A fax to send to the Rules Committee to support silencer bill 5112.

[Ranb]

I am helping fellow forum member Seattlewingsfan make up a fax to send to the Senate Rules committee. I am thinking that one page of pertinant facts about silencer use and a page with names of people that support the bill will work well. This should work better than e-mails.

Why Senate Bill 5112 will benefit Washington State residents.

Firearm sound suppressors are legal in the United States. Purchase and possession by civilians and law enforcement is legal in 37 of the states including Washington.

Washington is the only state that allows suppressor possession but prohibits their use on a firearm. RCW 9.41.250(c) prohibits suppressor use by anyone in Washington including the police and military.

Any civilian purchasing a suppressor is required to submit an application with the local sheriff's signature, pass a background check by the FBI and pay a $200 tax for each.

Crimes associated with suppressors are very rare in the United States and in Washington State. Each county sheriff was requested to provide data on violations of RCW 9.41.250(c) or any other misuse of a suppressor; 32 counties reported data. A total of ten crimes in Washington were reported for as far back as records were maintained.

Bill 5112 will make an exception only for those people, including the police that legally own suppressors and register them in accordance with federal law. Use of unregistered suppressors by anyone will still remain a gross misdemeanor.

Suppressors are one of the most effective means of reducing firearm noise. As private property owners move closer to shooting areas, suppressor use can reduce noise complaints.

While suppressors do not make firearms completely silent, they prevent hearing loss which is one of the most common injuries associated with firearms use. A good suppressor can lower noise by about 30 decibels. A firearm will have a noise level of about 110 to 140 decibels when used with a suppressor.

Suppressors typically cost between $200 and $3000. Thousands of Washington residents already own suppressors. Allowing their use by registered owners will increase the number sold locally in the state and result in increased tax revenue.

Licensed manufacturers In Washington will no longer be at a disadvantage if they are allowed to test the suppressors they make locally.

The Washington Council of Police and Sheriff's supports bill 5112.

Cease Fire Washington and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are taking a neutral position on bill 5112.

Suggestions are appreciated. If you are wiling to include your name/address as a supporter, please PM so I can add your name to the list. Thanks.

Randy

Read More

 

[seattlewingsfan]

first line says United State.

Maybe...

Firearm sound suppressors are legal in the United States and are legal for civilians to own in 37 states including Washington.

Much to the dismay of those who legally own them here. Washington State is the only one of those 37 states that prohibits suppressor use on a firearm. RCW 9.41.250(c) does not allow suppressor use by anyone including the police and military.

I'll think about it some more after I close up shop and check back to see other peoples responses this afternoon.

BTW I saw Gemtech posted on facebook. I knew they would help.

 

[Ranb]

I corrected the typo and made a few other changes. I think we need to keep this fax devoid of emotion. But I will leave it up to the person faxing the document to make the final decision.

Ranb

 

[SquatchWorks]

I thought this bill passes and was going to be a law?

 

[Ranb]

Bill 5112 is stuck in the Senate Rules committee. Companion bill 1016 passed the House a little while back. Go here for bill information. Bill Information

Ranb

 

[wyecoyote]

Randb, Read through this and have some suggestions take them for what they are.

Possession by unlicensed civilians is legal in 37 of the states including Washington.

This line consider the following you are stating that unlicensed ownership is ok by state and Fed. Perhaps change to the following: Purchase and possession by civilians and law enforcement is legal in 37 of the states including Washington. This way you address the purchasing aspect and possession as well as staying away from the potential reading of illegal/unlicensed possession.

Washington is the only state that allows suppressor possession but prohibits their use on a firearm.

This line I would suggest getting rid of "on a firearm" at the end. Is there any other way to use a suppressor?

Crimes associated with suppressors are very rare in the United State and in Washington State.

United States.

Each county sheriff was requested to provide data on violations of RCW 9.41.250(c) or any other misuse of a suppressor; 32 counties reported data. A total of ten crimes in Washington were reported for as far back as records were maintained.

Perhaps if you have the data clarify wether they were legal suppressors or home made without BATFE approval. I don't know if you have that data available or if it was given to you.

Suppressors are one of the most effective means of reducing firearm noise. As private property owners move closer to shooting areas, suppressor use can reduce noise complaints.

While suppressors do not make firearms completely silent, they prevent hearing loss which is one of the most common injuries associated with firearms use.

Perhaps here add the decible level reduction ie .22 (from what I understand) 160 decibel without suppressor 130 decible average with suppressor. Also perhaps go into that the average suppressor reduction is 20-40 decible reduction range.

Licensed manufacturers In Washington will no longer be at a disadvantage if they are allowed to test the suppressors they make locally.

Are there any manufacturers in WA that are willing to go on record that either a) they make them and it is a pain to test or b) would like to produce them but haven't due to law and thus can point out a potential increase of employment.

Lastly what is your time frame considering this bill to get the fax to the committe? If longer perhaps some WA gun shops could start a petition sign up and fax them in by a certain date.

PM sent to you regarding my contact information.

Thank you for all the hard work you have put into this one. I would definately like to get a few in the future but have considered it to be just a pain in having to drive to OR or Idaho to shoot them.

 

[Ranb]

I want to get the fax tot he Rules committee this week. I have tried to drum up support form the FFL/SOT's in the past, but there was little interest. Only one member of the manufacturing community bothered to show for the Judiciary hearings, and he was an employee, not an FFL/SOT. He did go on record at the House committee hearing that WA FFL/SOTS were at a disadvantage because they could not test them in WA.

Suppressors can be used on an air rifle (precharged air rifles are loud) in WA as they are legally not firearms.

I personally wrote to every county sheriff and requested the data. I have the data, but it is in the form of letters written to me from the sheriff's offices and not official records. I was not able to determine if any of the silencers associated with crime in WA were registered or not as the detailed search required would have cost more than I was able to pay. One county wanted $70 an hour just to do a search.

I made a few changes to the proposed fax.

Ranb

 

[SquatchWorks]

What's the difference between 5112 and 1016?

Is 1016 a proposal and 5112 a bill? The both had the same discription when I looked them up.

 

[Ranb]

1016 is the House bill and 5112 is the Senate version. Usually there is only one bill, but sometimes when they want a bill pushed through faster a companion bill is created. This way the Senate does not have to wait for the bill to pass the House before they start taking action. Here is a good link on what goes on. Overview of the Legislative Process

Ranb

 

[SquatchWorks]

So if the companion bill passed, why are we still concerned with 5112?

Won't 1016 become a law?

 

[RainMan_PNW]

So if the companion bill passed, why are we still concerned with 5112?

Won't 1016 become a law?

A bill has to make it through BOTH the house and the senate. In a nutshell, the SLOW way is for it to go through one, and then the other. The FAST way is to have companion bills in both at the same time with the same wording. So long as BOTH pass at nearly the same time without having additional wording added to make them different, they will in-effect get "combined" at the other end and made a single law.

 

[seattlewingsfan]

HB1016 passed the house. It is currently in the senate at committee level, and from what I can tell the house hasn't done anything with it because the Senate companion bill S5112 is already in Rules. They are effectivly the same bill. A bill has to pass both house and senate to make it to the governors desk to be signed. Thats a simplified explaination.

I want this to get sent in the morning tomarrow if at all possible. That will give the Secretary of the senate friday and Monday to get it out to the members. It seems that the Rules committee has met on Tuesdays ad Thursdays the most looking back at meeting dates.

I like the way it reads right now. The changes definatly helped. Any input is appreciated.... have many people added their names to the support list? I thnk I will have some names to add from a few places I have posted as well.

 

[Ranb]

Only five names. With a list that long, we are better off not sending it at all. Just send the Fax with the info.

Ranb

 

[seattlewingsfan]

Yeah if there isn't alot of names to go on it I think it may best be left off. I'll see what happens with my inbox alot of people are still at work.

Good news I think... I just got off the phone with a legislative coordinator in olympia. I have been reassured that I will now have 24 hour notice as to when the rules committee will meet. I brought up the point that meetings were suppose to be open to the public and they make it nearly impossible to find out when that happens. I got the impression not many people ever push to sit in at a Rules Committee meeting. I was also told that since the first calander cutoff has been made, ie.. everything had to be out of standing committee. I was told that the rules committee usually meets more often once cutoff dates are comming into play. I also confirmed that it is indeed on the green sheet and one pull away from a "yea" or "ney" vote to put it to the floor. I also confirmed that S5112 has a cutoff date of March 7th. However should it be left dormant and miss the deadline. The cutoff for HB1016 isn't till April 12th.

I was also thinking maybe a line stating that Companion bill HB1016 already passed the house "88 yeas-4neys"

 

[seattlewingsfan]

Also as far as that last line...

"Cease Fire Washington and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are taking a neutral position on bill 5112."

Neutral implies no position eiter way. But saying...

"Cease Fire Washington and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are not opposed to bill 5112."

Says the same thing, but sounds more positive. We can infer that they are not for it and not against it by the neutral stand. We can actually say they are not against it and be correct. I think using the word "neutral" to many people implies they want no part in it. Does anyone know the actual wording they used to state their stance on the issue?

Maybe thats nit picking. But a change of a few words can shine a better light on a issue. It's all semantics with politics.

 

[seattlewingsfan]

I made a bunch of calls today, glad I have unlimited minutes and no Boss to piss of at work.

My last call was to Mark Schoesler a few minutes ago and spoke with his assistant. I brought up the fact that he is a sponsor of 5112 and is on the rules committee and asked if he intends to PULL his own bill anytime soon. She checked a few things and came back to me stating that 5112 is indeed on his pull request list. Infact it has had numerous people call in the last few days to request it. She said they are expecting a Rules meeting either tomarrow or monday. But most likely monday.

I'll get that fax out tonight so it will be members internal mail boxes on monday.

I really like dealing with this stuff. Maybe I should have went into politics instead of buiding and racing cars for a living.

 

[Ranb]

Way to go dude. I hate politics, but I hate gun control laws more. But I am glad you do. When the silencer bill passes, we need people willing to put their backs into the next thing.

Ranb

 

[seattlewingsfan]

Fax Sent! I also got ahold of Joan in committee services and got some other useful names and numbers. Keeping a log of everything for the SBR issue and other future needs.

I did just confirm that the Senate Rules Committee is meeting today. But it's not open the the public, they are meeting in a members office and doing a package pull today! Thats when they want to cover alot of bills at one time with a single vote. This usually means they have alot of bills that have no real oposition and want to get a bunch of bills out of the rules committee and to the floor. Sounds like 5112 is a perfect taget so to speak.

 

[Ranb]

Mark Schoesler's office says that a bunch of Democrat bills were pulled for a reading, but 5112 was not one of them. We all need to call each Rules committee member today and Monday to remind them about bill 5112. I'm sure they are getting lots of calls about other bills that many people want passed, so we need to make our presence known, again and again.

Randy

 

[Ranb]

Senator Rockefeller's office says that the bills pulled for a third hearing today were only those with no opposition. I asked his aide who was opposing bill 5112 since no one showed up to oppose it at the Judiciary hearings and if Senator Kline was not opposed, then I figured no one would be. The aide was not able to tell me who was opposing the bill.

Randy