Changing the Suppressor law

[Slugger]

imported post

378 now.

Slugger

 

[Bookman]

imported post

Keep it up! We're slowly getting there.

 

[kenshin]

imported post

#380

 

[tricityguy]

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...

 

[heresolong]

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.

 

[bluer1]

imported post

Lobbyists are in the 10000-20000 range usually, and this petition will be used as a tool to promote the issue. Yes it will actually be used. It will be extremely potent the more signatures it has. Don't let nay-sayers turn you off! It's like saying, "If I don't vote, it doesn't matter."

The amount of support already should throw up a green flag, over 100 signatures in a few days! Keep it going!

 

[Agent 47]

imported post

joeroket wrote

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.

Actually he only said that attaching it to the firearm was not use. he did not go so far as to actually define what is or is not illegal.

 

[Agent 47]

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.

That is a very interesting take on the law. As a fellow Silencer owner ( I am now up to seven and dag-gom are they fun to shoot with ) I to would love to see this stupid law clarified.

 

[gsx1138]

imported post

I'd love to get a supressor for my new AR. The irritating thing is that this law makes now sense.



What is the penalty for actually using a supressor in Washington? Say I go to the range and let loose.

 

[Agent 47]

imported post

gsx1138 wrote:

I'd love to get a supressor for my new AR. The irritating thing is that this law makes now sense.



What is the penalty for actually using a supressor in Washington? Say I go to the range and let loose.

Suposedly it is a gross misdemeanor but no one has ever been charged with it for using a legal silencer in this state including me and I have been shooting with cops who didn't bat an eye other than to ask if they could try them out.

 

[gsx1138]

imported post

Agent 47 wrote:

gsx1138 wrote:

I'd love to get a supressor for my new AR. The irritating thing is that this law makes now sense.



What is the penalty for actually using a supressor in Washington? Say I go to the range and let loose.

Suposedly it is a gross misdemeanor but no one has ever been charged with it for using a legal silencer in this state including me and I have been shooting with cops who didn't bat an eye other than to ask if they could try them out.

Hmmmm, my range is VERY pro 2A.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

A gross misdemeanor is usually punishable by up to a $1500 fine and up to 364 days in jail. Definitely not worth the chance for a quiet gun.

 

[.45ballers]

imported post

391, keep em comming.....

 

[hillyard]

imported post

#393

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

hillyard wrote:

#393

Until you get thousands and that's not 4 or 5 thousand either, this is an exercise in futility.

 

[bluer1]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

hillyard wrote:

#393

Until you get thousands and that's not 4 or 5 thousand either, this is an exercise in futility.

Thanks for the discouragement Bear, you're really awesome. Yep, pack it up everyone, Bear says it's not going to happen. In fact, lets stop writing letters and emails concerning open carry, we're not going to change ALL the laws, we should probably quit.

Keep them coming guys, remember, #393 IS PART of those thousands needed.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

bluer1 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

hillyard wrote:

#393

Until you get thousands and that's not 4 or 5 thousand either, this is an exercise in futility.

Thanks for the discouragement Bear, you're really awesome. Yep, pack it up everyone, Bear says it's not going to happen. In fact, lets stop writing letters and emails concerning open carry, we're not going to change ALL the laws, we should probably quit.

Keep them coming guys, remember, #393 IS PART of those thousands needed.

Most people don't really care to have a silencer. But you are the moron for thinking 393 signaturesin several weeks is gonna get you the numbers necessary to make a change. But hey, if my opinion has that much importance to you that you quit believing in this silly cause, then why bother at all. Keep your pipe dream or drop it, it doesn't effect me at all. I just felt a shot of realism was needed here, because I can promise you that will be the legislatures attitude.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Most people don't really care to have a silencer. But you are the moron for thinking 393 signaturesin several weeks is gonna get you the numbers necessary to make a change. But hey, if my opinion has that much importance to you that you quit believing in this silly cause, then why bother at all. Keep your pipe dream or drop it, it doesn't effect me at all. I just felt a shot of realism was needed here, because I can promise you that will be the legislatures attitude.

I would LOVE to have a suppressor. Why would you discourage this?

 

[bluer1]

imported post

Yep, bear pegged it again everyone, I'm a moron for wanting to help change a hypocritical law. Shame on me. I'm not even going to begin to go down the name calling path. From what I've seen here, there is plenty of support, and you, Bear, seem to be the odd man out.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Most people don't really care to have a silencer. But you are the moron for thinking 393 signaturesin several weeks is gonna get you the numbers necessary to make a change. But hey, if my opinion has that much importance to you that you quit believing in this silly cause, then why bother at all. Keep your pipe dream or drop it, it doesn't effect me at all. I just felt a shot of realism was needed here, because I can promise you that will be the legislatures attitude.

I would LOVE to have a suppressor. Why would you discourage this?

I'd love to have an M2 but it isn't gonna happen, so I'm being realistic. I didn't discourage them. I told them the truth. Which isthat at the rate they are going with signatures it will be 2250 before they have enough to do anything with. As for your wish to have a suppressor, go ahead and buy one. They are perfectly legal to own and even install on your firearm. Just don't put a round down the barrel. But again if you ignore the facts, you will most certainly end up disappointed.

BTW, if the truth offendsso manyon this forum, them maybe it should be shut down to prevent so many tender feelings from being hurt.