Legalizing Washington Suppressor Use - Bill HB 1604

[Marauder]

All WA residents should call or e-mail their reps regarding this bill! It died last year without going to a vote, don't let it die again.

It removes the restrictions on using legally owned suppressors in Washington state.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2009

Let's make it happen!

Read More

 

[tionico]

All WA residents should call or e-mail their reps regarding this bill! It died last year without going to a vote, don't let it die again.

It removes the restrictions on using legally owned suppressors in Washington state.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2009

Let's make it happen!

Good work.. BUT. guess who is chairman of the Judiciary COmmittee? Adam Kline, the same goofball who wrote and promoted the Washington State Assault Weapons Ban. Watching him during that hearing, he is a piece of work. HE is the one controls which bills see the senate floor. (him being the chair of that committee is the ONLY reason his baby got a hearing in that committee)

SO--flood Senator Kline's office with calls and emails demanding it get a hearing in HIS pet committee. And then flood your own senators and reps to press for it. We can OWN them legally, but can NOT use them. Press on the "environmental" aspects of these, reducing noise to neighbours, nearby persons. High decibel sound levels are banned from our workplaces by federal and state regulations, why do we allow it in recreational activities? We've got to have mufflers on our ATV's and motos (except for Harleys, but don't mention that). All we want to do is put mufflers on our guns. Reduces noise pollution and resultant hearing damage.

 

[Ranb]

Good work.. BUT. guess who is chairman of the Judiciary COmmittee? Adam Kline,.....

No, 1604 is a House bill. While Kline needs lot of attention later on, it is Representative Pedersen that needs to be written to right now. He is the chairman of the House Judiciary committee that has been refusing to let 1604 go to the House floor for a vote. While he is not the same kind of rat that Kline is, he feels that silencer use is "controversial" and that we should be thankful that he let two other pro-gun bills (he claims) make it to the House floor.

Here is the list of Judiciary members. http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx Write to all of them. Be polite and factual. Do not claim anything you can not prove. Ask direct questions and request direct answers of them.

Ranb

 

[ZachS]

It might be a make sense (with some of them) to describe this as an "administrative bill that makes WA restrictions on suppressors equivalent to federal ones"

 

[SquatchWorks]

This would be cool!!!

I vote SBS and MG's next!!!!

 

[Marauder]

SO--flood Senator Kline's office with calls and emails demanding it get a hearing in HIS pet committee.

Done.

For everyone's convenience, here is Senator Kline's page with links to his e-mail and contact info: http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/kline.aspx

 

[watcher]

Thanks Marauder, done.

 

[sigman]

Don't mention the ATV issue with Kline. He has had NUMEROUS confrontaions with his neighbors who drive their ATV's in the Alley's by his house. It moved him to try and close Capitol Forest to ATV usage and within 1 mile of peoples homes.

I have sat in on Kline's committe hearings about the proposed .50 cal ban. He is a real piece of work.

 

[Ranb]

I was there too. He actually said the 50 cal ban was a good idea because they ban them in California. I told him in a letter that if we wanted to be oppressed like Californians, then we would move to California.

Ranb

 

[MuddyWatters]

Right on. Done.

 

[dj_fatstyles]

last i heard on 1604 was that it died before it could get to the floor this year. i sent emails to everyone of the reps. i got a couple replies from the sponsors and a couple non-commital replies from people but nothing really positive. incorporate and buy your cans that way and check out WAC:296-817-20010 regarding hearing loss.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-817-20010
if im reading it correctly (at face value, no interpretation) it would be legal for business owners and the employees to use silencers. no definition given on the type of machinary used or the type of noise to be reduced. any thoughts on this?

 

[Ranb]

Even though that link gives silencers as an example of noise reduction, I'm sure it would not be any protection against arrest for using one. Might want to write your local DA or sheriff for an opinion though.

Ranb

 

[dj_fatstyles]

way ahead of ya Ranb. emailed the AG of washington last week. I havent gotten a response from him yet so this week, i will email the DA. I still think im onto something though

 

[watcher]

My letter will be off soon.

 

[Ranb]

I sent a letter a while back to the Judiciary chairman of the House, Jamie Pedersen. I got a reply this evening.

Thanks for your message. The cutoff for scheduling House bills for public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee came and went several weeks ago, so this bill is dead for the session. The same is true of 58 other House bills that did not pass out. We passed 27 House bills out of committee this year. One of the hardest jobs I have is to determine not only what is good policy in the many areas that my committee oversees (ranging from domestic violence to landlord-tenant law, from corporate law to drunk driving) -- but to determine which are the most important. I think you are the only person in the state who wrote to me about this bill, and the Republicans on my committee did not list this as a priority bill for hearing.

This latest reply from Pedersen is similar to the one I got last year. Bill 1604 is dead this session. The guy does not give a damn about gun owners and never will if no one bothers to let him know how they feel.

Even the Republicans are letting us down. With the possible exceptions of the sponsors of the bill 1604, is seems that no politician is willing to lift a finger to make the state less oppressive for gun owners.

Those of you who think that writing to Kline or other Senators right now will do any good are wasting your time. Your Senators are just going to tell you that they support the House bill as long as they know they do not have to vote on it. Pedersen is the key here; writing to anyone else other than House Judiciary committee members is a waste of time. He needs lots of attention later this year.

Ranb

 

[ZachS]

Even the Republicans are letting us down. With the possible exceptions of the sponsors of the bill 1604, is seems that no politician is willing to lift a finger to make the state less oppressive for gun owners.

Although I acknowledge that this bill ultimately supports the rights of all gun owners, it would have a direct effect on only a small minority of them. How many Washingtonians legally own suppressors? 5,000? 10,000? Likely no more than 1% of gun owners... It's not a big enough constituency to cause a politician to put himself on the line, unless he hears from them frequently and loudly. And make no mistake - this is the kind of bill that makes visions of hyperbolic attack ads dance in politicians' heads at night.

 

[watcher]

I wonder what the DoJ would think about companies using suppressors in front of police officers illegally? Stretches the imagination that a demonstration consists of saying "This is a suppressor".


Take a look at this link.
http://www.wstoa.org/training.html
Then tab to the choice "Demo/Range Day May 7th"

Quote:
Surefire training division reps will be on hand to demo Surefire Suppressors, as well as lights.


(I took a printout of this just in case the article gets "edited". Look fast because these adds are replaced with new ones frequently.)

The DoJ is going to have to explain to me how a company can use a suppressor in a demonstration to a PD without it being OK for others to do so. There are no exemptions on suppressor use in WA that I can find. Of course, they could claim that this is a demonstration of how to put the suppressor on a carbine and then remove it - but a subpoena under oath can fix that if ever the needs arises.

 

[dj_fatstyles]

Although I acknowledge that this bill ultimately supports the rights of all gun owners, it would have a direct effect on only a small minority of them. How many Washingtonians legally own suppressors? 5,000? 10,000? Likely no more than 1% of gun owners... It's not a big enough constituency to cause a politician to put himself on the line, unless he hears from them frequently and loudly. And make no mistake - this is the kind of bill that makes visions of hyperbolic attack ads dance in politicians' heads at night.

even if it 5,000 or 10,000, those are still people who cant use their suppressors. i think the majority of people in washington (if not the rest of the country) think that silencer (thats right i said silencers), full auto and sbr's are illegal in the united states. quite a few state allow all. most people are uneducated in terms of firearms laws, including some gun owners. i shot me HEMS 2 a couple days ago and my buddy, who is a gun owner, said flat out that silencers are illegal in the U.S. i then corrected him on the laws after he s#!t a brick at the Db reduction. he now wants to get some suppressors of his own. bottom line is that a lot of people think that if someone who owns a silencer is a hitman or they are breaking the law just by being in possesion of a silencer. its like the post that bhowe posted recently about his cans getting taken away because someone called the police on him cos they thought it was illegal to own them (suppressors). the more people are around something and educated the more accustom and comfotable they will get to said item, be it guns, silencers, cars, public transportation, dogs, spiders or whatever. sure there will be people who will have a brick wall in front of them and insist that certain things are illegal, no matter what kind of evidence is right infront of their face and im sure you will get flak (if suppressors were legal) from police just like if someone who open carries, just because its legal doesnt mean that everyone knows the law. lawyers, judges and police dont know all the laws on the books so the chances of the average person knowing is even less. i could go on and on but i would be going off in different directions by the end of this post. i think education is the key on this.

watcher, i saw the post on silencertalk and printed out the page as well and e-mailed the guy who is hosting the shoot to get his spin on the whole thing. if i get a reply from him, ill post it up here. (good or bad)

 

[Ranb]

I pressed Pedersen for some answers to questions I had been asking. Here is his latest reply.

If I am still the chair of the committee, I will go through the same process next year. The House Judiciary Committee always has more bills before it than it can hear, so the questions will include (1) whether there is any groundswell of interest in the bill, both from members and from the general public; and (2) what are the other bills before the committee and how important is this bill relative to those others.

Here are some quick thoughts on the specific questions you raise:

1. Why do you feel that allowing use of silencers by law abiding residents is controversial? All gun bills involve some controversy, whether they are gun control measures or "pro-gun" measures.
2. Do you feel it is fair that gun owners are threatened with gross misdemeanor penalties for use of a silencer in Washington? Yes. No one needs to use a silencer. The penalty is easy to avoid.
3. Are you going to allow House Bill 1604 a fair chance at being passed into law? I'm not sure what that means. I need to be convinced that the legislation is necessary and am not willing to commit that I would give the bill a hearing, particularly without knowing what else will be before my committee next session.

So now we have it. He will never allow any bill legalizing silencer use to get out of committe as long as he is chairman because it seems not one SOB even wants the bill passed, according to him.

If no one is going to even bother to write to him about this bill, then he would be a fool to spend any time on it. Pedersen's reply above has been the most cander reply I have ever received from a WA politician and he is one of the bad guys as far as I am concerned. Not even the Republicans I have exchanged messages with have been willing to push this bill at all. They blame it on Pedersen, but I see no effort at all on their part.

Ranb

 

[watcher]

Mr Pedersen,
I am the owner of a business that manufactures "deleted" - mostly for the use of police departments.
URL deleted

We are based in Oregon. During the design, testing and demonstration of our products we routinely use sound suppressors on our firearms to the great advantage of our employees and potential customers. Reducing the SOURCE of a noise is the key to protecting a persons hearing, NOT adding devices such as ear defenders that are often ineffective or forgotten (until after the damage is done).

WA State has a very sensible law designed to protect the hearing of employees WAC 296-817-20010 which states that employers MUST, MUST not MAY or SHOULD, "reduce employee noise exposure, using feasible controls, wherever exposure equals or exceeds 90 dBA". In the case of firearm use the dB limit is exceeded and a feasible method of noise reduction exists - yet RCW 9.41.250 prevents this use of firearm sound suppressors.

There is a valuable health contribution that can be made by the use of firearm sound suppressors yet WA State continues to cling to the bizarre idea that sound suppressors can be owned in the State but not used. I can only conclude that the rules are not changed because certain politicians are more concerned about restricting anything related to firearms than they are about the health of their constituents.

Mr Pedersen, please tell me which of your state laws I should comply with when demonstrating my products in WA, the one that requires me to protect my employees (and by extension our customers - your state employees) hearing or the one that prevents the use of the most effective sound reduction technology available?

name deleted