Hello.

I tired searching the forums for this but gave up because there are, understandably, approximately 4 billion posts about 594.

How does submitting a Form 1 to build an SBR work in Washington in light of Initiative 594? I was planning on submitting the eForm this week but got to thinking about what happens to the legal ownership of the item if approved? Does it become the property of the Trust? (I assume it does.) And if it does, where does 594 come into play since ownership is changing?

Thanks in advance,

-Doc

Great question...and yet another reason why 594 sucks. Honestly, I have no idea and from what I recall - several 2A attorneys were trying to figure this out too - but I never heard about any conclusion on it.

From what I've seen...everyone seems to be quietly ignoring that potential problem.

Welcome, Doc!

Yup . . . to be the best of my knowledge, Ben nailed it.

It's all a big paper mess, I wouldn't let it keep you from doing your Form 1.

Thanks for the welcome!

My fear is that we might all be about to "step in it" when we submit SBR eForms this week.

It seems to me that it would have made sense for this to be addressed in the very law re-allowing SBR "manucatruing" in WA.

It could be a huge "gotcha" where the State expects a similar process as suppressors to take place: A dealer submits a Form 4 to transfer a lower, as an SBR, to the Trust. Once the transfer is complete, the Trust can build the SBR with that lower.

If we submit the Form 1 as we plan to, the State could step in afterwards and say that, regardless of the outcome of the NFA process, we still didn't legally transfer the item in the eyes of 594.

Ugh.

I see this as a non-issue, and here's why: A stripped lower receiver is not within the purview of 594 because it is not a firearm according to the State's definition (my interpretation of the law; YMMV). Therefore, if John Doe buys a stripped lower receiver and then "transfers" it to The John Doe Gun Trust to make a Form 1 SBR, that private transfer between individual and trust is perfectly legal.

I understand what you're saying, but it still feels like one of those things where the State could step in if they decided to.

Specifically, my plan had been to Form 1 a Glock into an SBR so that I can use it with a RONI stock. Is that not possible with Washington's new SBR verbiage? I'd think I'd be coming up hard against 594.

I like this.

594 defines a transfer as "the intended delivery of a firearm to another person".

So are you delivering the firearm to another person?

The trust is technically another legal entity...but is that a person?

That's where my knowledge of the Turst fails; I don't know how it is seen by the State. Is it an individual in the sense that a Corporation is? If not, you may be on to the answer ...

If you want to be 100% legal eagle, just go to a FFL and pay the $25 transfer fee to create a record of the ownership transfer of the Glock to your trust.

If you want to get creative with it, try this: buy a stripped Glock frame online, ship it to a WA FFL (who will transfer it as "Other" on the 4473), privately transfer it to your trust, file the Form 1, then build it out when you get the stamp. Not only will you have a legal SBR by both federal and state standards, but you'll also have a legally owned and acquired pistol that is also unregistered with the state.

Or you can just do what everyone else is doing and ignore 594 as it relates to Form 1's.

In "Real World" effect, that really is the answer. I guess we all accept that if the State for any reason decided to go after anyone on this point, then that (likely very expensive) bridge would be crossed at that time.

Also, as a seperate question: Can I transfer items to the trust by simply going through an FFL transfer? I guess there's just no NICS check?

I just checked with a local FFL and the answer to that is, according to them no; you cannot transfer to a trust via an FFL as though it were a person to person transfer.


So that means the State gives us no means to comply with 594 even if they want us to in the context of this thread. So I guess that's a plus.

So this is how I'm going to take it: It's like my condo association rules, which are not enfocrced to the letter, but they exist in case an agregious enough situation arises that they need to be enforced. Could the State cause trouble if they wanted to? Probably, at least in the sense of having to spend money on legal fees, but if you don't do anything to draw that kind of attention then it's not a "real world" concern.

Doest that sounds about right?


EDIT: It was just suggested to me that you could do a 4473 transfer to yourself as a representitive of the Trust. Does anyone have more info on that?

I'm not sure who told you that, but it doesn't make sense to me. If a SOT dealer can transfer a firearm to a trust, then why can't a non-SOT dealer do the same? The BGC is performed on the responsible party of the trust who takes possession of the firearm on the trust's behalf, so it should be business as usual.

I agree. I've spoken with 2 FFL's now, both do NFA stuff so should be somewhat familiar with what they can and can't do, but they both end up playing the "Legal" card and tell me to talk with an attorney. IMO, that's simply admitting that they don't know what they can and can't do in their line of business, and that's on them. What if they think they can't, and an attorney says they can? It's not like they are going to do it for you based on that. They need to talk to *their* legal rep / the state and find out.

It could also all come back to this, as was mentioned early on the the thread: Does adding it to the Trust constitute a transfer in the first place? If not, then it's all a non issue.