The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

blhseawa · January 28, 2009, 02:38 AM

RCW 9.41.190 and RCW 9.41.220 which the legislature modified in 1994, and a criminal Court case in Tacoma subsequently in 1994 changed the lay of the land in Washington State.

The specific clause which stands on its own from RCW 9.41.190:

"or to assemble or repair any machine gun".

The specific clasue which stands on its own from RCW 9.41.220:

"or in converting a weapon into a machine gun"

Since, 1994 it has been illegal in Washington to own, possess or have any of the five M-16 parts as listed by the BATFE as machine gun parts.

There is also the prosecution in Tacoma Court of a Al Woodbridge who was convicted of 12 counts of possessing machine guns because of the possession of these parts, and an AR15 with a M16 bolt as both the BATFE and the Washington State Attorney General testified as to possessing a machine gun by possessing parts. As I understand the Attorney General's testimony and with the concurrence of the BATFE, the cited clauses was in the opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Washington a violation of law.

I don't have the actual ruling in front of me, the judge or docket number, but again this is from my relevant practice notes as the result of this case and ruling. Which by the way went through the Washington State appeals process, the district court ruling was upheld.

Since this case, no FFL I'm aware of will ship M16 parts whether installed or not into Washington state, with out proof of a Tax Stamp. I don't presume to speak for what Colt has or has not done, is doing, will do or to legality of that action under and in Washington State.

I'm not saying I agree with the current state of the law, I'm just trying to state very clearly what the law appears to be as interpreted by the Court.

I will check once I get into office and see if I can find the relevant citations, I'm not sure they are publicly available on the web (Lexus, etc), but I will see what I can do.

Note: This is intend for informational purposes only, if you require a legal opinion seek one from a licensed attorney. Feel free to ignore my caution, but that is the basis for my opinion. Please consult a licensed attorney in the State of Washington rather than accept my opinion, however, I will be surprised if he or she disagrees.

Best Wishes, and not trying to rain on anyone's parade.

As always, YMMV.

January 28, 2009, 02:38 AM	#10
blhseawa Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2008 Location: Des Moines, WA Posts: 220	More info ... I was able to find my notes to my self... RCW 9.41.190 and RCW 9.41.220 which the legislature modified in 1994, and a criminal Court case in Tacoma subsequently in 1994 changed the lay of the land in Washington State. The specific clause which stands on its own from RCW 9.41.190: "or to assemble or repair any machine gun". The specific clasue which stands on its own from RCW 9.41.220: "or in converting a weapon into a machine gun" Since, 1994 it has been illegal in Washington to own, possess or have any of the five M-16 parts as listed by the BATFE as machine gun parts. There is also the prosecution in Tacoma Court of a Al Woodbridge who was convicted of 12 counts of possessing machine guns because of the possession of these parts, and an AR15 with a M16 bolt as both the BATFE and the Washington State Attorney General testified as to possessing a machine gun by possessing parts. As I understand the Attorney General's testimony and with the concurrence of the BATFE, the cited clauses was in the opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Washington a violation of law. I don't have the actual ruling in front of me, the judge or docket number, but again this is from my relevant practice notes as the result of this case and ruling. Which by the way went through the Washington State appeals process, the district court ruling was upheld. Since this case, no FFL I'm aware of will ship M16 parts whether installed or not into Washington state, with out proof of a Tax Stamp. I don't presume to speak for what Colt has or has not done, is doing, will do or to legality of that action under and in Washington State. I'm not saying I agree with the current state of the law, I'm just trying to state very clearly what the law appears to be as interpreted by the Court. I will check once I get into office and see if I can find the relevant citations, I'm not sure they are publicly available on the web (Lexus, etc), but I will see what I can do. Note: This is intend for informational purposes only, if you require a legal opinion seek one from a licensed attorney. Feel free to ignore my caution, but that is the basis for my opinion. Please consult a licensed attorney in the State of Washington rather than accept my opinion, however, I will be surprised if he or she disagrees. Best Wishes, and not trying to rain on anyone's parade. As always, YMMV. __________________ Buy and hold is my method of gun ownership!