guns with silencers

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

It has earlier been shown with an attorney general opinion that this is not the case.

Today I have seen this baseless claim and another equally baseless claim in the thread on liquor stores.

If you are going to just throw out an answer to a debated situation you must include some sort of citation/controlling authority on the subject. I'm sorry, but your opinion means nothing to me if you don't explain both how you arrived at it and provide some sort of proof with a document or link or, at the very veryleast, some personal story/observation you have witnessed.

It is imperative that we don't spread misinformation in this or any other forum. Misinterpretation of the law is not and never has been a defense to most of the types of issues we are bringing up here (IE: there is no mens rea requirement--an evil mind-- for most of the "crimes" we discuss here--the actions are illegal--or not--in and of themselves by statute)

Sorry for the short rant--I have just seen a lack of logic sprout up on this board lately that wasn't here two months ago... If you think something is the case but can't prove it--either don't say it or qualify it with a statement stating this so that others who are not as careful to check citations don't go around mistaking your opinion as fact.

imported post

John Henry wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Back in the gangster days of the 20's there were major problems here with boot leggers and all the shooting and stuff (my Grandfather was a Tacoma police detective then and had some amazing stories). So the idiots in the Washington Legislature over reacted just like the morons in DC. Of course the new law never stopped any of the gangstersfrom having and using a machine gun, but it made the elected morons feel good. Oregon is a lot farther from Canada and had a lot less problems.

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

It has earlier been shown with an attorney general opinion that this is not the case.

Today I have seen this baseless claim and another equally baseless claim in the thread on liquor stores.

If you are going to just throw out an answer to a debated situation you must include some sort of citation/controlling authority on the subject. I'm sorry, but your opinion means nothing to me if you don't explain both how you arrived at it and provide some sort of proof with a document or link or, at the very veryleast, some personal story/observation you have witnessed.

It is imperative that we don't spread misinformation in this or any other forum. Misinterpretation of the law is not and never has been a defense to most of the types of issues we are bringing up here (IE: there is no mens rea requirement--an evil mind-- for most of the "crimes" we discuss here--the actions are illegal--or not--in and of themselves by statute)

Sorry for the short rant--I have just seen a lack of logic sprout up on this board lately that wasn't here two months ago... If you think something is the case but can't prove it--either don't say it or qualify it with a statement stating this so that others who are not as careful to check citations don't go around mistaking your opinion as fact.

Click to expand...

Was going to say something similar to your first sentence, but you've stated my feelings about the quoted post rather eloquently in the subsequent paragraphs. +1.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Boy, I hope not. Seeing as I have OC my gun with the silencer attached while at work and the most I have gotten from law enforcement was raised eyebrows and warnings of "you know your not allowed toshoot that, right?" Now I understand LE treets me differently while I am at work than they would if they saw me walking down the street like that. Wich is why I am asking if anyone has heard of a situation in wich charges aremade against someone for doing it. Or could they be, based on how you read the law.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.



And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.

Click to expand...

So, what happens if you have an ND ona gun with a silencer?

imported post

"And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)"


[line]

Running a red light is a traffic infraction not a criminal offense. I base this on my past training and positionsas a 911 Dispatcher, a 911 Operations Manager and a Training Coordinator at the Wa STate Police Academy.

imported post

j2l3 wrote:

"And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)"


[line]

Running a red light is a traffic infraction not a criminal offense. I base this on my past training and positionsas a 911 Dispatcher, a 911 Operations Manager and a Training Coordinator at the Wa STate Police Academy.

Click to expand...

This is very true--traffic citations are not crimes in WA. IMHO the best way to word the law would be "in the commission of a felony". Clear, concise, to the point, encompasses all violent crimes, excludes reckless driving (misdemeanor), excludes all sorts of petty crimes, etc.

imported post

I was exagerating to make a point. I know that running a red light isn't a crime.



HankT wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.

Click to expand...

So, what happens if you have an ND ona gun with a silencer?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I imagine the same thing that happens when your car's brakes lock on their own and send you skidding into a parked car.... You're still responsible.

imported post

Here's a novel concept...

How about we just get .250 repealed?!?

If someone uses a gun in a felony, who the heck cares if there was a silencer on it. What, to tack on another charge that can be plea bargained down? How about we just make mandatory LONG sentances for using a gun in a crime regardless of whether it had a silencer, or had more than 5 rounds, or had full-auto, or was pink with purple polka-dots...

How about we remove EVERY gun law and replace it with one...

It's unlawful to use a firearm in the commision of a crime. Doing so, adds a mandatory 50 years onto the sentance with no chance for parole.

imported post

I don't understand why lawmakers try to pass laws that make using a firearm during the commission of the crime more "serious". If someone robs a bank with a knife instead of a gun...what's the difference?

gregma wrote:

Here's a novel concept...

How about we just get .250 repealed?!?

If someone uses a gun in a felony, who the heck cares if there was a silencer on it. What, to tack on another charge that can be plea bargained down? How about we just make mandatory LONG sentances for using a gun in a crime regardless of whether it had a silencer, or had more than 5 rounds, or had full-auto, or was pink with purple polka-dots...

How about we remove EVERY gun law and replace it with one...

It's unlawful to use a firearm in the commision of a crime. Doing so, adds a mandatory 50 years onto the sentance with no chance for parole.

Click to expand...

imported post

John Henry wrote:

I don't understand why lawmakers try to pass laws that make using a firearm during the commission of the crime more "serious". If someone robs a bank with a knife instead of a gun...what's the difference?

gregma wrote:

Here's a novel concept...

How about we just get .250 repealed?!?

If someone uses a gun in a felony, who the heck cares if there was a silencer on it. What, to tack on another charge that can be plea bargained down? How about we just make mandatory LONG sentances for using a gun in a crime regardless of whether it had a silencer, or had more than 5 rounds, or had full-auto, or was pink with purple polka-dots...

How about we remove EVERY gun law and replace it with one...

It's unlawful to use a firearm in the commision of a crime. Doing so, adds a mandatory 50 years onto the sentance with no chance for parole.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You both have great points. I like John's idea best, but if we can't start with that due to all the anti-gun liberals out there than gregma's idea is better than what there is now. It should not be illegal to carry a concealed firearm, open firearm, baseball bat, knife, silencer, or a broken bottle, etc. It should only be illegal to commit a crime without regard to the tools used. Should be obvious, but unfortunately the politicians like to complicate things so much that many can no longer tell a bicycle from a tire iron, much less an assault rifle from an assault weapon.

Here's a great example. I heard last night on nranews.com that a criminal & his friends attacked a woman with a broken bottle. Assaulted her to within an inch of her life. What did they get? 4 months in jail & 5 years of probation. What is wrong with this picture? He gets a short sentence just because he didn't use a gun? Using the sharp end of a broken bottle makes it ok? We need to start locking up the bad guys & throwing away the key.

imported post

swift wrote:

John Henry wrote:

I don't understand why lawmakers try to pass laws that make using a firearm during the commission of the crime more "serious". If someone robs a bank with a knife instead of a gun...what's the difference?

gregma wrote:

Here's a novel concept...

How about we just get .250 repealed?!?

If someone uses a gun in a felony, who the heck cares if there was a silencer on it. What, to tack on another charge that can be plea bargained down? How about we just make mandatory LONG sentances for using a gun in a crime regardless of whether it had a silencer, or had more than 5 rounds, or had full-auto, or was pink with purple polka-dots...

How about we remove EVERY gun law and replace it with one...

It's unlawful to use a firearm in the commision of a crime. Doing so, adds a mandatory 50 years onto the sentance with no chance for parole.

Click to expand...

You both have great points. I like John's idea best, but if we can't start with that due to all the anti-gun liberals out there than gregma's idea is better than what there is now. It should not be illegal to carry a concealed firearm, open firearm, baseball bat, knife, silencer, or a broken bottle, etc. It should only be illegal to commit a crime without regard to the tools used. Should be obvious, but unfortunately the politicians like to complicate things so much that many can no longer tell a bicycle from a tire iron, much less an assault rifle from an assault weapon.

Here's a great example. I heard last night on nranews.com that a criminal & his friends attacked a woman with a broken bottle. Assaulted her to within an inch of her life. What did they get? 4 months in jail & 5 years of probation. What is wrong with this picture? He gets a short sentence just because he didn't use a gun? Using the sharp end of a broken bottle makes it ok? We need to start locking up the bad guys & throwing away the key.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There is an interesting distinction we need to make if we were to change gun laws to automatically adding a longer sentence.

It would be good to add the word intent somewhere. Many crimes, like manslaughter, do not require any intent to cause harm. Manslaughter, depending on the degree, requires only recklessness or negligence.

Here's why this matters. We have agreed as a society that manslaughter is not a crime in which you should spend your life rotting away in jail. Depending on the jurisdiction, level, circumstances, etc. a typical sentence is slightly more than a year up to 20 years. Adding 50 years to a 2 year manslaughter sentence seems ridiculous--but, if a gun is used, and since manslaughter is a felony, this would be the result of the previously proposed ideas.

So, how do we solve that? simple-- We word the law more like this "if a gun is used during the purposeful or knowing commision of a felony...."

Purposeful and knowing are two mental states that come from the model penal code that a large portion of US laws are based on. They are required mental states in order to be convicted of a specific intent crime--crimes like rape (other than statutory which requires no intent by "statute"), burglary, murder, etc. This would mean that using a gun and accidentally killing someone negligently would not add 50 years to a sentence but using a gun while intending, hoping, expecting to kill (or rob, injure, rape, etc. etc.) someone (unless justified by an affirmative defense such as self defense) would automatically increase the sentence.

btw, many crimes such as rape and robberyincrease the sentence for using a dangerous weapon already so it may be a moot point and we should just pushfor repeal of the silly law that is on the books...

imported post

gregma wrote:

Here's a novel concept...

How about we just get .250 repealed?!?

If someone uses a gun in a felony, who the heck cares if there was a silencer on it. What, to tack on another charge that can be plea bargained down? How about we just make mandatory LONG sentances for using a gun in a crime regardless of whether it had a silencer, or had more than 5 rounds, or had full-auto, or was pink with purple polka-dots...

How about we remove EVERY gun law and replace it with one...

It's unlawful to use a firearm in the commision of a crime. Doing so, adds a mandatory 50 years onto the sentance with no chance for parole.

Click to expand...

PREACH IT BRUTHA!!!

That's what I'm talkin' about. Penalize felons, not law abiding folks.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.



And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)

Click to expand...

So what the hell would be the point of attachinga silencerif you have now made your gun into a rock because you can't fire it. Get real people, only a wannabe would attach a silencer to a weapon and not be able to fire it. Pretty much defeats the purpose of a silencer.

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

It would be good to add the word intent somewhere. Many crimes, like manslaughter, do not require any intent to cause harm. Manslaughter, depending on the degree, requires only recklessness or negligence.

So, how do we solve that? simple-- We word the law more like this "if a gun is used during the purposeful or knowing commision of a felony...."

Purposeful and knowing are two mental states that come from the model penal code that a large portion of US laws are based on. They are required mental states in order to be convicted of a specific intent crime--crimes like rape (other than statutory which requires no intent by "statute"), burglary, murder, etc.

Click to expand...

Thanks, great idea. Okay, here's my revised proposed wording:

(c) Uses in the purposeful or knowing commission of a felony any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,

Click to expand...

See http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_suppressor.txt

This makes four proposals for the 2008 session. Anybody care to suggest a fifth?

Also, in response to SB5167 trying to amend it to say:

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,

Click to expand...

I don't like that because it implies the federal law is reasonable. I disagree.

By all means repeal it - if you can. I don't think the state legislators would be willing to swallow that, though, which is why I'm proposing "adjustments" to blunt the stoopid parts. Incrementalism can be used for good as well as evil.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.



And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)

Click to expand...

So what the hell would be the point of attachinga silencerif you have now made your gun into a rock because you can't fire it. Get real people, only a wannabe would attach a silencer to a weapon and not be able to fire it. Pretty much defeats the purpose of a silencer.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we all agree that it's a stupid law. No need to call anyone a "wannabe". A lot of people that attach silencers are willing to use them if they have to. A good example of this is a pregnant woman wanting to defend herself at home. A gunshot indoors can be very damaging to a developing fetus, so she is willing to suffer the misdemeanor consequences of firing with a silencer, if that means protecting her unborn child from possible disabilities.

Now I'm not advocating breaking the law, I'm just explaining that some people would consider a misdemeanor charge for using a silencer to be the lesser of two evils in some instances. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Personally I don't approve of anything that would be construed as breaking the law, so I don't plan to purchase a silencer until it is legal to use one.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.



And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)

Click to expand...

So what the hell would be the point of attachinga silencerif you have now made your gun into a rock because you can't fire it. Get real people, only a wannabe would attach a silencer to a weapon and not be able to fire it. Pretty much defeats the purpose of a silencer.

Click to expand...

It is also illegal to discharge a firearm inside a shopping mall but if someone attacks you are you going to say, "hold on, lets take a drive out into unincorperated county land so I can legally shoot you." There are a number of reasons to carry a gun with a silencer, not the least of wich is if I can why not. same reason I may OC because it is not illegal why not exercise your freadom. there are several tactical advantages to using a silencer in a gunfight, infact when I lived in arizona I took a course specifically teaching the use of silencers in self defence. If anything it is a much more effective weapon cirtanly not a rock. Shure it's a misdomenor to use one I dont know what the penalty for discharging a firearm in a public place but I would imagine it is more than a misdomenor. So if you wouldn't hesitate to use a gun in a public place in defence of yourself or others (theirfore breaking the law) why would I hesitate using a silencer in tha same situation, also breaking the law.

imported post

Agent 47 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not true. You can own it and attach it, you just can't fire rounds through it. If I'm wrong then Wade's Guns in bellevue has been breaking the law for several years, and considering how many law enforcement agents shop there,one wouldthink they would have been notified by now.

It is illegal to "use" a silencer, per WA state law. Attaching the silencer is not "using" the silencer, per BATFE definition.



And John Hardin's right! We should do what we can to get a law passed to have that ammended to "...in the commission of a crime." (or "violent crime" since I don't want to go to jail for running a red light while armed with a silenced weapon)

Click to expand...

So what the hell would be the point of attachinga silencerif you have now made your gun into a rock because you can't fire it. Get real people, only a wannabe would attach a silencer to a weapon and not be able to fire it. Pretty much defeats the purpose of a silencer.

Click to expand...

It is also illegal to discharge a firearm inside a shopping mall but if someone attacks you are you going to say, "hold on, lets take a drive out into unincorperated county land so I can legally shoot you." There are a number of reasons to carry a gun with a silencer, not the least of wich is if I can why not. same reason I may OC because it is not illegal why not exercise your freadom. there are several tactical advantages to using a silencer in a gunfight, infact when I lived in arizona I took a course specifically teaching the use of silencers in self defence. If anything it is a much more effective weapon cirtanly not a rock. Shure it's a misdomenor to use one I dont know what the penalty for discharging a firearm in a public place but I would imagine it is more than a misdomenor. So if you wouldn't hesitate to use a gun in a public place in defence of yourself or others (theirfore breaking the law) why would I hesitate using a silencer in tha same situation, also breaking the law.

Click to expand...

Not to jump down your throat, but the law provides for defensive use of a firearm in public. It's illegal to shoot cans of your apartment deck in seattle, but it's not illegal to defend yourself with a gun.

It is however illegal to defend yourself with a silencer. I don't condone illegal activities of any kind, so no matter what my view of silencer laws may be, they are still the law. Of course if you break that law it is your choice, but I can't support that arguement because I don't condone criminal activity. Even misdemeanor criminal activity.

You can attach a silencer for decorative purposes, or for trips to arizona, or just in case, but if you fire a round through it, you have broken the law and no longer have my support. Until the law is changed, I have to disagree with you.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Agent 47 wrote:

I have copies of my tax stamp paperwork thatI keep with me in my wallet.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

I would think that if you took it to the courthouse and had it certified as a legal copy, then that copy would meet the requirements. I do not know what the powers that be would think.

This is the case with military discharge papers (DD-214). If you lost it, then you would have to request another copy through the government. i.e. wait for a long time to get an official copy. On the other hand, if you took the original to the court house and had it registered as a certified legal copy, if you lost your original, then you go to your local courthouse and they will make you an official copy and certify it as such for you (for a nominal fee).