Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2320-S.SL) ***
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(b) Manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle;
(c) Assemble or repair any machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Manufacture, cause to be manufactured, assemble, or cause to be assembled, an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell the untraceable firearm.
(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle, if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or
(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, bump-fire stocks, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:
(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;
(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or
(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun or short-barreled shotgun was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.
(5) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.
[ 2022 c 105 s 3; 2019 c 243 s 3; 2018 c 7 s 3; (2018 c 7 s 2 expired July 1, 2019); 2016 c 214 s 1; 2014 c 201 s 1; 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 420; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 s 2; 1933 c 64 s 1; RRS s 2518-1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2022 c 105: See note following RCW 7.80.120.
Effective date—2019 c 243: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Effective dates—2018 c 7: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Expiration date—2018 c 7 s 2: "Section 2 of this act expires July 1, 2019." [ 2018 c 7 s 12.]
Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 7 ss 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 s 31.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. Williams, 158 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2006).
State v. Williams, 158 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2006). “Matthew Williams challenges his conviction for possession of an unlawful firearm pursuant to RCW 9.41.190. Williams claims that instruction 11, the “to convict” instruction, was a misstatement of the law because it failed to inform the jury that in order to convict him, it must…”
State v. Williams, 148 P.3d 993 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 1 Matthew Williams challenges his conviction for possession of an unlawful firearm pursuant to RCW 9.41.190. Williams claims that instruction 11, the "to convict" instruction, was a misstatement of the law because it failed to inform the jury that in order to convict him it…”
State v. Warfield, 80 P.3d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “1 Instead, it stated the essential elements as mere possession or control of a short-barreled shotgun.”
State v. O'NEAL, 109 P.3d 429 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The State offers no authority to counter Greg's assertion that RCW 9.41.190 is violated only by knowing possession.”
State v. Carter, 161 Wash. App. 532 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “190(2)(b) exemption is an affirmative defense rather than an element of the offense of unlawful possession of a machine gun that the State had to disprove, (2) RCW 9.41.190’s plain language demonstrates a legislative intent to make it unlawful for a person to privately possess a…”
State v. Berrier, 41 P.3d 1198 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Equal Protection The jury convicted Berrier of violating RCW 9.41.190. The trial court enhanced the sentence on this conviction under former RCW 9.”
State v. Berrier, 110 Wash. App. 639 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Equal Protection The jury convicted Berrier of violating RCW 9.41.190. The trial court enhanced the sentence on this conviction *648 under former RCW 9.”
Jay Isaac Hollis v. Loretta Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2016). “05; Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190 ; W. Va. Code § 61-7-9 .”
State v. Carter, 85 P.3d 887 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 9.41.190. Jackson noticed that the safety lever on the AR-15 rotated into a position that corresponds to the automatic fire selection on an M-16.”
State v. Carter, 151 Wash. 2d 118 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 9.41.190. Jackson noticed that the safety lever on the AR-15 rotated into a position that corresponds to the automatic fire selection on an M-16.”
State v. Holley, 876 P.2d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “On October 29, 1992, Holley pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a machine gun, RCW 9.41.190, unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), RCW 69.”
State Of Washington, V. Heather Azevedo, 547 P.3d 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “3d 993 (2006) (reading in a mens rea requirement to unlawful possession of a firearm pursuant to RCW 9.41.190(1)); State v. Anderson, 141 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190(1) — 28 cases
State v. Berrier, 41 P.3d 1198 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Equal Protection The jury convicted Berrier of violating RCW 9.41.190. The trial court enhanced the sentence on this conviction under former RCW 9.”
State v. Berrier, 110 Wash. App. 639 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Equal Protection The jury convicted Berrier of violating RCW 9.41.190. The trial court enhanced the sentence on this conviction *648 under former RCW 9.”
State v. O'NEAL, 109 P.3d 429 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The State offers no authority to counter Greg's assertion that RCW 9.41.190 is violated only by knowing possession.”
State v. Williams, 158 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2006). “Matthew Williams challenges his conviction for possession of an unlawful firearm pursuant to RCW 9.41.190. Williams claims that instruction 11, the “to convict” instruction, was a misstatement of the law because it failed to inform the jury that in order to convict him, it must…”
State v. Warfield, 80 P.3d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “1 Instead, it stated the essential elements as mere possession or control of a short-barreled shotgun.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190(1)(a) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Trevor J. Haugen (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190(2) — 2 cases
State v. Carter, 161 Wash. App. 532 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “190(2)(b) exemption is an affirmative defense rather than an element of the offense of unlawful possession of a machine gun that the State had to disprove, (2) RCW 9.41.190’s plain language demonstrates a legislative intent to make it unlawful for a person to privately possess a…”
State v. Carter, 255 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Carter, 161 Wash. App. 532 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “190(2)(b) exemption is an affirmative defense rather than an element of the offense of unlawful possession of a machine gun that the State had to disprove, (2) RCW 9.41.190’s plain language demonstrates a legislative intent to make it unlawful for a person to privately possess a…”
State v. Carter, 255 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190(2)(b)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Carter, 161 Wash. App. 532 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “190(2)(b) exemption is an affirmative defense rather than an element of the offense of unlawful possession of a machine gun that the State had to disprove, (2) RCW 9.41.190’s plain language demonstrates a legislative intent to make it unlawful for a person to privately possess a…”
State v. Carter, 255 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.190(4) — 4 cases
State v. Williams, 158 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2006). “Matthew Williams challenges his conviction for possession of an unlawful firearm pursuant to RCW 9.41.190. Williams claims that instruction 11, the “to convict” instruction, was a misstatement of the law because it failed to inform the jury that in order to convict him, it must…”
State v. Williams, 148 P.3d 993 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 1 Matthew Williams challenges his conviction for possession of an unlawful firearm pursuant to RCW 9.41.190. Williams claims that instruction 11, the "to convict" instruction, was a misstatement of the law because it failed to inform the jury that in order to convict him it…”
State v. Warfield, 80 P.3d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “1 Instead, it stated the essential elements as mere possession or control of a short-barreled shotgun.”
State v. Warfield, 80 P.3d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.