Let's Change Washington State's Silencer Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

carnaby

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
1,394
Location
Bellingham, WA
As many of you know, Washington State has strange laws regarding ownership and usage of firearm sound suppressors, also known in lay terms as "silencers."

Currently, if we follow federal law, we are allowed by Washington State law to own sound suppressors (which I'll simply refer to as "suppressors" from here forward). We may also mount them on functional firearms. However, and here's the strange part, we may not actually fire any bullets through them. This is according to RCW 9.41.250(1)(c).

I also noticed that in RCW 9.41.250(1)(b), it seems that my Buck Folding Alpha Hunter might be illegal, since it's blade "is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement"

But that's another problem for another day. Today, I want to address our ridiculous suppressor law. Does anyone here know how we might get the ball rolling on such a process? It's a silly law and should be dealt with sooner, rather than later. Heck, even the Europeans do better on this issue than us, and that might get us a foot in the door. I know the Finns did a study not too long ago, and basically made suppressors over the counter items.

So let's here any and all ideas about how to get this done :D
 
That is a strange law.
What if, instead of using "... any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm," you were to use a device whose purpose was to stabilize the flow of gases out of the muzzle in order to increase accuracy?
 
You might start by inquiring with Senator Hargrove about the legislation he proposed to get this changed a few years back, and why it didn't go through. Here's his contact info:

www.leg.wa.gov/senate/hargrove/

And info relating to the bill with regards to changing restrictions on firearm noise suppressors, which he introduced in 2005:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=5167&year=2005

which would have amended RCW 9.41.250 to read:

(3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any
firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in
accordance with federal law
, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

Yeah, it's a stupid law the way things stand. At least you can get one here, though you've gotta at least as far as Oregon or Idaho to legally use it.
 
Upriver: I like that amendment, esp. as it would essentially get WA out of the way wrt silencers / suppressors / firearm report amelioration devices* -- after all, if it's *not* in accordance w/ Fed law, there's plenty of teeth that can be snapped on your leg anyhow.

I really like the contrast with places like Finland, where (as I understand it), it's considered rude to shoot (targets at least) *without* a silencer.

timothy

* Personally I like "silencer" better than certain more pedantically Korrekt terms, which I am using this quick reply to gently mock ;)
 
Thanks for the invitation. The range closest to me was closed down by the city due to the noise. Gas suppressors make good neighbors.
 
I sent emails to my two representatives and my senator:
Dear Senators and Representatives,

I am a hunter and shooting-sports enthusiast. I also suffer from chronic
hearing problems. For these and many other reasons, I would like you to
support legislation, such as bill SB 5167 - 2005-06 sponsored by Senator
Hargrove in 2006 to simply decriminalize the use of firearm sound
suppression devices that are already legally owned.

You may or may not know that these devices are often called by the
misnomer "silencer" when they in fact do nothing of the sort. They
simply bring the sound level of a shot fired down from one that is
highly ear damaging to one that is still very loud but below levels that
cause severer ear/hearing damage.

I am a PhD. student at the UW in Aerospace engineering, and I know
something about the technology. I also know that in Europe, use of
firearm sound suppressors is considered good manners, as it decreases
the environmental and social impact of firearm noise.

In Finland, for example, they determined that legalization of firearm
sound suppressors did not encourage criminal activity of any kind, and
is very beneficial to sportsmen, the police, and anyone within earshot
of a gun blast. They specifically found that use of firearm sound
suppressors does not encourage poaching because the sound suppressor
cannot do anything to mitigate the sonic crack of a hunting bullet
traveling faster than the speed of sound (which all big-game hunting
rifle bullets do).

I encourage you to please examine this issue, and to act on future
legislation. This is not a gun-control issue, but a health and
environment issue.

I thank you for your consideration as a current and future constituent.
Just got this reply from my Representative, Jim McIntire:

Dear carnaby-Thanks for the note. To my knowledge Sen. Hargrove has not re-introduced this piece of legislation. If he does I will certainly keep your comments in mind. Do keep in touch. -Jim

So it seems that any of you living in Senator hargrove's district need to contact him to ask him to submit a new bill of this nature. Let's go people, we can make this happen!
 
The WA law also seems to make it illegal for law enforcement to use silencers as well.
 
they can use them as long as they are doing the .gov's work....

I really don't see how the law allows local and state law enforcement to use suppressors

Where is the le exemption? Thanks
 
Three Reps and a Senator contacted using a variation of Carnaby's letter (nice job, BTW). Any chance someone in Jim Hargrove's district could send him a letter prompting a re-introduction?
 
It is odd that Washington will allow you to own a suppressor but not actually shoot through it. We might presume that the intent was to make it illegal for a criminal to use a suppressor to shoot his or her victim with a suppressor thereby reducing the likelihood of neighbors reporting hearing gunfire. Such a thought is absurd since a criminal willing to break the law that forbids murder will not care much about a law banning the use of a suppressor.

How about they simply change the law to say that it is a crime to commit a crime with a suppressor. That will make the Liberals happy allowing them to live in their little dreamland that criminals actually care about their stupid Nanny State legislation while allowing the lawful use of suppressors to resume.
 
Well that's easy, you can use other things as a suppressor... so we have to regulate the device intended for suppression... can't regulate the other things you know.. LOL

Yes WA State laws are wacky... and they want to push a whole lot more onto us...
 
Hey I have been reading through this thread and I have to say I am both impressed by your commitment to changing this law and baffled by the wording that this law was originally constructed.

Carnaby, if you would let me I would like to use a modified version of your letter as the base text for an online petition that could be (after all the names are collected) sent to all the senators and representatives in Washington state.
 
Upriver:
(3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any
firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in
accordance with federal law
I would suggest that the amendment not include the words "...registered and..." Under current federal law, it is only "possessed in accordance with federal law" if it is registered. If federal law is changed, such as to move suppressors to Title I, then the state law would be messed up and would have to amended again in order to preserve the intent.

To all: I'd like to help. I am still licensed to practice law in WA, though I now live in Ohio and, therefore, carry no weight with legislators as a constituent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top