Letter to WASPC on silencer use bill.

[Ranb]

When LuftPost met with Representative Pedersen a few days ago, he was told that we should contact the WASPC Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs and WACOPS Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs .

I am writing to them both. Here is the letter I will send when I return home to WA on Monday.

Dear Sir or Ma’am,

I have been actively pursuing the passage of House bill 1604 (change firearm sound suppressor use restrictions) for the last few years. During my meeting with House Judiciary Chairman Jamie Pedersen, I was told that it has died in committee the last several years due to the fact that no one has told him it was a priority. Mr. Pedersen has also never received any opinions, pro or con on the bill.

As you may know, sound suppressors are legal in the United States as long as ATF approval is obtained prior to making or buying them. Thirty-eight states allow civilians to own them, including Washington State. However Washington is the only one of those states that prohibits their use on a firearm. House bill 1604 would have made an exception for those of us who register their suppressors with the federal government in accordance with the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Since it is illegal to possess a suppressor in the United States unless it is registered, all Washington residents who own legally buy or make a suppressor do so with BATFE authorization. Any person who applies for the $200 tax stamp needed to possess a suppressor also has the application signed by the local sheriff or chief of police in their jurisdiction as well as being subjected to an FBI background check. The process is a routine matter as any Washington resident who can own a rifle can also own a suppressor as long as the application is properly filled out.

Many firearm owners feel that suppressors can greatly enhance the shooting experience. A good quality suppressor will reduce noise by about 30 decibels. This is a reduction of noise intensity by a factor of one thousand, or an eight times decrease in loudness. However, a suppressor in no way makes any lethal firearm silent. While noise can be dramatically reduced, it is not eliminated. Even a small 22-caliber rim fire rifle will be at least 110 decibels when measured with an appropriate noise meter. Some high powered rifles will still require that ear plugs be used to prevent hearing loss even when equipped with a suppressor. But any suppressed firearm reduces the risk of hearing loss to bystanders and shooters alike. They also reduce the sound level near rifle ranges. This is an important thing to consider as homes encroach upon areas used for recreational shooting.

You can read more about suppressor use in Al Paulson’s reference book; Silencers, History and Performance. I also know the above data is accurate based on personal experience. I have been making firearm suppressors as a hobby for the last ten years. I register my suppressors on ATF form 1’s, paying a $200 tax on each before making any parts. Even though I legally make and own suppressors, I cannot use them on any firearm unless I travel to one of the thirty-seven states that allow me to use them. RCW 9.41.250 (c) prohibits suppressor use by anyone in Washington State. The police and military are not exempt from this ban on suppressor use.

I have also been writing to county sheriffs in the state to gather data on crime associated with suppressor use. So far about 36% of the county sheriffs I have written to have replied. Of all the reports I have received from the police thus far in Washington, there are so far only two crimes reported that are associated with suppressors. Most of the sheriff’s offices have reported searches of databases going back five to ten years and have also polled the more experienced officers working in the county for any memory of crimes associated with suppressor use. No police officer has any recollection of suppressor crime other than those reported in their records search. It appears that crimes associated with suppressors are not a significant problem in Washington State. I can supply you with the e-mails they have sent to me detailing the lack crimes associated with suppressors in the state.

Representative Pedersen asked me to request an opinion from the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs on suppressor use in Washington State. If your organization could provide direct answers to my questions, it would be greatly appreciated.

1. Does the WASPC have any knowledge of suppressor related crime in the state?
2. Does the WASPC consider suppressor ownership by Washington residents to be a threat to the safety of the public?
3. Does the WASPC feel that suppressors are suitable for civilian use?
4. Will the WASPC oppose a bill that will amend the law to allow the use of registered suppressors?
5. Will the WASPC support a bill that will amend the law to allow the use of registered suppressors?

If you have any objections to the use of registered suppressors by Washington residents, please tell me why.

I look forward to your reply and am willing to answer any questions you may have regarding suppressor ownership or use. Enclosed is a DVD I produced on suppressor use and its benefits. It was intended to educate my Representatives in Olympia who have tried to convince me in the past that suppressors were illegal in Washington.

Any suggestions? Thanks.

Ranb

Read More

 

[ZeroRing]

GREAT letter. You've definitely hit on all the key points. The only "suggestion" I would have is some minor typo and grammar edits are needed. Other than that, it reads perfectly.

 

[Ranb]

It is a rough draft, I will edit it before printing it out. Thanks.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Getting through to WASPC and WACOPS by mail is not working. I should have called them a long time ago. It turns out that they do answer the phone and they said they will contact me by phone or e-mail soon.

The WASPC had an opinion (either for or neutral) on Senate bill 6459 which would allow police use of silencers. I guess some of the members were against allowing the police to use silencers. I was told that there are many members who's opinions vary widely.

(((c))) (d) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the
19 noise of any firearm,

(3) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the use of any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of a firearm by a law enforcement officer while on official duty. However, this subsection only applies to the use of contrivances or devices that have been legally registered in accordance with federal law.

Hopefully I will be able to talk them into not opposing bill 1604 when it is re-introduced.

Ranb

 

[Papi]

Any updates?

 

[Ranb]

I called them both on the phone after not getting a reply to my letter/dvd's. Both said they were going to discuss it and get back to me later. A few days ago I got an e-mail from the WASPC saying they were taking a neutral position on silencer use and would not oppose a silencer use bill.

I may have to contact WACOPS again to get an answer.

I am still looking for people who want to have meetings with their Sentaors and Reps. Anyone game?

Ranb

 

[sigman]

I am still looking for people who want to have meetings with their Sentaors and Reps. Anyone game?

Ranb

Are you thinking 1 mass group or everyone at their own schedule?

 

[Ranb]

Everyone on their own schedule. Sitting down for a face to face meeting with a Senator or Representative is the best way I know of to convince them that a silencer use bill is worthy of their attention. Most of our legislators (including the bill sponsors) are unwilling to devote any time at all to the bill unless they think it has a chance of passing into law.

If anyone wants to set up a meeting with their Rep, but do not want to go alone, I am willing to go with. I like having another person with me as it is a confidence builder and it is nice to have someone to remind me if I missed anything I wanted to talk about. I went with two other forum members to meetings and was glad they accompanied me.

Ranb

 

[Bhowe]

Ran,

You continue to go above and beyond with these issues. I have a lot of respect for someone like you who goes out and takes the appropriate action, rather than talking a lot of game but not ever doing anything. If we were all as devoted as you, the laws would already be changed. With that being said, you seem to already have a good grasp on which people are important to contact and such. Any info you can provide to help get us lazy folk involved would be be a big help. I would love to help, but am not sure where to even start. I am sure you remember my run in with the silencer legality issue. My issue was resolved with a good outcome, but since then I have been to afraid to leave the house with one.

 

[Ranb]

Bhowe,

Start by asking your Senator and Rep for a face to face meeting. It is easy, just e-mail them and tell them about the bill (1604 and it's successor) that you want to discuss. Either they will ignore the e-mail (Sheldon), promise to set up a meeting but never do (Finn), or set up a meeting and follow through (Pedersen and Haugh).

The important people right now are the ones in your district, and the committee chairmen, especially if they are Democrats. But we cannot ignore the Republicans because most of them are unwilling to push a silencer bill also. If you are able to set up a meeting, please let me know as I would like to go with.

Ranb