Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 118

Thread: Changing the Suppressor law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    I present to this board a petition which I have signed (Not authored). It is concerning the sound suppression devices for firearms laws in WA state. It's my opinion that this would be a good thing, for our ears if nothing else. In Europe, suppressors or "silencers" are considered as "Good range etiquette". If you agree with me, or just simply want some of your rights restored in this state just like other states, please sign this. And tell your friends! Pass it along! Save my ears! I'm only 26 and going deaf!


    http://www.petitiononline.com/suppress/petition.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    322 signatures after I just signed.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    328 signatures now.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I signed it too.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Signed.

    I was floored to learn today that even in france you can get a suppressor with less effort than an AR15.

    http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297651

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    694

    Post imported post

    I am number 334.
    Perhaps if you would use a real computer you wouldn't have to apologize for not being able to do so many things on the internet!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, United States
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    i am number 336

  8. #8
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I am number 337

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    I am number 341

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    I'm back in the first 50

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hoquiam, , USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    348

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    That's awesome guys! Keep it going! Remember to post elsewhere and tell all your friends!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    :celebrateMr. 350 :celebrate

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    Three fity seven, yeah!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    Have you considered taking the approach that RCW 9.41.010 defines a firearms as a mechanical device and by use of the verbiage "from which" separates it from the actual gunshot:

    "(1) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder."

    and RCW 9.41.250 says that:

    "c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,

    is guilty of a gross misdemeanor"

    So shouldn't this as written mean anything that reduces the mechanical noise of a weapon and not the sound of the actual gunshot? Those of us who own suppressors realize how much more we hear the mechanical noise of the weapon while shooting one. Also there is a distinction between a device used to suppress the sound of a firearm and a gunshot. The example I'd present is the DeLisle Carbine, it had a bakelite pad fitted to reduce the sound of the bolt closing. (reference Silencer History and Performance Volume 2 page 223 paragraph 1) Hopefully this week I'll be able to talk to someone to write the states A.G. and get a official opinion on this, but it'd be great if it went to our favor. Anyone who knows anything about law please tear this apart so that I can refine it before I try to use it.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    My number is bigger thanall ofyours. 360!!!:celebrate

    I win

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    FE427TP wrote:
    Have you considered taking the approach that RCW 9.41.010 defines a firearms as a mechanical device and by use of the verbiage "from which" separates it from the actual gunshot:

    "(1) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder."

    and RCW 9.41.250 says that:

    "c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,

    is guilty of a gross misdemeanor"

    So shouldn't this as written mean anything that reduces the mechanical noise of a weapon and not the sound of the actual gunshot? Those of us who own suppressors realize how much more we hear the mechanical noise of the weapon while shooting one. Also there is a distinction between a device used to suppress the sound of a firearm and a gunshot. The example I'd present is the DeLisle Carbine, it had a bakelite pad fitted to reduce the sound of the bolt closing. (reference Silencer History and Performance Volume 2 page 223 paragraph 1) Hopefully this week I'll be able to talk to someone to write the states A.G. and get a official opinion on this, but it'd be great if it went to our favor. Anyone who knows anything about law please tear this apart so that I can refine it before I try to use it.
    There has been a previous AG opinion on this. He interpreted the RCW to mean exactly what it says. You are legal to own one but it is illegal to utilize it.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    yeah, but what I'm trying for would bypass that and make the noise of a firearm defined as the mechanical noise of a firearm vs. the noise of a gunshot since the states definition of firearm doesn't include the gunshot just that a firearm is a device capable of making a gunshot

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    You can try if you want but I think you are way over analyzing it. Wording isn't always literal in law, it is the intent of the lawmakers that courts look at also. The intent iof this law, regardless how stupid it really is, is that they do not want people having "silencers" because apparently the lawmakers only know about them what they see in the movies.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    AlwaysPacking, being #360 does not entitle you to a free xbox unfortunately. But it should!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    378 now.

    Slugger

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Keep it up! We're slowly getting there.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    #380
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    Getting where, exactly? I don't want to rain on this parade because I like the idea, but what, exactly, do we expect to accomplish with an online petition? Does someone have a plan and the time to present these signatures to state and/or federal lawmakers, engage in lobbying efforts and do all the work required to get something like this put into law?

    Again, I'm not trying to sound like a party pooper, I just don't want people thinking signing this petition is going to amount to anything. Millions of Americans want immigration reform and our lawmakers know it but won't do jack about that, either. So, you know, unless someone can afford to raise millions of dollars and hire lobbyists, etc, I fail to see the point...


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    tricityguy wrote:
    Getting where, exactly?
    Whether it passes or not this session (and the likely answer is not considering that the Dem majority refuses to bring any gun bills to committee as they don't want to get burned like in 1994) what we have accomplished is to bring the issue up as a point of discussion. Next year we will have more people involved as word gets around that we are trying to do something but you have to start somewhere.

    Presumably when the legislature goes back into session this is a bill that WAC, CCRKBA, opencarry, etc will publicize and push for. In the meantime here are some supporters.

    (Edit: cause I just saw something I missed the first read through) PS regarding to whom the signatures are presented, we certainly wouldn't be presenting them to federal lawmakers. Suppressors are already legal under federal law (albeit expensive). It is Washington state that is the problem.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •