WA Ruger PC Backpacker???

[whomever]

There seems to be some confusion about whether the Ruger PC Backpacker stock (and presumably 'pistol caliber' carbines in general) are legal in WA.

Bud's and Sportsman's Warehouse say the Backpacker stock is restricted. I don't know SW's rationale, but Bud's says it is because the recent AW ban in Washington bans pistols where the magazine well isn't in the grip (which is correct, see RCW 9.41.010. But this is a rifle, not a pistol. Bud's view is that the pistol rules (9.41.010 vi(D)) also apply to 'pistol caliber' rifles.

Even squinting as hard as I can, I don't see that. The definitions section has the usual definitions of pistol and rifle. Caliber isn't mentioned at all, which would make distinguishing 'pistol caliber' from 'rifle caliber' pretty hard, since handguns and rifles are both made for the vast majority of cartridges.

Brownells and Midway both seem OK with selling the stocks in WA.

I really, really don't like orange jumpsuits, so before I get one from one of them can anyone see any interpretation at all of the WA assault weapon ban that would make one of those stocks even a little bit iffy?

The stock in question: https://magpul.com/pc-backpacker-sto...c-carbine.html

The law in question: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010

[Lost River]

Rather than get an opinion from random people on the internet, I would ask for an opinion from the state AG's office (or whatever office is deemed appropriate). Telling a judge "But sir, most the guys on arfcom, or PF think it is OK, so I bought one", might not hold much sway.

Not that I don't trust the opinion of people here, as we actually have a very unique group of phenomenally talented and quite smart guys and at least one gal here, but it still needs to be kept in context.

That is only my observation.

[whomever]

Rather than get an opinion from random people on the internet, I would ask for an opinion from the state AG's office

If only. When the universal background check law was passed a couple years ago there were a lot of questions about it. The then and now AG publicly announced he would not answer any questions about it, even if asked by sitting legislators. More clarity means less FUD.

[Totem Polar]

The AG's office will be no help whatsoever. Unfortunately, neither will I, since I can't ferret out the nuances, either. the only statement I can offer is that I'm damn glad I already own all the takedown ruger I need.🤷

[mmc45414]

Perhaps there is a concern about the grip being vertical enough to be considered a "fin" connecting the stock?



Maybe the most responsive to this inquiry might be Ruger? They offer several variations that have limits based on state compliance, #19135 is in the Backpacker and the barrel is not fluted, and "This model ships with a 10-round magazine and non-threaded barrel for consumers in those states which limit magazine capacity and have feature-based restrictions". And Ruger has customer service that might respond, unlike the AG, who probably will not respond because nobody is going to force him to.

[idahojess]

Bob would likely put you on a list...

[Totem Polar]

Bob would likely put you on a list...

Yeah, that fucker isn’t interested in dialog on any of this. JMO, of course.

[mmc45414]

the barrel is not fluted

Duh, obviously meant to say not threaded.

[Lost River]

If only. When the universal background check law was passed a couple years ago there were a lot of questions about it. The then and now AG publicly announced he would not answer any questions about it, even if asked by sitting legislators. More clarity means less FUD.

Is it not in the mission statement of pretty much every state AG to serve the people of the state? He is after all, a public servant, first and foremost.

Yes, I know it is rhetorical, but if he/his office is refusing to answer people asking for clarification on legal matter, I would say that he is deliberately and willfully failing to fulfill his obligations of the position.

It would seem that he could be taken to task for that. I am sure there is some legal precedence that deals directly with this. What the exact verbiage for "intentionally not doing your job" as related to the subject matter at hand is, is outside my scope of knowledge, and I let people who do that sort of thing every day advise on such matters.

The AG sounds like a real piece of work.

[Totem Polar]

Yes, I know it is rhetorical, but if he/his office is refusing to answer people asking for clarification on legal matter, I would say that he is deliberately and willfully failing to fulfill his obligations of the position...

I agree with you, completely.

But what can we say? Shitbirds gonna shitbird.