Meeting with Rep Haigh on silencer bill in Shelton.

Check the Washington Open Carry forum (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?131-Washington) and I'm sure you will have a few extras to attend with you. I'll pass the word. -M1

I wonder if we could bring up changes to RCW 9.41.050 as well at that time?


RCW 9.41.050 shall be amended by adding the following sections:

(5)(a) Employers are prohibited from reprimanding, disciplining,
discriminating against or terminating the employment of any employee for
possessing or storing a loaded pistol within a vehicle in compliance with
section (2)(a), regardless of whether the vehicle is on the employer's
property, if the vehicle is
(i) the employee's property, or
(ii) the employer's property or leased by the employer, and is
(a) specifically assigned to that employee for his or her
use, and
(b) used by that employee to travel between the employee's
place of abode and place of employment, and
(c) not a school bus.

(5)(b) Employers are prohibited from reprimanding, disciplining,
discriminating against or terminating the employment of any employee for
possessing or storing an unloaded pistol within a vehicle in compliance with
section (3)(a), regardless of whether the vehicle is on the employer's
property, if the vehicle is
(i) the employee's property, or
(ii) the employer's property or leased by the employer, and is
(a) specifically assigned to that employee for his or her
use, and
(b) used by that employee to travel between the employee's
place of abode and place of employment, and
(c) not a school bus.

(5)(c) No employer shall be held liable in any civil action for damages
resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the
transportation, storage, possession, or use of a firearm by an employee
pursuant to this Code section.

---------------------

Rationale:

An employer's property rights permit the employer to restrict possession of
firearms by employees while they are on the employer's property, including
the parking lot of an employer's facility if the employer owns the parking
lot.

A citizen's property rights permit the citizen to do anything lawful while
on his or her property; his or her property includes the space within any
vehicle that the citizen owns.

This leads to an apparent conflict of rights when an employee's property
(his or her vehicle) is on the employer's property.

This amendment is to clarify that the employer's property rights do not
supersede the employee's property rights within the bounds of the
employee's vehicle.

This amendment is also to clarify that the employer does not have the power
to infringe upon the employee's right to engage in lawful activity while
the employee is within the boundaries of the employee's own property (i.e.
within the employee's own vehicle).

Furthermore, this amendment is to clarify that the employer's property
rights do not grant the employer the right to restrict the employee's
lawful behavior while the employee is not on the employer's property, for
example by effectively prohibiting the employee from carrying a lawfully
possessed firearm while commuting to and from work due to the employee
being prevented from storing the firearm in a safe and lawful manner while
at work without risking disciplinary action by the employer.

This amendment does not restrict the employer's right to prohibit employees
from possessing firearms while on the employer's property when the employee
is not within his or her own vehicle, and does not prohibit an employer
from disciplining employees for possession of firearms against the
employer's posted policy when the employee is not within his or her own
vehicle.

Notes:

(1) Less than 10% of workplace shootings are committed by employees [US DoL
2004]. This means that more than 90% of workplace shootings are committed
by non-employees, persons who are not restricted by workplace employment
policies. Prohibitions of employees' ability to defend themselves using
lawfully possessed firearms exacerbate greater than 90% of the problem in
an attempt to reduce less than 10% of the problem.


Current version of RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

What bill is this?

Ranb

Ranb said:

What bill is this?

Ranb

Click to expand...

Its not a bill, yet. Its one I would like to see in light of the McDonald v Chicago. many other states have it on their books and its high time Washington was one of them. I don't know the process of getting an idea presented to become a bill.

m1gunr said:

I don't know the process of getting an idea presented to become a bill.

Click to expand...

You pitch the idea to your district Representative or Senator and they sponsor it. That is the only way I know. Set up a meeting with them and bring as much factual data as you can to support your position.

If you really want to make a bill like this happen, then the only way to make it see the light of day is to push it face to face with your Reps and encourage them to push it through committee. When it becomes a bill, it then needs the support of the residents by writing and meeting with their district Reps.

Talking about it on gun forums does very little. This is a lesson I have been learning the hard way for the last three years. Most people on this forum can not be bothered to do anything more than write once to their Rep and express support for a bill.

If you met with your Rep in Tacoma and get him/her interested, then I promise to speak to my Rep about it too. Maybe we can get the ball rolling and make it happen.

Ranb

I strongly support the idea of restricting employers from circumventing your concealed pistol license just because you park on in their lot. There are a lot of turkey employers that think they run your whole life because you work for them. If you can get someone in state congress to give this attention, you should publish here how to contact them and ask supporters to write them or email them in support of the proposed law.

Trying using the term "suppressor" instead of "silencer". That's what they do.

The mechanism suppress the sound, it does not silence it. I can't see any negative connotation to "suppressor. Think "muffler" as in a vehicle muffler.

Jerry

I am making a educational video directed at those in Olympia that keep the use and possession of certain firearms illegal. I am careful to not use the word silencer except to explain that it is a legal term. I have also avoided using the word silencer when writing to or speaking with my Representatives. I hate compromising, but that is politics.

Ranb

I would really focus on the noise pollution factor that cans will prevent keeping ranges in business while urban sprawl is happening.

Also, my neighbor has PTSD and when I shoot it doesn't really bother him after I get going, but he always runs outside with his 45 the first few shots. Nothing like a guy who was in Nam for 4 tours waking up to an AK in the afternoon.

Also, the taxes I'd even push the FA Class three stuff as a way to make state tax revenue.

All politicians see is dollars anyway. Need to start lobbing with some cash if you want to change a law - that's how that works.

Ranb - unfortunately I am unlikely to be able to make the meeting this time. It would be a three hour round trip for me and I've got my hands full this month. I hope someone on the forum from Kitsap can show up and lend support.

Like you said, posting on forums doesn't make much of a difference in the real world.

Thanks 8ball. I will let you know the next time I met with anyone in Seattle. It was good to have you along when I met with Pedersen. You were the voice of reason.

Ranb

Thanks Ranb. I'm good for anything a bit closer to Seattle or the eastside.

Did you try SeattleGuns.net?

Just did. I am currently in Vegas making video of suppressed and unsuppressed firearms. Hot here. The wind is blowing a bit too. But I got an external mic for my camcorder with a fuzzy wind guard. The external mic is a big improvement over the internal mic. It doesn't make a person sound like someone is stepping on their nuts and eliminates most of the noise generated by the camcorder in low ambient noise levels.

I can also lower the volume setting so that unsuppressed gunfire does not overwhelm the microphone and sound distorted on playback; I hope. I just have to find the fine line between distortion and inadequate volume.

Ranb

Luftpost and I just got back from my meeting with Representative Kathy Haigh at her office in Shelton. It was a cordial meeting that lasted nearly an hour. I was a bit surprised that she seemed to be completely unfamiliar with bill 1604 and that it would legalize silencer use despite the many e-mails we have exchanged. But she was familiar with firearms as she has had occasion to use them to put down animals as part of her veterinary practice. She was also somewhat familiar with the purpose of sound suppressors and comfortable with calling them silencers. When I started talking about suppressors, she interrupted with "You mean silencers?" She was also interested in examining a 9mm silencer I brought with to the meeting.

We started off with a discussion on how silencers are completely legal to own in the USA and 38 states allow civilians to own them and that WA is the only one of those states that ban their use. She agreed that it was strange that WA bans use. I showed her an ATF form 1 and explained how one goes about obtaining authorization to make or buy a silencer and that it was not a license or permit, just proof the tax was paid.

Like my meeting with Chairman Pedersen last month, she made it clear that she would not sponsor or devote much time fighting for a bill that was doomed to fail like almost everyone believes 1604 will. She encouraged us to meet with Senator Kline and Sheldon and try to convince them to support the bill.

I encourage everyone on this forum to meet with their Representative and Senator about making silencer use legal. I think it is the only way we will make any progress. You do not have to be a good speaker or well educated; I am neither. You just need to be enthusiastic and polite. Knowing a bit about gun law also helps. If anyone wants to talk to me before meeting with a representative, please let me know. I am also willing to take time off from work to attend any meeting that you may set up. Thank you.

Randy Bragge