• 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.

Changing the Suppressor law

bluer1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
160
Location
, ,
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
 

bluer1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
160
Location
, ,
imported post

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

FE427TP

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
86
Location
South Western, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

FE427TP

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
86
Location
South Western, Washington, USA
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
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

bluer1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
160
Location
, ,
imported post

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