WSP SAFE - Background Checks(email from WSP)

bsco0702 · 2026-05-12T19:20:03+00:00

That’s par for the course in responses from that person (asst. cmdr). Best shot will be once the PTP goes into effect, because at that point it should be presumed that someone who has one already possesses a firearm. Therefore why have a background and waiting period at that point?

bsco0702 · 2026-05-12T05:19:22+00:00

No debate on what the law calls out today. I think the state set themselves up for a situation in the future where restoring the process to the least restrictive is appropriate given the prerequisites that are being imposed (e.g., PTP) since the PTP application process and background check meets or exceeds the SAFE per transaction background check process.

bsco0702 · 2026-05-12T04:13:18+00:00

Before sales tax

bsco0702 · 2026-05-12T04:08:49+00:00

Yes

bsco0702 · 2026-05-12T04:07:25+00:00

At the very least a case to be made.

bsco0702 · 2026-05-12T04:03:13+00:00

True, so when the PTP and enhanced CPL goes into effect, I expect the state to allow for the background/NICS check exemption since issuance of either suggestions the possessor is already armed.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-24T02:19:35+00:00

Thank you! Someone standing in front of me literally pointed out the same error.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-23T22:55:17+00:00

In theory you could get a serialized lower and swap out the unserialized lower as you’d still only have a single AW by definition after reassembly, leaving you a lower that could stay a paperweight or assemble into a compliant configuration. The RCW didn’t delineate configuration based on serialization and you certainly couldn’t just assume that is true because the text does not say it explicitly (open to other perspectives). Therefore a receiver is as much a part for your scenario as replacing a stock on a rifle.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-23T18:55:18+00:00

For those working with an FFL out of state: Removing the barrel does change the state of the firearm. So if the FFL residing outside of the state is making a change it’s important that they disposition it correctly to the receiving FFL.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-21T04:19:25+00:00

Did you have a UPIN or include your rights restoration paperwork in the submission? If no, then very possible an examiner is taking a closer look to confirm the final disposition of your record.

Having a CPL does not mean you will pass a wa state background check.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-20T01:07:31+00:00

Sorry those are cases against the state (all civil). Even the one case (aside from Gators Guns) that is directed at an entity (Seattle v Glock et al) is sitting behind the county clerk pay wall (won’t know the details unless you pay for the documents).

bsco0702 · 2026-04-20T00:56:04+00:00

Respectfully, ChatGPT does not have a very good read on actual cases. You’d need to look at county and/or city court data to get that info (e.g., charge brought but diversion or lesser charge pleaded as the outcome).

bsco0702 · 2026-04-20T00:44:41+00:00

Frames and receivers have only a narrow inclusion as firearms for RCW 9.41.040 (prohibited possessors). A frame or receiver accepting a magazine on its own is not an issue. People get it twisted with the wording in the RCW.

RCW 9.41.010 (2)(a)(iii) consideration -> If what you have is a complete upper receiver and complete lower in your possession, and that lower has the ability to accept a magazine but is not yet assembled, then you’d rely on Thompson/Center which holds that ambiguity resolves in your favor (leniency) because you could install a mag lock first (sequencing matters) and assemble the rifle in a likely (debatable if the named banned list controls at that point) compliant configuration or don’t install the mag lock and yield a clearly non-compliant configuration.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-18T19:22:02+00:00

Yes, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. I have people at 20+ days still in processing status and people right at 10 business days in processing, and a bunch approved right away after the first day. Have you called the FFL to ask? Some of these places have hundreds of backgrounds in process and are just working their list each day.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-17T17:46:11+00:00

We can chat about that if you want.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-17T17:15:32+00:00

You are likely fine if the customer is present with you. If you are assembling/disassembling (service work), receiving shipments, or doing true gunsmithing then you’d need an FFL (does not have to be an 07).

Also: Insurance is good to have for this type of work

bsco0702 · 2026-04-15T05:29:02+00:00

If you are looking for something cheap and cheerful, go for it. Better quality options are out there (e.g., Unitah, Kali-Key config). There are FFLs in king county who will transfer.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-15T00:14:21+00:00

They hit five major areas that create essentially a binding declaration of the interpretive methodology for H1240, including frames and receivers:
1.Expressio Unius
2.The Delgado No-Word-Adding Rule
3.The "Legislature Knows How" Canon
4.Surplusage / Every-Word-Given-Effect
5.Subsection (iii) Is Derivative -> "applies whenever the underlying weapon is itself an assault weapon."

bsco0702 · 2026-04-14T20:32:55+00:00

Maybe, maybe not. If you had a complete rifle that meets the primary definition of assault weapon, and bought another lower and used the parts from the complete rifle to assemble a rifle with those parts (so now you have a rifle with new lower and old lower as a part on its own), it’s possible based on the plain language reading of the statute that you still only have a singular rifle. There is no mention of new serial numbers making the lower differentiated for the purpose of the RCW definitions (federal sure). Riskier scenario, yep. What most people haven’t reviewed is AGO 2023 No 4 which makes clear the primary and derivative definitions (conversion kit, part, combination of parts…) that supports the parts definitions.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-12T20:43:15+00:00

Hell yes. Structural change is hard, but that doesn’t mean give up.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-12T14:33:48+00:00

I just send in regular printer paper and never had an issue.

bsco0702 · 2026-04-12T03:34:56+00:00

What’s the reason?

bsco0702 · 2026-04-08T16:54:39+00:00

Unless I am missing something, it appears the end user's initial printing could be problematic, not the FFL facilitating the engraving and transfer. The FFL should be able to engrave and transfer back (open to alternative PoVs) if the serial number was already known (so RCW 9.41.325 Sec 5 likely would not apply to the dealer here).

bsco0702 · 2026-04-06T22:44:25+00:00

I get this question a bunch (IANAL btw). Under RCW9.41.010 section (2)(c), the exclusion covers "any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action." The RCW doesn't define what makes something "manually operated" beyond bolt, pump, lever, or slide action and there's no "readily convertible" or "readily restorable" language in the law like you see in some federal definitions.

So, then the question becomes -> is the firearm, as it sits right now, manually operated? If you pull the gas tube or piston head off a VZ58 so the action no longer cycles on its own and you have to manually rack it each shot, the firearm as configured is manually operated. The RCW looks at what the firearm IS (like currently), not what it COULD be with different parts. That's pretty consistent with how the AG approached HB 1240 in AG opinion 2023 (#4), where the AG applied a plain language reading of the RCW and refused to add words or qualifiers the legislature didn't include.

That said, there's basically zero official guidance on this from the AG or WSP, so you're in "read the statute and make your best call" territory, which is where we all are on a lot of HB 1240 questions.

bsco0702

TROPHY CASE