Ryan(leadconsel) left the state a couple years ago. He saw the writing on the wall and bounced. I think he is in Az? I don’t remember exactly.

That’s weird someone told me he moved to the corner of unbased opinions and unwarranted confidence.

Dat boy is the mayor of that utopia.

As someone whose lifestyle is going to be greatly impacted by the passage of this garbage, my own bias would have me to interpret the law as favorably toward my own circumstances as possible - that is to say, erring on the side of personal liberty. However, experience has taught me that a more strict (and literal) interpretation is more likely to be what we're faced with, should we find ourselves on the receiving end of prosecution under this law. I am hopeful that at least one of the lawsuits challenging the various aspects of this law will prevail, and if they fall short of striking it down, then at least the ambiguity will be clarified. But in the meantime, we do have to explore the new boundaries so we can try to carry on with this beloved hobby without assuming unnecessary risks. Although, one or more of us may have to "take one for the team" by sticking our necks out to find those boundaries, so that legal standing can be established, and additional challenges brought.

When I read definition (iii) of "assault weapon":

...it is the ending clause (bolded) that is most troublesome for obtaining a clear interpretation, because a lack of punctuation leaves the application of that qualifier ambiguous. Does it apply only to the second act mentioned in the definition ("from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon") - which the possession/control clause immediately follows - or does it also apply to the first act mentioned in the definition ("from which an assault weapon can be assembled")?

If it's the former (i.e. the possession/control clause is limited to the act of conversion), then that might have been better indicated by the use of additional punctuation to separate these two thoughts/expressions. If it's the latter (i.e. the possession/control clause applies to both assembly and conversion), then it does offer a glimmer of hope for a favorable interpretation for our side, because the implication is that one would need to possess/control ALL the individual parts necessary to assemble an assault weapon in order for those individual parts to be prohibited. And that opens the possibility to a "loophole" that as long as you aren't manufacturing/importing/distributing/selling ALL those necessary parts at once, then you are free to manufacture/import/distribute/sell one or more (just not ALL) of those parts.

So, which is it? The lack of any separating punctuation or distinct clarity in the definition leads me to ask, "What was the authors' intent?" Did they intend to preserve our ability to legally manufacture, import, distribute, and sell individual AR-15/AK-47/etc. parts? The short answer is, hell no. They intended to make this as painful as possible. And I think we can obtain more insight into their intent by evaluating a couple of key words in definition (iii).


The word "part" (singular), within the context of the other two phrases ("conversion kit" and "combination of parts" - both referring to a plurality of parts), represents the biggest obstacle to a favorable interpretation for our side, in my opinion. The deliberate placement of the singular word "part" indicates to me that the authors intended for the scope to be broad and sweeping, so that it would have the biggest impact on suppression of this industry here in WA. If they had simply intended to prohibit only a complete set of parts from which an "assault weapon" could be assembled (or converted), they would have sufficiently expressed that intent with "conversion kit" and "combination of parts". In other words, there would have been no need to include the singular "part" in that definition. But they did put the singular "part" in there as well. So that would indicate to me that there was intent to prohibit individual parts.

Let's also look at another word in the definition:

To me, the word "can" has more of an "undefined possibilities" connotation, not a "limited circumstances" connotation. What I mean by that is that if you apply the language literally to a hypothetical, then as long as that scenario is a distinct possibility, then it would fall within the scope of this definition. For example, if you are offering an AR-15 bolt carrier group for sale, just ask yourself, "Can this part be used in the assembly of an assault weapon?" And the answer is obviously "yes, it can". Again, I'm not saying it's right, fair, or reasonable. I'm simply saying, this is the literal application of the words they used, which is probably how a court is going to analyze it. And that's what we're most concerned with.

In summary, I do believe that the intent was to make it so we could not legally manufacture/import/distribute/sell individual AR-15 parts anymore. I mean, let's stop and think about who the sponsors and proponents of this bill really are. They are NOT our friends. They are NOT friends of Liberty. Does anyone REALLY think they would have voluntarily limited their prohibition on parts to ONLY a COMPLETE set of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled? Highly doubtful, in my opinion. It seems far more likely that they were painting with the broadest brush they had, and that they intended to stop the assembly of scary black rifles as much as possible in this state. But alas, they were sloppy with their language because they don't understand what they're attempting to regulate, and so we have to deal with the fallout.

I believe the traitorous pricks wrote a clause into the law saying if one aspect of it is found faulty it will not nullify the remainder.

I seriously want to punch every fucking democrat in the throat including the ones on here.

I think their intent was to prevent someone from getting around the ban and creating an assault weapon by buying the parts separately and putting it together, or by starting with a non-banned gun and turning it into an assault rifle. I don't see any indication that their intent was to prevent you from repairing the gun - in fact, the mention later of being able to send a gun to a smith indicates their intent WAS to allow you to repair it (even if they screwed up and put that clause on in the section for heirs).

So if their intent was to prevent the creation of a new assault rifle you ought to be able to sell parts that don't enable that. Without a lower receiver there are no parts you can buy that form an AR-15, so I don't think any AR-15 parts should be banned. But there might be parts kits for OTHER guns that could turn them into "assault rifles". And as mentioned in the OP, threaded barrels clearly turn a pistol into an assault rifle.

That's a solid analysis and I think your logic is sound G4l. But the above quote is the crux

You added the word 'used' in your example, as in the part goes into or is added to something else. But I read the 'can be assembled' to mean that all the parts have to be there. The second phrase supports that view because they point out that it's not just the part that makes an assault weapon, the firearm that can be converted also has to be own or controled by the same person

We are all law-abiding citizens and our bias is to carefully parse a bad law in order to maintain our liberties while remaining free and not under indictment.

This post, which I’ve edited a few times, is intended to break through “normalcy bias” to enable effective action.

The law was written and passed to criminalize our property, to inhibit our ability to obtain, maintain our firearms, and to provide as much leeway as possible for a vengeful prosecutor to make an example of someone. And it’s just the beginning.

Look at California: a confusing and poorly written law, subject to periodic redefinition of what is a so-called “assault weapon.” There are a number of well-documented cases where residents complied with the law, registered their guns, and Cal DOJ agents showed up to confiscate them.

And when the agents departed, they took the expensive scope that was mounted on the gun, too.

Don’t ask the State to clarify; it’s just an opportunity to tighten the screws.

Requiring an ammo purchase license, only shipping ammo to FFLs, and restrictions on type and quantity will be on the legislative agenda in a year or two.

Registration, licensing and fees to possess, as well. Ranges closed by new restrictions.

We were beaten by superior funding, organization, and urban demographics. The enemies of liberty have been persistent, patient and methodical.

They don’t want you armed nor exercising your liberties. They’re not open to logic or better understanding. They have an emotionally-ideology. The old, cynical joke “what do they want to do that requires them to disarm you first?” is in our faces. Open drug use, feral and violent cities, panhandling in rural areas, lack of enforcement of laws… these are the results of bad policies and more are coming.

Get involved in your local politics. Don’t just give $ attend the school board, county and city council meetings; do who our adversaries did: organize and create alternative structures. Organize, organize, organize. Find and find candidates for office. Prepare to be labeled and demonized, because our adversaries control and censor the media (not just news: negative fictional TV storylines about guns and owners aren’t accidental; YouTube deletion of gun videos and channels aren’t the result of ignorance- it’s intentional and strategic.)

And stock up on ammo while you can.

That is standard for most if not all new bills.

This is really the crux of it. The legislature has carefully avoided anything that looks too "extreme", and it has to be enough of a step that the Seattle soccer moms will vote for it.

We've been beaten by a lack of awareness and lack of education. With the media POURING out a non stop onslaught claiming every mass shooting involves an assault weapon, the urban masses will follow what the media tells them.

Confront them with actual statistics on rifle deaths in WA..... crickets.

I had started a website called wafirearmfacts.org to lay all of this stuff out methodically and logically citing unbiased sources --- with no references to the 2nd amendment. After the 3 times the AWB didn't make it out of committee, and after the high cap mag ban passed, I shut it down because I figured we were done. I was wrong.

People's fear of dying in a hail of AR-15 rounds while at the mall thanks to the media hype eclipsed all their other fears, and that's why the urban sheeple mass voted for it.

Dude moved to Idaho a couple years back. I vaguely remember a thread he started about it.

Unlikely bedfellows (snicker), progressives? meet irony:

"As if Washington’s situation isn’t bad enough, an article published by Vice has added a sense of the bizarre. According to the story, “progressive” (far-left liberal) gun owners are now worried that the new semi-auto ban “creates a situation where ‘traditional’ gun owners—white, male conservatives—are sitting on an arsenal of high-powered weapons, which emerging demographics of gun owners, like LGBTQ people, leftists and minorities, no longer have access to.” People in that “emerging demographic” only have themselves to blame for electing Democrats such as Inslee, Ferguson and the lawmakers who wrote and passed the new law."

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/04/evergo ... L_CAMPAIGN)

A person who legally owns and possesses an "assault weapon" has all the parts needed to assemble an AW. So ANY new part purchased (even screws, etc) could be assembled into an AW as all the parts are already in possession.