Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Proposed suppressor law in WA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Proposed suppressor law in WA

    A proposed gun law for WA that makes sense

    "A proposed amendment to an existing state statute that could have a significant impact on outdoor shooting ranges now suffering from human encroachment, and indoor ranges located in urban and suburban settings is being sponsored by State Rep. Brian Blake and several other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle...

    "...Blake’s sensible amendment to RCW 9.41.250 would legalize the use of sound suppressors on firearms, provided the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law..."


    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...at-makes-sense

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/32lzq36
    Last edited by Dave Workman; 01-04-2011 at 12:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    About F-ing time. But I'd be surprised if it passes. There too many that have the Hollywood view of "silencers". I'd love a suppressor for my AR. I think my daughter would be more willing to train on it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    I'd like to see this law pass too. Only problem I face if it does is that I will end up spending more than what my rifle cost in installing the supressor and QD flash supressor. Not to mention the Federal Tax.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Right at the top of my list is a Smith Enterprises suppressor for my M-14 type rifle. With a vortex flash hider it basically snaps on and off, and will fit my AR-15 as well, once I get the Vortex FH for that rifle. Right now I just can't justify the $1000 for the permit and suppressor combined. One day, though.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Plains, ,
    Posts
    388
    I would love to see this pass, I have been wanting to build a 300 Whisper for quite a while. This would give me a reason to do so.

    bob

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    renton, ,
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Right at the top of my list is a Smith Enterprises suppressor for my M-14 type rifle. With a vortex flash hider it basically snaps on and off, and will fit my AR-15 as well, once I get the Vortex FH for that rifle. Right now I just can't justify the $1000 for the permit and suppressor combined. One day, though.
    what "permit" are you talking about?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    I think he's talking about the $200 tax stamp.

    If they passed a firearms freedom act in Washington similar to Montana's, we wouldn't be paying for any steenkin' tax stamp for suppressors built in Washington! Long as they are purchased and used by a Washington resident in the state of Washington, and it does not cross state lines, it shouldn't fall under the interstate commerce clause.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by .45ACPaddy View Post
    I think he's talking about the $200 tax stamp.

    If they passed a firearms freedom act in Washington similar to Montana's, we wouldn't be paying for any steenkin' tax stamp for suppressors built in Washington! Long as they are purchased and used by a Washington resident in the state of Washington, and it does not cross state lines, it shouldn't fall under the interstate commerce clause.

    not sure a firearms freedom act is ever gonna really work.

    the commerce clause was first used to gross advantage by the the gov.
    against a farmer growing some corn in his back yard, to feed to his own pigs!
    the gov. argued the his private corn affected interstate commerce,
    cause the farmer would not need to buy corn from anywhere else,
    including the possibility of buying corn from out of state,
    therefor his private corn, for his pigs, could have affected interstate commerce.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    not sure a firearms freedom act is ever gonna really work.

    the commerce clause was first used to gross advantage by the the gov.
    against a farmer growing some corn in his back yard, to feed to his own pigs!
    the gov. argued the his private corn affected interstate commerce,
    cause the farmer would not need to buy corn from anywhere else,
    including the possibility of buying corn from out of state,
    therefor his private corn, for his pigs, could have affected interstate commerce.


    True, The case is Wickard V. Filburn.
    Just to clarify the crop was wheat.

    Also check out Gonzales v. Raich.
    In this case, the man was growing Marijuana in compliance with California state law.


    I hope that when the Montana Firearms Freedom Act goes to the supreme court, the justices will rule it valid and say that the intrastate sale of firearms is not interstate commerce, but I fear otherwise.

    The only justice I have confidence in on this matter is Thomas (look at his dissent in the Raich case.)
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    True, The case is Wickard V. Filburn.
    Just to clarify the crop was wheat.

    Also check out Gonzales v. Raich.
    In this case, the man was growing Marijuana in compliance with California state law.


    I hope that when the Montana Firearms Freedom Act goes to the supreme court, the justices will rule it valid and say that the intrastate sale of firearms is not interstate commerce, but I fear otherwise.

    The only justice I have confidence in on this matter is Thomas (look at his dissent in the Raich case.)
    Although I would like it to, I seriously doubt that the Montana law will pass Supreme Court scrutiny. I see arguments lined up that will show various parts of firearms, namely the raw materials, traveled in interstate commerce. From the basic ordnance steel, to spring steels, to the tools used to manufacture, etc., etc.

    This will be in addition to the "crop" argument in precedent setting cases.

    Best approach would be to simplify All firearm regulation at the federal level.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Hopefully the justices will realize the difference between regulating a commodity(an object) and regulating commerce (an action).

    Once the raw materials, or any commodity, is sold they should no longer be in reach of the commerce clause.

    They can regulate how it is sold, but not how it is used.

    Again, I fear that they will not rule this way.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  12. #12
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Public Hearing

    ]If you want your voice heard on this there is a public hearing scheduled 12 Jan.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2011&bill=1016

    ~Whitney
    Last edited by Whitney; 01-06-2011 at 08:18 PM. Reason: syntax error
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  13. #13
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by .45ACPaddy View Post
    If they passed a firearms freedom act in Washington similar to Montana's, we wouldn't be paying for any steenkin' tax stamp for suppressors built in Washington! Long as they are purchased and used by a Washington resident in the state of Washington, and it does not cross state lines, it shouldn't fall under the interstate commerce clause.
    This is one reason it should say "illegal if used in the commission of a violent crime" instead of "legal if properly federally licensed".

Posting Permissions

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