• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

guns with silencers

Agent 47

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
570
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

Ok this is one I have been unable to find a definative anser on. I own several silencers including one for one of my carry guns I typically conceal carry but I wonder what the reaction from LE would be if they knew I was carring a leagally concieled pistol equiped with a legally possesed silencer. The only law I have come across states that the use of any contrivance or device for reducing the sound output of a firearm is a gross misdomeanor. Now I have a letter from the BATFE stating that attaching a silencer to a gun does not constitute use. Does anyone have any information or experience or speculation about this.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

Agent 47 wrote:
Ok this is one I have been unable to find a definative anser on. I own several silencers including one for one of my carry guns I typically conceal carry but I wonder what the reaction from LE would be if they knew I was carring a leagally concieled pistol equiped with a legally possesed silencer. The only law I have come across states that the use of any contrivance or device for reducing the sound output of a firearm is a gross misdomeanor. Now I have a letter from the BATFE stating that attaching a silencer to a gun does not constitute use. Does anyone have any information or experience or speculation about this.
I want a Silencer for my Kimber:(.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

Hell yes. The thought of firing without ear protection in a home defense scenario worries me...

Unfortunately there's a lot of public perception of suppressors being EEEVIL and only used by bad guy assassins and spooks, rather than being safety devices for hearing protection.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

It is my understanding based on an Attorney General's opinion I read once, that while silencers are legal in the State of Washington, they cannot be legally attached to the weapon. :what:



I don't have time to find the reference now, but it was on the RCW lookup page. Try "firearm silencers" and check the AG opions box.



Steve
 

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

Agent 47 wrote:
Ok this is one I have been unable to find a definative anser on. I own several silencers including one for one of my carry guns I typically conceal carry but I wonder what the reaction from LE would be if they knew I was carring a leagally concieled pistol equiped with a legally possesed silencer. The only law I have come across states that the use of any contrivance or device for reducing the sound output of a firearm is a gross misdomeanor. Now I have a letter from the BATFE stating that attaching a silencer to a gun does not constitute use. Does anyone have any information or experience or speculation about this.

could you please post a PDF of this letter?
 

larz

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
41
Location
Seattle, ,
imported post

I believe you can buy a silencer, pay the 200 tax, attach it, but it is illegal to shoot it.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
It is my understanding based on an Attorney General's opinion I read once, that while silencers are legal in the State of Washington, they cannot be legally attached to the weapon. :what:



I don't have time to find the reference now, but it was on the RCW lookup page. Try "firearm silencers" and check the AG opions box.



Steve
A friend stated the same facts about Silencers in the State of Washington. Matter of fact I spoke with him Yesterday and he was cussing due the fact that he wants to move there but would have to sell more than half of his arsenal, I told him I could "store" it for him and he gave me a strange look:lol:
 

PhilinSeattle

New member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

joshmmm wrote:
Agent 47 wrote:
Ok this is one I have been unable to find a definative anser on. I own several silencers including one for one of my carry guns I typically conceal carry but I wonder what the reaction from LE would be if they knew I was carring a leagally concieled pistol equiped with a legally possesed silencer. The only law I have come across states that the use of any contrivance or device for reducing the sound output of a firearm is a gross misdomeanor. Now I have a letter from the BATFE stating that attaching a silencer to a gun does not constitute use. Does anyone have any information or experience or speculation about this.

could you please post a PDF of this letter?
I'm not familiar with a BATF letter on this there is a Washington AG opinion though.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=8666


It is not unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to merely possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm. - - - - - - - - - - - - -

August 30, 1988

Honorable Kent Pullen State Senator,
47th District Institutions Building
Olympia, Washington 98504

Cite as: AGO 1988 No. 16

Dear Senator Pullen: By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked for our opinion on a question we have paraphrased as follows: Is it unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm? We answer your question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.

ANALYSIS

RCW 9.41.250, the provision about which you have inquired, provides: Every person who shall manufacture, sell or dispose of or have in his possession any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement; who shall furtively carry with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(Emphasis added.)
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]

In essence, your question is concerned with whether the term "use" in the underscored language of RCW 9.41.250 includes mere possession of a noise suppression device. Absent a statutory definition, words in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning. Davis v. Department of Empl. Sec., 108 Wn.2d 272, 737 P.2d 1262 (1987). The ordinary meaning of the term "use" is to put a thing into service or action. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 2523-2524 (1981). Thus, the use of a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm contemplates employing that device or putting it into service. Although use of such a device may be incident to possession, use is quite different from simply possessing the device or exercising control over it.

In our opinion, the language of RCW 9.41.250 about which you have inquired is unambiguous. It does not prohibit mere possession of a device to suppress the noise of a firearm.

Even if the term "use" in RCW 9.41.250 were ambiguous, rules of statutory construction would dictate against interpreting the term to include mere possession. First, RCW 9.41.250 is a criminal statute. Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). Here, of course, that would be an interpretation excluding mere possession. Second, where the Legislature employs certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another part, a difference in legislative intent is indicated.United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Department of Rev., 102 Wn.2d 355, 687 P.2d 186 (1984). The Legislature has employed the term "possession" in RCW 9.41.250 and thereby has made mere possession of certain weapons a misdemeanor. The Legislature did not employ that same term with reference to noise suppression devices. According to this rule of construction, the Legislature's failure to do so indicates that is did not intend "use" to include mere possession.

We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely, KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY Attorney General
MAUREEN HART Sr. Assistant Attorney General
Sorry about the formatting, I haven't learned the ins and outs of this forums code yet.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

Phil:

Perfect! Thanks.

Maybe we can get that amended to read "or who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm in the commission of a crime"...
 

Agent 47

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
570
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

That is much like the letter I read about it. I already know it is perfectly legal to own them having purchased several legally. I am trying to get a reply in black and white stating that attaching the silencer to the weapon does or does not constitute "use" and If it is not "use" to attach it is it then OK to carry it concealed andattached.
 

PhilinSeattle

New member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
Phil:

Perfect! Thanks.

Maybe we can get that amended to read "or who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm in the commission of a crime"...
In the 2005 and 2006 legislative sessions Senator Hargrove sponsored SB 5167 which would have changed RCW 9.41.250 to

(3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law

of course with Adam Kline as chair of the committee the bill went no where. Kline may claim to want the great outdoors to be quiet, as evidence by his ranting against ATV/ORV/motorbike riders, but allowing shooters to shoot while reducing the noise from their firearms goes too far against his antigun ways.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Here's the code referenced in the letter above: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.250

As the letter says, mere possession isn't enough to be charged. The item must be used and if it's simply attached to the weapon, it's not "put into service", i.e. you're not suppressing sound with it.

Now, do realize that if you carry your sound suppressor, I believe it's required by law to also carry that $200 tax stamp with you to certify that you own it legally.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
Here's the code referenced in the letter above: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.250

As the letter says, mere possession isn't enough to be charged. The item must be used and if it's simply attached to the weapon, it's not "put into service", i.e. you're not suppressing sound with it.

Now, do realize that if you carry your sound suppressor, I believe it's required by law to also carry that $200 tax stamp with you to certify that you own it legally.
That's a BIG YES on the $200. You will have to register it with the Fed's.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Agent 47 wrote:
I have copies of my tax stamp paperwork thatI keep with me in my wallet.
I can't recall as it's been a while since I've looked into it: is a copy of the paperwork sufficiently "legal" as per federal code?
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
Agent 47 wrote:
I have copies of my tax stamp paperwork thatI keep with me in my wallet.
I can't recall as it's been a while since I've looked into it: is a copy of the paperwork sufficiently "legal" as per federal code?
It sure is better than having "nothing" or having the "original" handed around until it magically gets "lost". Better on something like this to have a copy and if necessary provide the original through an attorney. In most cases it will never go that far.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

In Washington state a silencer on your gun=jail. In Oregon a silencer on your gun= totally legalif you have the ATF papers. Same goes for a machine gun.
 

John Henry

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
17
Location
, ,
imported post

I would have thought Washington's laws would have been better then Oregon's on this.

Why did Washington ban Machine Guns? It's really lame you can own suppressor but not be able to use it.
 
Top