa applications whether they are the "free" or standard form 1. My understanding is it is currently legal to use the nfa process to aquire a sbr in Washington. There is however as most are aware an AWB that is likely to be approved this year. The problem I see is that even if submitted today the nfa stamp is unlikely to be approved before the law goes into effect. If this is the case people with braced pistols are left with no recourse and will be denied. Discussing this with some folks on a local web forum we came across a possible "loop hole". My understanding is the atf stance on pistol braces is when one applies for the "free" stamp one is admitting that the braced pistol is and always was an sbr. The pending Wa AWB is most likely going to include a grandfather clause so what I'm wondering is if signing up for the "free" stamp would then grandfather the pistol in question. I'd like to know if Mr Kirk thinks this idea has merit and if so if he would be interested in representing myself or possibly a group of people in this matter. Thanks Xxxxxx |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 4:11:21 PM EDT
[#46]
But the proposed WA AWB legislation includes a paragraph that prohibits ….. ownership …. and / or possession …. of a Short Barrel Rifle.
How will we circumnavigate that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 7:10:02 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But the proposed WA AWB legislation includes a paragraph that prohibits ….. ownership …. and / or possession …. of a Short Barrel Rifle. How will we circumnavigate that? you already know the answer to that |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 7:17:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: you already know the answer to that Yep, destroy your legally owned private property, then fuck off and die so we can replace you with a brain washed uber-lib 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2023 7:36:07 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But the proposed WA AWB legislation includes a paragraph that prohibits ….. ownership …. and / or possession …. of a Short Barrel Rifle. How will we circumnavigate that? If the law passes as such then you will have to either remove the stock or put a longet barrel on it. Alternatively the law is not set in stone and the case could be made that sbrs should be grandfathered like everthing else. Imo that is one of the most likely things to not make it into the final bill. Iirc there are 2 bills and that is only in one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2023 2:49:00 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, destroy your legally owned private property, then fuck off and die so we can replace you with a brain washed uber-lib I’ll take door #2 |
|
|
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.
