guns with silencers

imported post

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...

Hope that there is not a LEO around or someone who is and calls a LEO. If you do not get caught then it is not a ......

imported post

My intention was to say if I need to use the gun in a life or death situation, I am not going to be worring about a misdemeanor.

imported post

Don't you mean misdemeanor?

imported post

I'd rather have one for my Granddaughter:lol:

imported post

expvideo wrote:

I don't condone illegal activities of any kind ... I can't support that arguement because I don't condone criminal activity. ... 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.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in the concept of "unjust laws" and that such laws must be disobeyed? (note: I am not saying this is an unjust law, I'm asking a more general philosohpical question...)

imported post

sccrref wrote:

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).

Click to expand...

You can have this done by any notary public---usually you can find them in places like mailboxes etc., local banks, most large companies have one around, etc.

This is the whole point of a notary public--to certify documents as exact copies or to certify a signature as that of the person signing the document (check id).

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

expvideo wrote:

I don't condone illegal activities of any kind ... I can't support that arguement because I don't condone criminal activity. ... 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.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in the concept of "unjust laws" and that such laws must be disobeyed? (note: I am not saying this is an unjust law, I'm asking a more general philosohpical question...)

Click to expand...

You know, there's a lot of legislation that doesn't make sense. Pot's illegal, but beer isn't for example. That doesn't make much sense. But I don't protest that law by smoking weed. When Elliot Ness (famous for locking up Al Capone) was asked what he would do when the prohibition was ended, he answered "I think I'll have a drink". I don't agree with all the laws. It doesn't mean that I break them, or support those that do.

I think it's rediculous that I can't carry in a school zone. But I don't just do it anyway. I think it's stupid that I can't carry at an outdoor music festival, and it really sucked locking my gun up in the car at bumbershoot, but I did it anyway. That's because I enjoy living in the US and I enjoy my rights as a law abiding citizen. I enjoy protesting unjust laws. However, I don't pick and choose which laws I'm going to obey. The law is the law. If you disagree with it, there are ways to get it changed. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Now don't get me wrong, if the .gov decides to ban firearms, knocking on my door would be a grave mistake. Because as much as I like being a law abiding citizen, I will defend the constitution.

I don't personally think that silencers are covered by the 2nd amendment. I also see no reason to make their use illegal. That's stupid and pointless. It isn't a law I'm willing to sacrifice my freedom for though.

I don't think we have a constitutional right to a silencer, but that doesn't mean that illegalizing them makes sense. As a comparison, let's ban syringes, since I've seen assassins in movies use them to kill people quietly and that scares me. Forget that some people need them to inject insulin and so on. It's the same thing with silencers. I've seen some BGs in movies use them, but their actual use is hearing protection and filtering noise polution. A lot less people would complain about gun ranges if silencers were legal to use.

Anyways, I'm starting to rant. I don't expect you all to agree with me. And I don't think the2A is just about muskets and hunting rifles.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

expvideo wrote:

I don't condone illegal activities of any kind ... I can't support that arguement because I don't condone criminal activity. ... 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.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in the concept of "unjust laws" and that such laws must be disobeyed? (note: I am not saying this is an unjust law, I'm asking a more general philosohpical question...)

Click to expand...

Who determines this list of "unjust laws"? Does each person determine for themselves? Is it a committee? Does everyone have to agree with the committee on this list of "unjust laws"?

If someone thinks a law is unjust, they should work to get it removed. That's the proper way to go about it. Having individuals picking and choosing what law they will follow and which they won't is called anarchy. And that will not work.

One thing we DON'T need however, are more laws. We need to get rid of about 75% of the ones we have now.

imported post

As a newer member, and reading this forum, what is the thought of a silenced firearm that is made as a silenced firearm, ie. not able to be shot unsilenced. I believe some 10/22's and others can be made this way. Obviously not able to be shot here in Washington, but able to be owned?

imported post

Welcome handgunner

Yes, you can own a firearm with a silencer but currently you may not discharge it.

I do not understand the attempted logic behind it, but then again I don't understand the logic behind most gun laws...

This, as well as the ban on full autos, needs to be changed.

imported post

Thanks for the thoughts. I seem to remember my uncle having one when I visited him in Tenn many years ago. He is getting up there, and with no kids I can see I can arrainge to get it from him. Thanks again.

I would agree most gun laws could be changed to more simple and straight forward. Full-Auto would be okay, as long as my friends had them, so I could shoot them. Too much cash for me.

Glad that Gun New carried the article on this web site, good to get the info on OC out there.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

I just don't see the need for this. If someone uses a supressor, do they kill the victim deadder? What do they do other than not making everyone else in the place go deaf for a couple of minutes? Should we care whether we are shot with a silenced gun, or a loud gun?

A silencer doesn't make a firearm more accurate, deadlier, or anything else I can see. In fact I can only see benefits to them. Helps our precious hearing!

Heck, personally I'd rather have the criminal use a silencer, it would save my hearing!

Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org

imported post

As it's been stated before here, it's just another useless law restricting folks that obey the law. No one is safer, no one benefits. I'd like to see all laws restricting ownership of or modification to firearms repealed. Is there a way to see the debate or notes when this was being debated?

imported post

gregma wrote:

John Hardin wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

I just don't see the need for this. If someone uses a supressor, do they kill the victim deadder? What do they do other than not making everyone else in the place go deaf for a couple of minutes? Should we care whether we are shot with a silenced gun, or a loud gun?

A silencer doesn't make a firearm more accurate, deadlier, or anything else I can see. In fact I can only see benefits to them. Helps our precious hearing!

Heck, personally I'd rather have the criminal use a silencer, it would save my hearing!

Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org

Click to expand...

A relatively small change like that is more likely to get passed than simply deleting suppressors from the statute entirely would be. But I agree that the statute is nonsensical on its face.

imported post

Not to be a ragger, but have any of you fired a gun without hearing protection? Maybe I have "strong" ears, but it's really not as bad as you'd think. You won't go deaf, nor do the effects last for more than 5 minutes, if even that. Now if you're shooting one of those hand cannons... :lol:

imported post

G27 wrote:

Not to be a ragger, but have any of you fired a gun without hearing protection? Maybe I have "strong" ears, but it's really not as bad as you'd think. You won't go deaf, nor do the effects last for more than 5 minutes, if even that. Now if you're shooting one of those hand cannons... :lol:

Click to expand...

You say WHAT???...can you repeat that.??? You say What????

Can't hear what you said cuz I just fired of a couple of rounds. Won't be able to hear you til tomorrow MAYBE.



:celebrate

imported post

gregma wrote:

John Hardin wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

I just don't see the need for this. If someone uses a supressor, do they kill the victim deadder? What do they do other than not making everyone else in the place go deaf for a couple of minutes? Should we care whether we are shot with a silenced gun, or a loud gun?

A silencer doesn't make a firearm more accurate, deadlier, or anything else I can see. In fact I can only see benefits to them. Helps our precious hearing!

Heck, personally I'd rather have the criminal use a silencer, it would save my hearing!

Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org

Click to expand...

..."do they kill the victim deadder?"...

No they don't kill the victim deadder just ALOT more quietly. Which the Law don't like.

Just my .44

imported post

About one year ago a watched the shooting show I think with Michael Bain?? It was all about suppressors, mainly from Surefire. It was a very interesting show. I remember it saying about increased accuracy, and of course the benifit from lower noise output, both to the user and bystanders (neighbors). I hear that in New Zealand they acutally incourage the use to limit the noise disturbance for the neighbors. Anyway, you may want to check for the show sometime.

imported post

John Hardin wrote:

A relatively small change like that is more likely to get passed than simply deleting suppressors from the statute entirely would be. But I agree that the statute is nonsensical on its face.

Click to expand...

If it is either that change or nothing, then I 100% agree that a small change is better than what we have. Of course I realize that we won't even get that small change in this state

Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org

imported post

G27 wrote:

Not to be a ragger, but have any of you fired a gun without hearing protection? Maybe I have "strong" ears, but it's really not as bad as you'd think. You won't go deaf, nor do the effects last for more than 5 minutes, if even that. Now if you're shooting one of those hand cannons... :lol:

Click to expand...

Actually I have, quite often back in my younger days. That's why I have such a pronounced hearing loss and tinnitus now.

My wife was with me the first time she was around a gun being fired. She hadn't put her muffs on properly so both ears were only partially covered. A single shot from my 9mm actually hurt her ears. She had remarkably reduced hearing for a couple of hours after that.

Of course with people now listening to car stereo's at 110db all day and night, they might not be quite as sensitive

Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org