SBR bill making progress in WA

[Lark]

My point is that a SBR does not seem practical for standard hunting.

Why doesn't it seem practical? I have pistol barrels chambered in 375 jdj, 7mm tcu and 22lr that will serve me well on a hunt.

I don't know what a 12.5" rifle barrel is doing that a 16" barrel can't.

I thought it was obvious that a 12.5" barrel is being more compact than a 16" barrel.

To add sound reduction gear is fine too but I highly doubt other states will jump on that w/o a lot of debate or anti-gun outcrys in the local media.

I was unaware of any large amount of debate or any anti-gun outcries anywhere in those states that eased restrictions on silencers in the last decade. Are you aware of any?

[ClydeFrog]

I'm not a WA resident so I can't speak about what is or is not "street legal" there.
As noted, if 2A supporters or gunners feel they need new gun laws to get these items(class III guns, AOWs, SBRs, surpressors, etc) then have at it.
If current laws or statues prevent these firearms or weapons and new bills change it, then it's good.
My point is that if these new gun laws go into effect in WA, I highly doubt the gun shops & FFL holders will be swamped with new orders/sales for SBRs.

Outside of a few cops, armed professionals(EP agents, PIs, bail agents, PSCs, etc), collectors, and weapon-tactical instructors I doubt many WA residents will even purchase the SBRs.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

I highly doubt the gun shops & FFL holders will be swamped with new orders/sales for SBRs.

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

I doubt many WA residents will even purchase the SBRs.

Where are you getting this information from? Silencers are already very popular here in WA, and SBRs go hand-in-hand with silencers: Adding a silencer to the end of a rifle can make it long and unwieldy; having an SBR makes shooting with a silencer much more manageable. And SBRs are especially practical with rounds like the 300 Blackout, which are very efficient out of a short barrel.

AR pistols with the SIG arm brace are very popular here in WA because -- until now -- it was the closest we could get to an SBR. And many people here used to buy short barrels and have a silencer permanently attached to bring the overall length of the barrel to 16". But now they can just go along with most of the rest of the country and register their lower as an SBR.

Unlike a silencer, an SBR is very easy to make yourself; all you need to do is engrave some info on a regular lower receiver and then go through the normal NFA registration process. That lower receiver can be used with any length barrel as long as you can easily switch it back to its officially registered barrel length. So for $200 you can have a lower receiver that can legally be used with any length barrel: That's not so bad in my opinion.

For decades, gun enthusiasts here in WA have been lamenting the fact that SBRs are illegal. Trust me, plenty of people here are going want SBRs now; I know I'm going to be registering an AR lower as a SBR as soon as I can, and I personally know a lot of other people who will be also.

[Lark]

I did not see much support for registered silencers or sbr's in Olympia during the hearings aside from the few people that showed up. It is only because registered silencers and sbr are never associated with crime in WA that they were able to get the bills passed.

I go to the rifle range a few times a week in Kitsap, it is very rare that I see a silencer there. They do have a silencer shoot each year which fills the rifle line with suppressed firearms, but most people are turned off by the 11 month wait and the $200.

[44 AMP]

Even if virtually no one buys them, SO WHAT?

The point is that there shouldn't be a law that says "you cannot".

I came to the realization many years ago that I am never going to own a "real" Tommygun. Besides the price, my state doesn't allow it.

So, I'm good with the semi auto carbine I do have, but to comply with the law, the choices are either "pistol", or a 16" barrel carbine.

It would be nice if the law allowed me to go the Federal legal route and put an 11 inch barrel on it, so it LOOKS like a Tommygun ought to.

For me, that the only real personal stake I have in the SBR issue.

Also would be nice to be able to have a legal frame Contender that could use a buttstock with less than 16" barrels, again assuming I go through all the Federal requirements, there should be no state law forbidding it.

[ClydeFrog]

I don't see many citizens in my area lamenting the lack of tanks, Gatlin Guns, Half-tracks, or flame-throwers(M7a1) either.
The "just because" legal argument seems a bit of a stretch but as noted, if a WA resident wants to lay out the $$$ & wait for a "can" then so be it.
I can think of a few more pressing 2A issues or legal conflicts than SBRs & sound surpressors.

[Lark]

I don't see many citizens in my area lamenting the lack of tanks, Gatlin Guns, Half-tracks, or flame-throwers(M7a1) either.

Where do you live that these items are illegal? They are all legal in WA including the gatling gun if it is hand cranked.

The "just because" legal argument seems a bit of a stretch but as noted, if a WA resident wants to lay out the $$$ & wait for a "can" then so be it.

I pay about $60 for each silencer plus the tax. I spend much more than that on ammo for each of my suppressed firearms. Knowing that my home made cans are going to last over a decade and and tens of thousands of rounds, then damn right "so be it".

11 months wait for a firearm while I spend a lifetime enjoying it is peanuts in comparison.

I can think of a few more pressing 2A issues or legal conflicts than SBRs & sound surpressors.

So can I, and I'm working on some of them. Some of them are dead, others have passed including the silencer and sbr bills in WA. Damned if I'm going to work on them one at a time.

[Armorer-at-Law]

I don't see many citizens in my area lamenting the lack of tanks, Gatlin Guns, Half-tracks, or flame-throwers(M7a1) either.
The "just because" legal argument seems a bit of a stretch but as noted, if a WA resident wants to lay out the $$$ & wait for a "can" then so be it.
I can think of a few more pressing 2A issues or legal conflicts than SBRs & sound surpressors.
__________________
Every 2nd matters.

Gotta love the irony of the post and the sig line.

[ClydeFrog]

I keep my common sense & good judgement with my CCW too, .

[Bart Noir]

Lark, thanks for the good work. Both the reporting to us and the showing up to testify in Olympia. Job well done!

And this tread was the 1st I heard of it. I'm confident that I'll hear more in the next newsletter from the Wash. Arms Collectors but earlier is better.

As far as the anti-poaching from the 1930s, not long ago some European forum member mentioned that in his country the use of suppressors is required for legal hunting. I think it was a gent from Norway but am not sure.


Bart Noir

[Lark]

The bill was delivered to the governor for his signature on the 10th. The session ended on the 13th without a signature, so Inslee now has up to 20 days to sign, not sign or veto the bill. If he vetoes the bill then it is dead. Since this is the end of the biennium, it can't go back for another vote in the House and Senate unless there is a special session; but none have been announced.

So far Inslee has only signed 11 bills and has another 190 waiting for him on his desk. There are several more yet to be delivered also. For what it is worth I don't think he will veto it although a perfect roll call vote of 49-0 and 98-0 is no obstacle.

[Lark]

The bill was signed today, it becomes law in 90 days. I will submit a couple of applications and then wait the 9-11 months for approval.

[FrankenMauser]

Congrats, guys!
That's great.

[Theohazard]

Wait, Gov. Inslee actually signed it? I thought he could just let it sit without signing it and it would still become law? So he ended up actively supporting the bill instead of just passively supporting it? Wow!

[Lark]

Inslee had nothing to gain with a veto or ignoring it.

[Armorer-at-Law]

That's great news!

[silvermane_1]

yuppers, we got SBRs now, now just need SBSs and MGs.

[Lark]

There was some concern over the SBR bill in that it allowed buying, transfer and acquiring but nothing about making. It seems that the BATFE has decided that the word acquire is broad enough to allow people to make them on the ATF form 1.

My SBR form 1 was approved this month; less than a 30 day wait.

This also means we should expect an SBS bill next session. Chances are it will take a few years to pass just like the SBR bill. I'm expecting I-594 to fail at the ballot; this will chap the asses of those anti-gun bill supporters who fail to understand that HB1588 and I-594 died because they were crap.

[kilimanjaro]

How did I-594 die? Isn't it on the ballot for a popular vote this fall?

[Theohazard]

He didn't say it died, he said he's hoping it will die, and then he talked about how anti-gun folks will feel after it does.

But from the polls I've seen, I-594 stands a good chance of passing. Luckily, so does I-591, which will definitely complicate things.