• 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.

Very Interesting

T

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
According to Kitsap Prosecutor Hauge, a box designed for use on the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, to supress the report and restrict the angle of departure from a firearm would be illegal as it is a "SUPRESSOR" 9.41.250(c). Using this narrow view and interpretation,one would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor by using ear protection while shooting.

Hauge goes on to say "I see no harm, and much good coming from carefully crafted language allowing law-abiding citizens to posess and use firearm sound supressors. We've never, to my knowledge, encountered a crime involving a supressor and Ihave a tough time imagining how the use of one would facilitate another crime other than spy- novel assassination attempts. On the other hand, controlling the noise from otherwise lawful and safe use of firearms would address a significant problem in populated areas. I would support such legislation"

This could be an interesting development. The ATF was questioned and said that because eit was not portable and not attached to a fire arm, it was not a supressor under federal law.
 
FMCDH

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
I'm all for repeal of this erroneous law against using lawfully possessed suppressors.

Oregon seems to get along just fine.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Trigger Dr said:
According to Kitsap Prosecutor Hauge, a box designed for use on the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, to supress the report and restrict the angle of departure from a firearm would be illegal as it is a "SUPRESSOR" 9.41.250(c). Using this narrow view and interpretation,one would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor by using ear protection while shooting.
Click to expand...

This is funny to me. Years ago I lived in Silverdale and needed to get rid of a troublesome stray dog that had killed some chickens. Shooting wasn't legal in the area I lived in so I didn't want to just go out in the yard and take a shot at it. Every evening the dog would pass through our yard just before dusk so I decided to go ahead and shoot it. To keep the noise down so the neighbors wouldn't call the sheriff I used a "Whole House Silencer". Since I knew where the dog was going through the yard, and where he stopped to "leave his mark" I set up a card table and books for a rest in the middle of the living room. The windows were the old fashioned "double hung" where you could lift the lower part and make a gap. I raised the window enough to get a good sight line. Sure enough the dog showed up, I shot, went out and cleaned up. Nobody said a word. Pretty effective considering the rifle was an old 1903 Springfield in 30/06. I guess that made the house an "illegal device". Oh, well, the house is gone and the statute of limitations has long past.
 
H

Hammer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Skagit Valley, Washington
Nicely done!
The only crime is that the owner didn't have to reckon with the dog's deeds.


amlevin said:
This is funny to me. Years ago I lived in Silverdale and needed to get rid of a troublesome stray dog that had killed some chickens. Shooting wasn't legal in the area I lived in so I didn't want to just go out in the yard and take a shot at it. Every evening the dog would pass through our yard just before dusk so I decided to go ahead and shoot it. To keep the noise down so the neighbors wouldn't call the sheriff I used a "Whole House Silencer". Since I knew where the dog was going through the yard, and where he stopped to "leave his mark" I set up a card table and books for a rest in the middle of the living room. The windows were the old fashioned "double hung" where you could lift the lower part and make a gap. I raised the window enough to get a good sight line. Sure enough the dog showed up, I shot, went out and cleaned up. Nobody said a word. Pretty effective considering the rifle was an old 1903 Springfield in 30/06. I guess that made the house an "illegal device". Oh, well, the house is gone and the statute of limitations has long past.
Click to expand...
 
H

Hammer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Skagit Valley, Washington
amlevin said:
If I knew who owned the dog I'd have dropped the carcass off, maybe a few days after it had "ripened".
Click to expand...

When I lived out in farm & ranch country, we had a system for that. You gut shoot the animal, and it goes home to die.
I can't say that'd be my choice anymore. I may have gotten soft, but I don't see why the animal has to suffer. Now if I could gut shoot the owner, it would be worth another thought....
Oh, and I meant to ask- Did ya have some "powder perfume" around the house for a while after?
 
D

dj_fatstyles

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
53
Location
renton, ,
if any of you are on northwestfirearms.com, there is a gentleman on there that is lobbying to get this passed named RANB. he's been working on this for about a year and a half. he has met with a few reps and spoken with them about the bill and if the would give it a chance on the floor. so, most have been in support of it and senator kline is even puzzled about why suppressor are legal to own but not legal to shoot and MIGHT be willing to give this bill a shot (no pun intended). if you guys want to help this bill, contact ranb and he can give you more information.

here is his contact info on northwestfirearms...
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/members/ranb.html
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Hammer said:
When I lived out in farm & ranch country, we had a system for that. You gut shoot the animal, and it goes home to die.
I can't say that'd be my choice anymore. I may have gotten soft, but I don't see why the animal has to suffer. Now if I could gut shoot the owner, it would be worth another thought....
Oh, and I meant to ask- Did ya have some "powder perfume" around the house for a while after?
Click to expand...

Smelled great. Kind of like "The smell of Napalm in the morning", etc.
 
T

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
John Hardin said:
...as much as I approve of the change and hope HB1016 gets passed, I'd much rather see 9.41.250 say something like "only if used in the commission of a crime of violence" rather than referring to federal law. The federal law is stupid.[/QUOTE

Well, write your own version......
Click to expand...
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
T

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
John Hardin said:
Can we say "straight line"? :)

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_suppressor.txt
Click to expand...

Looks good to me with one exception. I would change this ...

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

to read...
(c) Uses in the puposeful or knowing commission of a crime, and contrivance or device, attached to a firearm
for the purpose of supressing the report upon firing.

without having the "attached to a firearm" still leaves the broad interpretation as used by Hauge.
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
Trigger Dr said:
Looks good to me with one exception. I would change this ...

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

to read...
(c) Uses in the puposeful or knowing commission of a crime, and contrivance or device, attached to a firearm
for the purpose of supressing the report upon firing.

without having the "attached to a firearm" still leaves the broad interpretation as used by Hauge.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Are you worried that someone might commit a crime of violence and use a box to suppress the sound of the firearm? If they did, why would we care if they were prosecuted?
 
T

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Heresolong,
Go back to my first post and read what Kitsap prosecutor gave as his interpretation of 9.41.250 (c). His interpretation of the law, as it presently stands, would make ANY device (ie. hearing muffs) a supressor. attached to the firearm or not. By requiring it to be attached to the firearm the interpretation is narrowed considerably.
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
Trigger Dr said:
Heresolong,
Go back to my first post and read what Kitsap prosecutor gave as his interpretation of 9.41.250 (c). His interpretation of the law, as it presently stands, would make ANY device (ie. hearing muffs) a supressor. attached to the firearm or not. By requiring it to be attached to the firearm the interpretation is narrowed considerably.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. But you still have to be committing a crime of violence either way. I guess that was my point. I seem to remember this same discussion a year or so ago about whether wearing earplugs at the range was a violation of this statute. It was pretty much agreed that it was so your point is well taken.
 
Last edited:
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
Ruby said:
I like your signature! Who says you can't fix stupid?!?
Click to expand...

Stupidity is like the Borg. No matter what you use to try and defeat it, it wiil adapt, overcome and if you are not careful, assimilate you. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity is permanent and contagious. Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experiece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top