close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

WA State LEO SBR question

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by JBaird22, Feb 17, 2012.


  1. JBaird22

    JBaird22
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    1,679
    0
    Location:
    Washington
    So I have an idea of what the answer this question is but I want to see if maybe I am missing something.

    In Washington only LEO's can possess or transport SBR's according to RCW. If you can't get one transferred to an individual LEO, and you can't build one as an individual LEO, is the law pretty much saying only agency guns are allowed? I have heard of guys buying NFA uppers through their agencies and slapping them on their unregistered lowers which I would think would violate the NFA by building a rifle into a NFA gun and then being in possession of an unregistered gun.

    Am I missing something? The only reason I ask is I was considering doing a form 1 on a lower I have and building a SBR but I will be moving to WA later this year hopefully and don't want to have to transfer my SBR to someone else. And because it matters, I am a LEO.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Boxerglocker

    Boxerglocker
    Expand Collapse
    Jacks #1 Fan

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    6,136
    21
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA
    I can't be one hundred percent certain.... but to my understanding you are correct. I've talked to a couple of LEO guys shooting department owned SBR's at several matches and asked similar questions... The answer I got was SBR's belong to the agency, LEO's may process and transport while under employment with said agencies.
    I would suggest giving the guys at Rainier Arms a call... they constantly are dealing with local LEO's and have better understanding of the laws here in WA.
     

    #2 Boxerglocker, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  3. WoodenPlank

    WoodenPlank
    Expand Collapse
    Who?

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    7,958
    3
    Location:
    NW Florida
    The bold portion is correct, it will absolutely violate the NFA, and is a good way to go to federal prison for 10 years.
     
  4. TunaFisherman

    TunaFisherman
    Expand Collapse
    Halibut Hunter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    387
    1
    Location:
    West of the East coast
    SBRs here in Wa belong to the Dept that you work for. There is a bill now to change the law for NFA SBR to be owned by a person or a non profit trust, rumor is summer 2013 it will be legal.
    You can also have them if you are a( class 3? FFL ) holder, not own, but handle for local depts....
     
    #4 TunaFisherman, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  5. Boxerglocker

    Boxerglocker
    Expand Collapse
    Jacks #1 Fan

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    6,136
    21
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA
    Do you know what bill number that is?
     
  6. TunaFisherman

    TunaFisherman
    Expand Collapse
    Halibut Hunter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    387
    1
    Location:
    West of the East coast
    Not at the moment. I believe its Blake that is sponsering it. Same group of Reps that got suppressors legal to use and not just own.
     
  7. TunaFisherman

    TunaFisherman
    Expand Collapse
    Halibut Hunter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    387
    1
    Location:
    West of the East coast
    Maybe info is here.. HB 2099

    2099 (SBS and SBR) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2099&year=2011 and 2098 (SBR’s only) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2098&year=2011

    Here are bill SBS bill sponsors;
    Representatives Blake, Kretz, Hurst, Liias, Orcutt, Dunshee, Taylor, Van De Wege, Shea, Kirby, Short, Takko, Moscoso, Tharinger, Finn, Seaquist, Schmick, Sells, Ahern, Condotta, McCoy, Hope, Moeller, Goodman, McCune

    Find your Rep here; http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx Here are the Representatives pages; http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/Pages/default.aspx
     
    #7 TunaFisherman, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  8. TunaFisherman

    TunaFisherman
    Expand Collapse
    Halibut Hunter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    387
    1
    Location:
    West of the East coast
    #8 TunaFisherman, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  9. r2kba

    r2kba
    Expand Collapse
    Relax

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2000
    1,432
    0
    Location:
    South Texas
    Correct as stated before. Police Officers and their agencies are NOT exempt from the NFA statutes, and NFA regulations. They are required to have form's also on their rifles, ALL of them, that are NFA devices. It's just a faster process for the agency's and no tax.

    Individual owned, they have to do the same Tax,prints,photos and wait time as everyone else.

    I would not to an Form1, knowing you are moving somewhere you wont have the legal ability to retain it. But, if you did, you could simply put a full length upper back on it, and it's no longer an NFA device. Also send a letter to NFA branch, telling them its been changed back PERMANENTLY to a 16"+ bbl length, and 26"+ Overall length rifle.
     
    #9 r2kba, Feb 19, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2012
  10. JBaird22

    JBaird22
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    1,679
    0
    Location:
    Washington
    This is what I believed. I guess I will just wait and see if the law passes to allow SBR's. If so I'll be right there doing it. Thanks for everyone who replied that confirmed my suspicions. I've been an 01FFL for the last year and have a good grasp of the majority of the laws so I was just wondering if I was missing something.
     
  11. PlasticGuy

    PlasticGuy
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2000
    5,165
    0
    As stated, your LEO status means nothing for SBR ownership, although your department may allow you to bring a department owned SBR home. What you may want to consider is keeping your FFL, and adding an SOT. As a class 3 dealer you can posess anything. You could get a demo letter from your department, and buy a select fire rifle with a short barrel. More expensive, but an even better result.
     
  12. Boxerglocker

    Boxerglocker
    Expand Collapse
    Jacks #1 Fan

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    6,136
    21
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA
    Don't you have to actually have a store front business in order to be a Class III FFL?
     
  13. Boxerglocker

    Boxerglocker
    Expand Collapse
    Jacks #1 Fan

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    6,136
    21
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA
    Thanks for this info... I'll be watching this closely and sending a letter of support as well as spreading the word for others to do the same.
     
    #13 Boxerglocker, Feb 21, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012
  14. PlasticGuy

    PlasticGuy
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2000
    5,165
    0
    The short answer is "no", you don't necessarily need a store front to have an ffl. He already has an ffl anyway though. He would just need to add his SOT.
     
  15. JBaird22

    JBaird22
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    1,679
    0
    Location:
    Washington
    The statement of having to have a storefront to have an 03 is incorrect. The ATF grants the 03, the treasury department grants the SOT. As log as you qualify for a ffl (being in a firearms business) you qualify for it. The ATF could really care less. They're more so concerned with you following the rules.

    I'm currently in Missouri and am trying to move back to WA. I have my fingers crossed this legislation gets through. I don't think I will be getting another FFL in wa as the pistol dealers license fee is just retarded at $300 a year.

    Thanks though for the replies.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
SBR Question Free Fire Zone Jan 8, 2013
Out of state LEO carry in Missouri question Cop Talk Aug 14, 2012
WA State LEO SBR question Black Rifle Forum Feb 17, 2012
SBR question General Firearms Forum Jan 23, 2012
SBR/LEO question Heart of Dixie Glockers Jan 11, 2008