Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:26 pm


Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms McCallen Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Barreled reciever transfer - NICS or Local? 
Author Message
Online
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 43911
Real Name: Steve
Pvanderzee wrote:
Logizyme wrote:
Well, I guess it does meet the WA definition of a pistol, as it is a firearm and it has a barrel less than 16 inches.

But yeah I don't see how it would meet SAR requirements.


It might be a pistol. Maybe.

It might be a "firearm" per RCW 9.41.010, as it could be argued that, because there's a barrel and the internals in the upper, you could fire a round with it. But even that is a stretch. In it's current condition, it does not solidly fit into the definition of a "firearm" at all in WA.

If it's a firearm at all, it would have to be a pistol. But again. Maybe.


There's no fire control group. No trigger, no hammer. So to me, that's not a firearm per WA law. (Sure, maybe you could whack the back of firing pin with a hammer, but using that logic you could also claim that a round of ammo by itself is a firearm since you could whack the primer.)

So, to me, this is not a firearm under WA law. Therefore, it would transfer as an 'other' with a simple NICS check.

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:02 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lynnwood
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016
Posts: 130
Real Name: Tyler
dreadi wrote:
I just talked to the ATF and was told according to 27 CFR 478.11 it is still just a receiver.


On the federal level we know it's a receiver, and filed as "Other" on the 4473, no questions there.

The question is on the Washington State laws. Does it meet the WASHINGTON'S definition of a pistol or WASHINGTON'S definition of a SAR. If it meets either, then the WA DOL Pistol/SAR transfer form needs to be completed and SAR fee(if SAR) collected AND the BGC is performed by the buyers CLEO with a maximum wait of 10 business days.

If it does not meet either WA's definitions for Pistol or SAR, then the check should be an FBI NICS check.

_________________
At $4 a gallon, gasoline sure is cheap cologne


Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:21 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lynnwood
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016
Posts: 130
Real Name: Tyler
MadPick wrote:
There's no fire control group. No trigger, no hammer. So to me, that's not a firearm per WA law. (Sure, maybe you could whack the back of firing pin with a hammer, but using that logic you could also claim that a round of ammo by itself is a firearm since you could whack the primer.)

So, to me, this is not a firearm under WA law. Therefore, it would transfer as an 'other' with a simple NICS check.


I mostly agree with your analysis.

However, think about it through the eyes of an FFL, or better yet, an FFL's attorney.

The attorney would probably advise to air on the side of caution and fill out the extra form.

_________________
At $4 a gallon, gasoline sure is cheap cologne


Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:28 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 43911
Real Name: Steve
Logizyme wrote:
However, think about it through the eyes of an FFL, or better yet, an FFL's attorney.

The attorney would probably advise to air on the side of caution and fill out the extra form.


Well, if that's the approach, then we can just throw out all of the definitions and discussion here, right?

I believe that most FFLs would happily transfer that with a NICS check.

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:34 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2184
Real Name: Phill
Logizyme wrote:
MadPick wrote:
There's no fire control group. No trigger, no hammer. So to me, that's not a firearm per WA law. (Sure, maybe you could whack the back of firing pin with a hammer, but using that logic you could also claim that a round of ammo by itself is a firearm since you could whack the primer.)

So, to me, this is not a firearm under WA law. Therefore, it would transfer as an 'other' with a simple NICS check.


I mostly agree with your analysis.

However, think about it through the eyes of an FFL, or better yet, an FFL's attorney.

The attorney would probably advise to air on the side of caution and fill out the extra form.


That attorney ought to be let go. The definitions are very clear, and there is a fee associated with the SAR transfer. Filling out extra forms and charging extra fees just for the sake of it is poor legal advice and poor business when the item in question is this far removed from the legal category that would require the extra paperwork and fee.

This just sounds like an uneducated or potentially greedy FFL trying to get extra fees or demonstrating their lack of knowledge of firearms and related laws.

But anyway, you've got the legally correct answer here in the thread. Your upper should be transferred to you as an "other" on the 4473, and no state paperwork should be filled out, as there are no applicable state laws regarding the transfer.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:40 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lynnwood
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016
Posts: 130
Real Name: Tyler
Look guys, I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just trying to be pragmatic.

Pvanderzee wrote:
The definitions are very clear

Pvanderzee wrote:
It might be a pistol. Maybe.
It might be a "firearm" per RCW 9.41.010


If the definitions are clear, why is there a "might"?

MadPick wrote:
Well, if that's the approach, then we can just throw out all of the definitions and discussion here, right?

That's not what I meant at all.

Both of you have indicated that, while it may be a bit of a stretch, the item could be considered a firearm by WA definitions and I believe that an average citizen juror might say so too.
Just like how we say "two is one, and one is none" a lawyer might say "'maybe' is a liability".
I'm not even saying it's right or I agree with it.

The FFL does not keep the SAR fee, it goes to the state. It is by far more work for them to securely store your firearm, wait for the LEO fax and call you and have you come in again to pickup than it would be for them to just run the NICS check. There is no advantage to an FFL to run something that is not a pistol/SAR as such. They want to cover their ass and make sure they don't find themselves in court.


It's really not a huge deal guys. I'm going to the FFL tomorrow to start the transfer and I'll talk to them about it some more and get clarification as to how they are handling it.

_________________
At $4 a gallon, gasoline sure is cheap cologne


Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:47 pm
Profile
Site Supporter / FFL Dealer
User avatar
Site Supporter / FFL Dealer

Location: Tacoma, Washington
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014
Posts: 7073
Logizyme wrote:
dreadi wrote:
I just talked to the ATF and was told according to 27 CFR 478.11 it is still just a receiver.


On the federal level we know it's a receiver, and filed as "Other" on the 4473, no questions there.

The question is on the Washington State laws. Does it meet the WASHINGTON'S definition of a pistol or WASHINGTON'S definition of a SAR. If it meets either, then the WA DOL Pistol/SAR transfer form needs to be completed and SAR fee(if SAR) collected AND the BGC is performed by the buyers CLEO with a maximum wait of 10 business days.

If it does not meet either WA's definitions for Pistol or SAR, then the check should be an FBI NICS check.
Yeah I know what the questions are. Did you miss the post where I citied the states definitions and quoted them?


BLACK HAMMER ARMS
Type 07 Class 2 NFA Dealer
http://www.blackhammerarms.com
http://www.facebook.com/blackhammerarms
https://www.instagram.com/blackhammerarms
GLOCK Certified Armourer

_________________
BLACK HAMMER ARMS
Buy A Suppressor http://www.silencershop.com/blackhammerarms
Type 7 Class 2 SOT NFA Dealer
1911 Pistolsmithing
Firearm Refinishing
GLOCK Certified Armorer
CMMG Authorized Dealer
NEMO Arms Authorized Dealer
http://www.blackhammerarms.com
http://www.facebook.com/blackhammerarms
https://www.instagram.com/blackhammerarms/


Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:31 pm
Profile WWW
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2184
Real Name: Phill
Logizyme wrote:
Look guys, I'm not trying to start an argument.


As far as I can tell, nobody here is attempting to engage in one, as we're all basically in agreement, and were so the whole time. But if you're going to challenge the responses that you asked for, you're going to get replies to those challenges.

As to my "maybe" comments, the broader-sweeping "firearm" definition in WA is the only real question mark, because, in it's current configuration, it could be argued that you could take your barreled upper, with it's internals, and somehow get a shot to cook off. That is the definition of a firearm. If it can fire, it is one. If it can't, it isn't. I generally agree with Steve that, since there is no fire control group of any kind, it isn't a firearm under federal law, and, in it's current state, while you could probably get the thing to go off, it would likely be dangerous to do so. It would be like saying "yeah, that Hellcat can drive, but it has no brakes, no lights, no seatbelts, no airbags, and the only tire on it is flat, so taking it down the road is akin to attempted suicide." So, can the car actually be driven in a legal sense? That would be the question.

The law itself is crystal clear, as it's a binary choice, it's the fireability of your upper that could be argued, albeit quite weakly. And in that case, it still wouldn't be a rifle as you originally indicated, it would be a pistol, as it has a barrel under 16", so the SAR fee should not be applicable.

The definition of a "rifle" is even more narrow. The reason I say that the hypothetical lawyer who suggests filling out the paperwork 'just in case' should be let go is because your upper so clearly does not fit inside that narrow definition that one would be incompetent to suggest otherwise. It also offers some legal complications. Pistols can be rebuilt into rifles, but rifles can't be rebuilt into pistols unless they were pistols originally.

This just doesn't seem like a lawyer's choice to me. Maybe it is, but this seems like somebody looking at half a gun and deciding that, for whatever reason, it can only be finished into a rifle. I have seen the argument put forward, by people that think they know better, that, if an AR15 lower has a stock, it's a rifle, or if the receiver in question is only ever used (to their knowledge) to build pistols, then it's a pistol. It would not surprise me if that kind of logic is being used by your FFL.


It would be interesting to see what would happen if you went back to this FFL and suggested to them that, if they truly believe that this is a rifle, that they are about to facilitate the unlawful transfer of a short-barreled rifle. After all, if it's currently a "rifle," it currently also has a barrel under 16".


Anyway, like I said, the correct answer is in this thread, and we're all pretty much in agreement on it, so there really isn't an argument. Let us know how it goes at the shop.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:10 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 43911
Real Name: Steve
Pvanderzee wrote:
Anyway, like I said, the correct answer is in this thread, and we're all pretty much in agreement on it, so there really isn't an argument. Let us know how it goes at the shop.


Yup. We had a little fun thinking it through and getting there, but we all came to the same conclusion: NICS check.

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:05 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lynnwood
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016
Posts: 130
Real Name: Tyler
They did it NICS.

Thanks guys.

_________________
At $4 a gallon, gasoline sure is cheap cologne


Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:43 am
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 43911
Real Name: Steve
Logizyme wrote:
They did it NICS.


:thumbsup2:

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:29 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Bow
Joined: Tue Apr 2, 2013
Posts: 2184
Real Name: Phill
Logizyme wrote:
They did it NICS.

Thanks guys.


As it should be.
According to the law, anyway.
The way it should be is that we should be able to buy complete UMP's out of a pop machine in front of the Rite-Aid.

_________________
Sinus211 wrote:
Z66 and I still fuck on the regular.

zombie66 wrote:
Mikey is a Bossy Bottom.....


Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:32 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rent Me Pintos NRA SAF CCKRBA
Aldersons e-arms.com


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.914s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]