Just get caught using a silencer and see what the court case cost you regardless of anybody here's interpretation because what they think here does count.
The crucialword is "use"and yes several thousand officers around the state have at one time or another used a silencer. So you know "quite a few officers" do you? have you asked each and every one of them if they have ever used a silencer? I also happen to know quite a fewofficers and a large number of themeven thosenot on SRT or SWAT teams have used them by their own admission. not to mention everyone in the military who has used them in this state, Just a couple weeks ago I was watching the NAVY police department in my range shooting with silencers. Almost every time the topic comes up and an officer is standing nearby he will comment on it "from personal experience" So when you realize that almost every member of special response teams with almost every department has at least received training on silencers and thus used them, as well as a large portion of the rank and file police force who try them out for any reason as well as militaryyou come up with a figure of several thousand officers who have at one time or another used a silencer in this state.
Sorry, but the US Military is not required to follow state laws or even federal law, never has been. So your example is lacking.
I find myself in the unusual position of defending Bear (take note please) but if you are going to claim that he said something really stupid the least you could do is quote what it is you believe was stupid and tell us exactly why it is so stupid.
I think that what you will find is that military personnel are indeed exempt from state law while performing their duties. If, for example, the military police were to repel an attack at Bremerton sub base just outside the entrance, the state could theoretically charge the members of the military with a variety of state crimes. In reality those charges would be thrown out before they had time to finish filing them. I can't explain why the brandishing law includes an exemption for soldiers (unless it is intended for the national guard units) but if the SEALs needed to send soldiers armed with silenced MP5s and waved them around during an operation I can guarantee you that they would not be charged with anything if it was a legitimate government operation.
Have you ever servced you? You haven't a clue what the US Military can do and the only rules they are require to follow are to support and defend the Constitution. Your lack of knowlegde always astounds me whenyou you profess to know so much. Then your type usually think you are all knowing.
Yep, you still are as arrogant and full of yourself as always. Seeing and being a soldier are not the same, but of course you will never know that and you have no clue about being a serving soldier. Until then shut up about which you know nothing. The civil authorities can't touch you for what you doand while on active dutyunless the military saysthey can. That's really the only way a armed force member can be held accountable for anything they do even off duty.
You are quite right, That is the wonderful thing about judges with common sense. If anyone breaks a small law while in the process of doing something like defending the lives of others or some other greater good than it would be asinine to think they would be charged withthe minor crime. If I were to rush across the street to push a blind person out of the way ofa speeding car would I be charged with jaywalking? Probably not, but did I jaywalk? Yes I most certainly did. As for the federal law regarding the possession of machine guns they fall into the exceptions set forth by that law because the gun does not belong to the soldier, it belongs to the military. It is the same law that lets me go into a civilian range in Arizona plop down fifty bucks and walk out on the range unsupervised with a machine gun a rattle off thirty rounds. I have neverreceiveda machine gun licence or even undergone a background check but I can legally be in possession of it, Federal law only regulates the ownership of machine guns to those who have been licenced to own them possession does not require a licence, for a civilian or a soldier it is the same thing. In this state the law that prohibits the individual ownership of machine guns doesn't effect the military because individual soldiers do not own the guns they use. However the law under discussion is not about ownership, Contrary to what Bear said in this state anyone with a reasonably clean record can own a silencer anyone can have a silencer in their possession, anyone can thread a silencer onto a loaded gun and point it downrange. But if the law is interpreted as it has been as soon as a bullet flies through it EVERYONE, Capitan Smith of Seattle SWAT pvt. Johnson USMC and Billy Joe Jenkens, Hick from Union Washington, Have committed a gross misdemeanor. Subsection C regulates theActions of individuals within the states boundaries. I don't like the idea that Police, military and private citizens alike are all breaking the law so that is why it makes sense that subsection C has been misinterpreted.
You're the one that thinks he has all the answers without ever having done anything importantwith their life except run his mouth.
Arrogant and stupid to boot. If you live long enough you might smarten up, but I doubt it. Your ego won't allow it.
.