Thread: Meeting with Rep to discuss silencer bill.

I requested a meeting with Jamie Pedersen, the Democrat House Judiciary Chairman in Olympia to discuss bill 1604 (to make silencer use legal). He has agreed to meet, but a date and time have not been set. I wonder if anyone has any advice that might be useful to me. I have never met with a State Representative before. Thanks.

Ranb

Find out what his concerns are about supporting the bill, and figure out exactly what's driving his (and other legislators') thought processes. You can give him all of the facts you want about why suppressor use presents no threat to anybody, but facts might not be meaningful to him. Find out what lobbying organizations (besides the obvious i.e. WA cease-fire or whatever) might come out against this and how powerful they are. Also find out which influential legislators could potentially help a deal happen (the answers to the latter two question should be able to be had from whatever WA's pro-gun org is - would be good info to have going in).

Basically, be more than just another constituent with an axe to grind.

Actually silencer use in WA seems to be such a non-issue that hardly anyone really seems to care about it, pro or con. I keep on reading about how this or that person or the police routinely use them without worry of arrest. Bhowe's problems are the only ones I have ever read about. It seems hardly anyone has ever had any issue with silencers since 1934 when use was banned.

I do have facts to give and experience to draw on though, so I am not totally lost.

Ranb

Originally Posted by Ranb

Actually silencer use in WA seems to be such a non-issue that hardly anyone really seems to care about it, pro or con. I keep on reading about how this or that person or the police routinely use them without worry of arrest. Bhowe's problems are the only ones I have ever read about. It seems hardly anyone has ever had any issue with silencers since 1934 when use was banned.

I do have facts to give and experience to draw on though, so I am not totally lost.

Ranb

Right, but the politicians may be (justly) worried about their opponents throwing their support for "deadly silencers" at them come election time. You need to find out what the pols' objections are and strategies for overcoming them.

Hard to do. On the rare occasions that I get a reply, the rep says they will vote for the bill (knowing it will never arrive for a vote), or they say it is controversial. It is very tough to get a precise answer from a politician.

Ranb

Originally Posted by Ranb

Hard to do. On the rare occasions that I get a reply, the rep says they will vote for the bill (knowing it will never arrive for a vote), or they say it is controversial. It is very tough to get a precise answer from a politician.

Ranb

That's why you should listen more than talk, and get him to tell you about the realities of his job and his actual objections - which are all political things he probably doesn't want to talk about with you because he's thinks that doing so will make you believe he doesn't care about your issue.

If you let him relax a bit and feel like he's talking to a real ally, he'll tell you what he actually thinks and give you some ideas about how you can actually get this done. Even organizations with 6- and 7- figure lobbying budgets do it this way.

Nice work Ranb!


Considering WA's $3.5bil deficit you should at least mention tax revenue from silencer sales. Since most of them are a couple hundred dollars or more that's quite a bit of extra money in the coffers. There's also the angle of people leaving the state to use them, thus spending money on travel/food/gas/etc outside of WA.

Bring your check book.

You may want to point out how readily available they are in the UK and Europe. I think from a Health and Safety perspective silencers should be encouraged.

Originally Posted by Contento

Nice work Ranb!


Considering WA's $3.5bil deficit you should at least mention tax revenue from silencer sales. Since most of them are a couple hundred dollars or more that's quite a bit of extra money in the coffers. There's also the angle of people leaving the state to use them, thus spending money on travel/food/gas/etc outside of WA.

Make this a sales pitch. If possible, get silencer usage/sales data from a state where they are legal. Chances are WA has a bigger population, and if they suddenly became legitimate there would be an initial burst in sales.

There'd be a ton of speculation on parts of this, but you could predict 5-10% of new gun sales would also include the purchase of a suppressor.

Money talks.

I would go towards the less sound pollution and health angle. How many public shooting spots are shut down because of noise issues? How it make shooting much quieter and the decreased decibels and concussion can reduce hearing loss. It is like a muffler for a car and those are required to keep noise down. Also once again, and they have a hard time grasping this, criminals don't obey the laws anyway. They are just pushing law abiding people and revenue to more friendly states.

Simply selling him on suppressors will just make him smile, nod, say he agrees, and continue doing nothing.

I think the way to go is to convince him that it is not a gun issue, but a safety and environmental issue. I also wrote to Washington Cease Fire to get their opinion on the bill. I think if they are neutral or supportive, then the gun control crowd should have less to worry about if they allow this bill to pass.

Ranb

I doubt WCF will be much help. They probably have the unrealistic movie view of silencers.

FYI, the OSHA standard for noise exposure is 140 db. Here is a list of firearms noise levels - none of them are under 140.

http://www.elcaudio.com/tablesforweb.pdf

This site also mentions a couple of other angles - the cost workers comp for LEO's who lose their hearing on the job from firearms exposure.

http://www.troysoundwalls.com/ff.htm

Well, the WCF does not have to do anything as far as I am concerned. They just need to not oppose the bill. If I can convince Pedersen that "not opposing" the bill will not hurt him, then that is half the battle. I do not need his vote, I just need him to give the bill a chance.

Ranb

Some interesting facts from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-103/

In Washington State, workers' compensation disability settlements for hearing-related conditions cost $4.8 million in 1991 (not including medical costs). When applied to the national workforce, occupational hearing loss costs an estimated $242.4 million per year in disability alone.

This figure does not include medical costs or personal costs which can include approximately $1500 for a hearing aid and around $300 per year for batteries. Moreover, workers' compensation data is an underestimate of the true frequency of occupational illness, representing only the tip of the iceberg.

In British Columbia, in the five-year period from 1994 to 1998, the workers' compensation board paid $18 million in permanent disability awards to 3,207 workers suffering hearing loss. An additional $36 million was paid out for hearing aids.

Through their hearing conservation program, the U.S. Army saved $504.3 million by reducing hearing loss among combat arms personnel between 1974 and 1994. The Department of Veterans Affairs saved $220.8 million and the Army an additional $149 million by reducing civilian hearing loss between 1987 and 1997.
Through their hearing conservation program, the U.S. Army saved $504.3 million by reducing hearing loss among combat arms personnel between 1974 and 1994. The Department of Veterans Affairs saved $220.8 million and the Army an additional $149 million by reducing civilian hearing loss between 1987 and 1997.

I seem to remember reading something about a year and a half ago from the ATF that there have been no documented uses of suppressors in crimes. A call or email to BATFE asking for documentation of such instances might help you out a bit, too. They'd love to have another state allow suppressor use as the number of people paying the tax would jump over night, I'm sure!

It's a common use for legislators to keep making claims that they will be used in crimes if permitted, blah, blah. Just like Starbucks allowing guns and the lefty morons that think gun fights will just randomly start if we are "allowed" to exercise our right to carry.

Talk to him about Oregon and Idaho and how the use of cans, SBS, SBR's and MG's and they have no increased crime due to legally transferred units to folks who have cleared the background check.

Thanks for your hard work, RanB and please let us know what we Washingtonians can do to help you.

Originally Posted by bnr32gtr

Thanks for your hard work, RanB and please let us know what we Washingtonians can do to help you.

I want someone to accompany me to Olympia to meet with Pedersen and Finn when I get dates for the meetings. Anyone game? Thanks

Ranb

Please call them "sound suppressors" and not silencers.. it is is more technically accurate and sounds less intimidating and more safety-equipment-like to lemmings..that will help

Originally Posted by Ranb

I want someone to accompany me to Olympia to meet with Pedersen and Finn when I get dates for the meetings. Anyone game? Thanks

Ranb

Sure! Give me enough warning ahead of time and I'll make sure I have the time off.

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

Please call them "sound suppressors" and not silencers.. it is is more technically accurate and sounds less intimidating and more safety-equipment-like to lemmings..that will help

While you are technically correct, they are also called silencers by many, many people. Especially by the BATFE: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nati...silencers.html

1. ATF Home
2. Firearms
3. Frequently Asked Questions
4. National Firearms Act (NFA) — Silencers

National Firearms Act (NFA) — Silencers

1. What part of a silencer must be marked?
2. May a Federal Firearms Licensee repair a silencer by replacing worn or damaged components?
3. May the outer tube of a registered silencer be repaired due to damage? If so, may the repair be done by someone other than the original manufacturer?
4. If the outer tube is destroyed or damaged beyond repair, may it be replaced?
5. May a repair change the dimensions or caliber of a silencer?
6. If a silencer is found to be defective due to the manufacturing process, may it be replaced?

Thanks bnr32gtr,

I have been looking for actual physical assistance in one form or another on this and other forums. You are the first to show an interest. Thanks. The main reason I want someone to go with me is that I just need a second pair of ears to make sure I do not miss anything the legislator says and to remind me of anything I fail to bring up. Are you a silencer owner? It would be nice to have someone with that has actually purchased one, I only make my own.

Ranb