• 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.

Proposed suppressor law in WA

D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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-in-seattle/a-proposed-gun-law-for-wa-that-makes-sense

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/32lzq36
 
Last edited:
gsx1138

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
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.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 
B

BobR

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
391
Location
West Plains, ,
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
 
D

dj_fatstyles

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
53
Location
renton, ,
heresolong said:
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.
Click to expand...

what "permit" are you talking about?
 
4

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
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.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

.45ACPaddy said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
E

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
1245A Defender said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.)
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
END_THE_FED said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
E

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
.45ACPaddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is one reason it should say "illegal if used in the commission of a violent crime" instead of "legal if properly federally licensed".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top