I am not sure your gun ban bans what you think it does.
There were three bills on the subject passed and signed and they are inconsistent. I spent about four hours this morning researching these bills.
SHB 1240 defines a "semi automatic assault weapon" and limits the definition to a subset of semi automatic center-fire rifles. It also criminalizes import, manufacture, and sale of "any assault weapon."
SHB 1562 and SSB 5006 eliminate the definition of semi automatic assault weapon and substitute "semi automatic assault rifle" and the definition includes all semi automatic rifles. Neither of the latter bills criminalize possession, import, sale, or manufacture of a semi automatic assault rifle or any other kind of rifle.
I think that since SHB 1562 and SSB 5006 likely qualify as later enacted (signed May, 4 2023 - I could not find when SHB 1240 was signed) they control.
But the story does not end here; a semi automatic assault rifle and an assault weapon are possibly not the same thing.
I could not find anything addressing the differences among the bills or any attempt to harmonize the three bills. Under one possible interpretation that relies in part on the rule of lenity (ambiguity in criminal statutes is resolved in favor of the defendant) there is no new restriction on semi automatic rifles. Of course the state will argue that a semi automatic assault rifle is included within the term any assault weapon. But in that the legislature eliminated the assault weapon definition and substituted an assault rifle definition there is an argument that the two are different. They could have more easily amended he definition of a semi automatic assault weapon to include all semi automatic rifles but they did not. As it stands, the law criminalizes sale, import, and manufacture of something that does not exist.
Nevertheless, if I were a FFL dealer in Washington, I would comply with the most restrictive interpretation until there is clarification from the courts.
Here are links to what the laws actually say:
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium ... 0804075610
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium ... 6-S.SL.pdf
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium ... 2-S.SL.pdf

They are not the same thing.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is a semi-auto rifle, and there is a special kind of background check for that.

An assault weapon is a number of different things, as defined by HB1240. Yes, it includes many semi-automatic rifles, but it's not just that.

Re-read the OP's statement one more time.

That's really not how it works though. All three bills were written to describe separate changes that they each make to the existing RCW, each without reference to the other.

- The existing definition of "semi automatic assault rifle" was already there, and none of the three bills changed anything about it, other than its line number.
- SHB 1240 added a new definition for "assault weapon" and several other new definitions.
- SHB 1562 and SSB 5006 did not eliminate any definitions. (The new "assault weapon" definition coming with SHB 1240 was not there yet for them to eliminate. Any words that they did eliminate are marked with a strikethrough in the bills.)
- The RCW does not have a definition for "semiautomatic assault weapon," either before or after the three bills.

So, after the three bills in 2023, the RCW now has separate definitions for BOTH "semiautomatic assault rifle" AND "assault weapon", and different rules that apply separately to each category.

Also, any single firearm could qualify as one, both, or neither of these things: some rifles are not "assault weapons", some "assault weapons" are not rifles (pistol with threaded barrel, certain shotguns, etc.); also, some "assault weapons" are not even firearms (part or parts kit, etc.). All "semi automatic assault rifles" are probably also "assault weapons," but it doesn't have to be so.

See the actual definitions page for the RCW 9.41.010 here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010

At the top, it says that changes are still coming from the three bills passed in 2023:



Also look at this note near the bottom of the page for a clue about how these bills will eventually each be applied to the RCW:

Welcome to WaGuns, pMcW!

So how does a Californian know so much about WA law?

Lots of practice reading terrible gun control legislation down here in California, I suppose.

I lived in Everett before I moved down here for work in 2004. And until this year, I was always clinging to hope that I'd eventually be able to return to the relative freedom of my home state. Now I guess it's back to just hoping and waiting for something to happen in the courts.

Yeah . . . exactly. So freaking maddening.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010 is now updated for the 2023 bills, so you can now see what the law actually actually says.

As expected, it now has both of these definitions:


At the bottom, it says:


Edit to add: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.390 now covers the things that cannot be done with an "Assault weapon".

Then there are those of us that have something with a 10 1/2 barrel or shorter and a buffer tube or buffer tube and brace.

I am disappointed that my original post has not generated more discussion. If the ban means anything, it is unconstitutional for reasons beyond the 2nd Amendment.
What, if anything, is the gun community doing to challenge this unconstitutional legislation? I have been looking and not finding anything.

At this point there's not much to do do besides pull out the wallet and support those organizations that are suing and await judgements.

Trips to, or relocating to still free states are in the works for many.

Many of us are fed up with unconstitutional fiats. Act accordingly.

Yep sending $$$ every so often to 2A foundation and GOA has been my way of working through this.

Check out firearms policy coalition(FPC) for the most direct answer to that question. Locally in WA we’re championed by Second Amendment Foundation(SAF). In short, the fight is on and the outlook is surprisingly positive. But the system has made infringements quick and easily enacted, while constitutional relief is slow and burdensome to pursue.

The founding fathers would be disappointed to say the least.

Yes, infringements come fast and relief comes slow.

We need another vector of attack. These unconstitutional laws are passed knowingly and with the intent to deprive liberties protected by both state and federal constitutions- passed by legislators fully well intending such deprivations- this is a willful violation of civil liberties under color of law and needs to be prosecuted as such. Legislators must suffer the consequences of such dastardly acts.

All gun laws are an infringement and, therefore, should be ruled as unconstitutional. Murder is already, properly, illegal without saying anything about the inanimate object used. So are any number of other anti-social actions. That should be the end of the discussion.