I just drafted this. Turns out I'm moving into the 43rd district so I'm in a good position to follow up.
Pedersen is responsible for HB1604 on the House Judiciary Committee.
Suggestions welcomed.
Rep Pedersen is at <broken link removed> if anyone else wants to write.
--
Rep Pedersen
I am writing to ask you to consider HB 1604 to change WA restrictions on firearm noise suppressors. RCW 9.41.250 allows *possession* of firearm noise suppressors but does not permit their legal use.
Here are my own thoughts on the issue based on my research and experience.
The problem of firearm noise
----------------------------
There are several good public policy reasons to allow Washingtonians to *use* firearm suppressors that they can already legally *own*.
1. Health and safety. Most firearms produce peak pressure levels in excess of 150 decibels, and Seattle firearm owners shooting at indoor urban ranges such as myself face additional noise firing in close quarters. Wearing earplugs and earmuffs in combination isn't always adequate protection against hearing loss over time.
OSHA mandates hearing protection for environments above 85db. Even the best suppressor only reduces firearm noise by 20-30 decibels, taming firearm noise to somewhere between a car horn (90 db) and a jet engine (120 db) (source: http://www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm and
<broken link removed> )
With proper hearing protection, a 20-30db reduction in noise would make a big difference to recreational Washington shooters. Firearms will still be very loud, but a little safer for those exposed to them regularly.
2. Environmental noise pollution
Both urban and rural shooters, their pets and neighbors would benefit from reduced noise pollution from recreational use of firearms with suppressors.
3. State liability for workplace induced hearing loss amongst law enforcement, and consistency of RCW with law enforcement use today
Law enforcement are required to train regularly with firearms, and are at risk for hearing loss. According to the CDC NIOSH, workers comp settlements for hearing-related conditions cost WA $4.8 million (not including medical costs) back in 1991 (source http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-103/). I can only imagine that number is much higher today.
As a reference, the U.S. Army saved $504.3 million by reducing hearing loss among combat arms personnel between 1974 and 1994 by implementing a hearing protection program. HB 1604 would assist any effort by WA law enforcement to do the same by encouraging legal use of suppressors.
Curiously, the current RCW *does not* include an exception for law enforcement use of suppressors. Some State law enforcement do possess and use suppressors at WA ranges, apparently unaware that they are committing a misdemeanor by using them.
Why HB1604 is the solution
--------------------------
HB1604 corrects this problem by allowing Washingtonians who already possess federally licensed suppressors to use them. This is the same approach taken in many other states, including Oregon and Idaho. The ATF taxes and strictly regulates the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act, and they are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in thirty-eight states. Anyone who wishes to buy a suppressor must go through an ATF application process which requires a $200 tax payment and a criminal background check. Suppressors can only be sold by federally licensed firearms dealers.
I can only foresee one misguided argument against this bill. Will criminals will use stolen suppressors to commit crimes silently? This idea is encouraged by the inaccurate Hollywood depiction of "silencers" as the weapon of secret agents etc, an unfortunate fiction. Realistically, reducing firearm noise by 20-30 decibels isn't going to make any difference in the commission of a crime. Firearms are still very loud. The Hollywood depiction of whisper quiet "silencers" is completely fictitious. I was unable to find any examples of criminals using suppressors in the commission of a crime, perhaps because they are simply too expensive, unwieldy and of little actual use to a criminal. As you know, suppressors are already legal to possess in WA, so an added misdemeanor charge is unlikely to stop a determined criminal considering felonious use of a firearm.
I am traveling this week but will follow up with your office on my return home.
(personal details deleted)
Pedersen is responsible for HB1604 on the House Judiciary Committee.
Suggestions welcomed.
Rep Pedersen is at <broken link removed> if anyone else wants to write.
--
Rep Pedersen
I am writing to ask you to consider HB 1604 to change WA restrictions on firearm noise suppressors. RCW 9.41.250 allows *possession* of firearm noise suppressors but does not permit their legal use.
Here are my own thoughts on the issue based on my research and experience.
The problem of firearm noise
----------------------------
There are several good public policy reasons to allow Washingtonians to *use* firearm suppressors that they can already legally *own*.
1. Health and safety. Most firearms produce peak pressure levels in excess of 150 decibels, and Seattle firearm owners shooting at indoor urban ranges such as myself face additional noise firing in close quarters. Wearing earplugs and earmuffs in combination isn't always adequate protection against hearing loss over time.
OSHA mandates hearing protection for environments above 85db. Even the best suppressor only reduces firearm noise by 20-30 decibels, taming firearm noise to somewhere between a car horn (90 db) and a jet engine (120 db) (source: http://www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm and
<broken link removed> )
With proper hearing protection, a 20-30db reduction in noise would make a big difference to recreational Washington shooters. Firearms will still be very loud, but a little safer for those exposed to them regularly.
2. Environmental noise pollution
Both urban and rural shooters, their pets and neighbors would benefit from reduced noise pollution from recreational use of firearms with suppressors.
3. State liability for workplace induced hearing loss amongst law enforcement, and consistency of RCW with law enforcement use today
Law enforcement are required to train regularly with firearms, and are at risk for hearing loss. According to the CDC NIOSH, workers comp settlements for hearing-related conditions cost WA $4.8 million (not including medical costs) back in 1991 (source http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-103/). I can only imagine that number is much higher today.
As a reference, the U.S. Army saved $504.3 million by reducing hearing loss among combat arms personnel between 1974 and 1994 by implementing a hearing protection program. HB 1604 would assist any effort by WA law enforcement to do the same by encouraging legal use of suppressors.
Curiously, the current RCW *does not* include an exception for law enforcement use of suppressors. Some State law enforcement do possess and use suppressors at WA ranges, apparently unaware that they are committing a misdemeanor by using them.
Why HB1604 is the solution
--------------------------
HB1604 corrects this problem by allowing Washingtonians who already possess federally licensed suppressors to use them. This is the same approach taken in many other states, including Oregon and Idaho. The ATF taxes and strictly regulates the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act, and they are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in thirty-eight states. Anyone who wishes to buy a suppressor must go through an ATF application process which requires a $200 tax payment and a criminal background check. Suppressors can only be sold by federally licensed firearms dealers.
I can only foresee one misguided argument against this bill. Will criminals will use stolen suppressors to commit crimes silently? This idea is encouraged by the inaccurate Hollywood depiction of "silencers" as the weapon of secret agents etc, an unfortunate fiction. Realistically, reducing firearm noise by 20-30 decibels isn't going to make any difference in the commission of a crime. Firearms are still very loud. The Hollywood depiction of whisper quiet "silencers" is completely fictitious. I was unable to find any examples of criminals using suppressors in the commission of a crime, perhaps because they are simply too expensive, unwieldy and of little actual use to a criminal. As you know, suppressors are already legal to possess in WA, so an added misdemeanor charge is unlikely to stop a determined criminal considering felonious use of a firearm.
I am traveling this week but will follow up with your office on my return home.
(personal details deleted)
