Is shipping an 80% lower to someone in Washington Illegal
<p>I was apart of a conversation where one person who lives in the state of Washington wanted someone who lives in Texas to buy a glock <code>80% lower</code> for them and ship it to them in Texas. To me, this sounds like a really bad idea and I alerted the Texan about my concerns. I tried looking up the legality on it and it seems like it might technically be legal because the ATF doesn't consider an 80% lower a firearm until it's been milled. Can someone please explain to me if this would be a legal transaction, or should I continue to urge these two to back out.</p>

<p>edit: An <code>80% lower</code> is described as "An 80 lower is an unfinished lower - "80" meaning it is 80% percent complete. To turn an 80% lower into a 100% lower you have to mill out the fire control group"</p>

<p>Note, <a href="http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5061.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Washington State Senate Bill 5061</a> seeks to block certain "untracable" firearms without a serial number.  This relates in part to "3D printable" guns, but the act of milling of a 80% lower (in Washington) could be a violation, if and when it passes. But <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5061&amp;Year=2019" rel="nofollow noreferrer">it appears the bill hasn't been made a law yet</a>... Is Washington specific news this issue what drives the question?</p>

<p>Federally, the <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-%E2%80%9C80%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ATF web site</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a "firearm" are not subject to regulation under the GCA. The ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, "castings" or "machined bodies" in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the "stage of manufacture" which would result in the classification of a firearm per the GCA.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>But this gets a bit technical.   For further risk mitigation, the Texan could mitigate any risk related to both Federal and Washington state law by shipping it to a federal firearms licensee (FFL) in Washington as if it were a firearm, <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca" rel="nofollow noreferrer">per ATM instructions which say</a> (in part):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.</strong>  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>That FFL is then responsible for ensuring the transaction properly conducted in the state of Washington, including federal and state requirements.   The FFL I contacted only charged $25.00 (plus collecting the state sales tax).   <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Form 4473</a> was easy enough; only about one page for me to fill out.  Of course, I've got a clean record, so going through channels isn't a problem for me, it took less than an hour.    </p>

<p>The FFL confirmed for me that it wasn't necessary for something like an antique musket, which legally isn't a firearm by the federal defeinitions.   In my case the sender was a nervous "trust" lawyer who wasn't sure, hired yet another lawyer to advise him.  The FFL didn't charge me anything for receiving that musket.   </p>

united-states texas washington firearms shipping