Legalizing Washington Suppressor Use - Bill HB 1604

[Bhowe]

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.

Having worked in many shops that sell silencers, I'd say between all class 3 dealers in WA, they probably sell 5,000 to 10,000 in a few weeks to a month. 4 or 5 a day in many shops is not unheard of.

Some of you may have seen my thread about the Snohomish County Sheriffs taking silencers from me and another party. You may get your fight if they think they can charge us with a crime. Judging by what the officer told RanB, I am under the impression they believe we were shooting them. I have no idea what the 'witness' told the police, wether it be he saw that we had them, or he lies and says he saw us shoot them, the officers cannot lie and say they saw us.

If they do think they can charge us with a crime, I plan on doing whatever I can to change the current law, be it lawsuit or what not. I hope if this is the case I will have some support.

 

[Bhowe]

Sigman,
I know there are situations under federal law where dealers can demonstrate various NFA items such as newly manufactured fully automatic weapons. Federal law also makes the ownership and use of suppressors legal.

Despite a search I have been unable to find any exemption that allows anyone to fire a suppressor in WA state. (I would imagine that the SS or possibly the FBI would disregard the law but that is another matter).

Please, to help my search, could you provide a reference to an exemption in the law that allows anyone to fire a suppressor in WA? I would love to use this as a starting point in precisely understanding the law.

Do you have any reference that overrides state law to permit an NFA dealer to demonstrate a fully automatic weapon in any state? I do know for example that even CA will allow fully auto demonstrations under certain circumstances but that is permitted under state law.

No exceptions for silencer use except military use on military property, I imagine same goes for other federal entities on government property but I have not seen it. The WA RCW clearly states in the same code that there is exceptions to police carrying such items as butterfly knives or switchblades to and from work, but none for the use of a device to supress the sound of a firearm.

 

[watcher]

It seems to me that McDonald v Chicago is a lead in to changing this law. Considering that all of the states surrounding WA allow possession and use it is going to be very difficult for WA to claim they have a reasonable restriction. It may take a lawsuit to force the issue but once M v C is settled, if it goes as most people are predicting, then almost any outcome is going to put WA in a difficult position.

 

[wired]

I'm really looking at the recent State v. Christopher William Sieyes decision more than any federal court decision. The state supreme court IS on our side!!!

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=821542MAJ

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both

text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an

individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not

unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was

not."

 

[toddt36]

Man would I love to put a silencer on my 10/22 (legally) that would be sweet! Why wouldn't it be legal? I mean I can use subsonic primer only rounds that are just a little louder than a pellet gun? Again these stupid bureaucrats have been watching too much TV

 

[tionico]

There are a few ways to get such a law tossed.

One, have someone "with standing" (who nhas been "damaged", their rights unlawfully limited, etc) to fight it through the courts.. lots of money, unless lawyers step up and work pro bono, and even then it could yet be costly. If the chaps who got arrested for having the silencers in SNo COunty get charged with USING them, they would have "standing" and could press this.

WOrk to get the head of that House committee replaced next November. Don't know if he's standing for reelection then. If he is, find and field a candidate who would think correctly on this, work hard to get him seated. End of this goofball as committee chairman. Door for passage perhaps kicked open.

launch a CItizen's Initiative petition to put the measure on the ballot for November. Might be too late this year, don't know the cutoff date for new initiatives. It would cost money to run a campaign...

seek other means of sneaking it round the Marble Zoo.. someone mentioned Labor and Industries the state agency charged with industrial safety... includes noise standards in public places. SHooting ranges are public places. Shooters can wear earmuffs, what about non-shooters in the visinity.. what about noise in private shooting areas? What about the noise level even WITH earmuffs of earplugsw, particularl for large-bore and magnum hunting rounds? Going after the health benefits of noise abatements as administrative law changes would be a possible angle.

mobilise and press a serious campaign, all gun owners in the states barrage their legislators to suppert and pass a repeal of the silencer ban. Use some of the above issues as support... noise abatement, health protection, many other states allow them, federal law allows them, etc etc. If not one legislator has had anyone request his support of such a bill, why should he put his neck on the line and support it?


Communicate with ALL your own state representatives.. get their feedback on this issue, and why..... and vote accordingly. Hey, don't JUST vote, work to remove those who do NOT support this, and seat those candidates who DO support things like this. Find out what candidates think on this, and other gun issues. Vote accordingly. And tell them you will.
I wonder if Chump Change Nickels realises he's lost his job as Seattle's mayor due at least in significant part to his barmy anti-gun stance. Letting sitting legislators understand that their support on this, and other related issues, will be key to their next term..... either having one or not.

 

[wired]

There are a few ways to get such a law tossed.

One, have someone "with standing" (who nhas been "damaged", their rights unlawfully limited, etc) to fight it through the courts.. lots of money, unless lawyers step up and work pro bono, and even then it could yet be costly. If the chaps who got arrested for having the silencers in SNo COunty get charged with USING them, they would have "standing" and could press this.

WOrk to get the head of that House committee replaced next November. Don't know if he's standing for reelection then. If he is, find and field a candidate who would think correctly on this, work hard to get him seated. End of this goofball as committee chairman. Door for passage perhaps kicked open.

launch a CItizen's Initiative petition to put the measure on the ballot for November. Might be too late this year, don't know the cutoff date for new initiatives. It would cost money to run a campaign...

seek other means of sneaking it round the Marble Zoo.. someone mentioned Labor and Industries the state agency charged with industrial safety... includes noise standards in public places. SHooting ranges are public places. Shooters can wear earmuffs, what about non-shooters in the visinity.. what about noise in private shooting areas? What about the noise level even WITH earmuffs of earplugsw, particularl for large-bore and magnum hunting rounds? Going after the health benefits of noise abatements as administrative law changes would be a possible angle.

mobilise and press a serious campaign, all gun owners in the states barrage their legislators to suppert and pass a repeal of the silencer ban. Use some of the above issues as support... noise abatement, health protection, many other states allow them, federal law allows them, etc etc. If not one legislator has had anyone request his support of such a bill, why should he put his neck on the line and support it?


Communicate with ALL your own state representatives.. get their feedback on this issue, and why..... and vote accordingly. Hey, don't JUST vote, work to remove those who do NOT support this, and seat those candidates who DO support things like this. Find out what candidates think on this, and other gun issues. Vote accordingly. And tell them you will.
I wonder if Chump Change Nickels realises he's lost his job as Seattle's mayor due at least in significant part to his barmy anti-gun stance. Letting sitting legislators understand that their support on this, and other related issues, will be key to their next term..... either having one or not.

The problem with your first scenario is that The Snohomish county sheriff has not actually charged the 2 individuals with anything. They have temporarily impounded their property which no doubt will be returned sometime but there has been no filing of charges nor will there probably ever be. They have no standing. No one has ever been charged and prosecuted under that law for a reason.

I still think its probably the only way the law will be changed. Perhaps not from those two gentlemen but with the recent popularity of the trust route to NFA ownership and the information available on the internet the number of silencers sold and used in Washington has really increased in the last few years. Its a matter of time until SOMEONE gets charged and at that point we all have to rally to their defense with funds to help the cause make its way to the State Supreme Court. I for one will.

 

[ZeroRing]

Of the 40 states that I know where supressors are leagal, only Washington state has a provision where it is illegal to shoot them. THE ONLY ONE. I will be traveling to Ore in June and July for a supressor shoots. I have also traveled down for machinge gun shoots too.

THAT is a fact (and I'm assuming that it is a "fact" for the sake of arguement), that should be at the forefront of any and all efforts to have the stupid 'law" fixed.

What possible logic could be employed to justify the current condition where ownership is legal but usage isn't?? Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[wired]

With the state supreme court affirming the notion that the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd amendment I think its only a matter of time until this silencer use ban gets overturn and I'm thinking big too. I'm seeing the federal NFA standard being applied to the state. Thats the direction the SC justices had alluded to . Its going to take a case with standing in front of them for it to happen.

 

[Ranb]

What possible logic could be employed to justify the current condition where ownership is legal but usage isn't?? Makes absolutely no sense.

To many members of the WA State legislature, that law makes perfect sense because they think silencer ownership is illegal in the USA, or the feds ban use, or that silencers are only useful for breaking the law.

They continue to think this way for one reason and one reason only. Their constituents will not get off their fat asses and write in to set them straight and support the bill to make silencers legal to use. If there is one thing that is true, it is that we deserve the laws that oppress us because we are the fools that elect those responsible for passing those stupid laws.

It pisses me off to no end that the House Judiciary Chairman can tell me (probably truthfully) that I was the only person to write to him about allowing HB 1604 to be sent to the House floor for a vote. Nobody in the WA State House of Representatives gives a damn about bill 1604 because hardly anyone in the state gives a damn either.

Ranb

 

[ZeroRing]

It ****** me off to no end that the House Judiciary Chairman can tell me (probably truthfully) that I was the only person to write to him about allowing HB 1604 to be sent to the House floor for a vote.

Given the makeup of the current state legislature I would highly doubt that ANY chairman would state anything that is contrary to their own personal belief system. Error by omission as it were. He may have had SEVERAL people tell/write him to send it to the floor but telling you this wouldn't square with his own desire to quash it.

Regardless, I would have hoped that the Republicans on the committee would have pushed for it to at least go to the floor for a vote. It's not like it's a bill that is several-hundred pages in length.

 

[Ranb]

Regardless, I would have hoped that the Republicans on the committee would have pushed for it to at least go to the floor for a vote. It's not like it's a bill that is several-hundred pages in length.

So far I have not been able to get any replies from the Republicans I have written to. Only the Dems have written back so far. As far as I know, even the bill sponsors do not care about the bill; it might only be lip service on their part. Pedersen also claimed that the Republicans in the Judiciary did not say 1604 was a priority. Just about every reply I have received claimed that a bill has to have priority to get out of committee. It is quite simple, either they push hard for it or they are against it. Their lack of action speaks loudly.

Ranb

 

[ZeroRing]

So far I have not been able to get any replies from the Republicans I have written to. Only the Dems have written back so far. As far as I know, even the bill sponsors do not care about the bill; it might only be lip service on their part. Pedersen also claimed that the Republicans in the Judiciary did not say 1604 was a priority. Just about every reply I have received claimed that a bill has to have priority to get out of committee. It is quite simple, either they push hard for it or they are against it. Their lack of action speaks loudly.

Ranb

Indeed.

 

[Ranb]

Well we can count Representative Haigh out. She is unwilling to co-sponsor bill 1604, and probably any other gun related bill that allows fewer restrictions on ownership or use.

I will talk to Representative Condotta but I am not willing to sponsor this legislation.
I will try to find out where he actually stand on this issue.

I wrote to the Washington Arms Collectors Association a little while ago about hiring a lobbyist to go to bat for us. I got a reply from Joe Waldron saying that he is the lobbyist but until the House and Senate Judicary chairmen (Pedersen and Kline) alllow the bill to go anywhere, it is not a matter of outside lobbying. The voters need to pressure their leaders into supporting the bill or vote the bums out. This is something that WA voters are unwilling to do. I suspect that most gun owners could care less either. That is the attitude I get from most of the gun owners I talk to in person.

Ranb

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Lets face it folks.. only regime change is going to solve this dilemma and the voters are restless.. November may change the playing field considerably. Do your research and your part..

Now the USSC case looks interesting but that is a long road to march down to get specific unconstitutional laws overturned