Read this! Silencer rights imposed!!!!!!!

[Ranb]

If I am at a range with my silencers, I have copies of the ATF form 1's, trust, RCW and AG opinion with me in an envelope. The only ones asking me for anything are some private ranges (in states where they are legal to use), and a few people who have inquired how one goes about making a silencer.

I have had a few cops in WA offer to op-check a silencer for me as they claimed they were exempt from prosecution by the AG (something the AG denies I later found out). None of them ever asked for any paperwork or suggested that the silencers were illegal in any way. The engraving of my name, serial number and city/state on the can probably tipped them off that I was not an idiot.

Ranb

 

[ZachS]

1. Already have legal representation

Does your lawyer know about this thread? Has he seen it?

 

[coctailer]

Someone said the Snoho DA has a booth at the Monroe gunshow?

Did I understand that right? A member pointed him out today.

If it's the same guy, I talk to him all the time.

 

[wired]

1) No need for Washington Law it to say that, the NFA ACT of 1934 will assure you prison time.

Silencers are legal to own and to build in Washington in accordance with federal and state law. Building a silencer requires a completed ATF Form 1 to build a silencer

2) Posting your personal legal problems on the internet is insane. They are coming after you for 1 reason or another, and it is your word against a sworn officer. Why build a case against yourself on the internet?
Or even wasting your time posting, maybe you should be looking for help from 1 of the legal defense funds, or talking with the Rainer Law Group.

It is required by state statute for the officer to witness a silencer being used. The OP has no real legal problems other than an uninformed cop. He'll get his bubblegum back.

3) If you're going to be blatant about your suppressors, you better have supporting documentation. Example: A copy of Washington RCW 9.41.250, a copy of AGO 1988 No. 16 - August 30, 1988 (Washington Attorney Generals opinion on suppressors), a copy of the form 4, and a copy of a valid trust (if it is on a trust - for a trust to be valid in Washington State it must have been witnessed and notarized when it was signed.). I know of several people who have ran into the similar circumstances, but with much better results just by having the paperwork needed to help the Officer make a judgment call.


You needn't have a copy of the trust with you. The ATF requires a notarized trust to approve the form 1 or form 4 in the first place. No notarized trust...no approved form. The approved form 4 or form 1 is proof to the ATF that the notarized trust was filed. Since the ATf is the one you have to worry about with regards to approved paperwork they are satisfied with the approved form.

4) YOU calling the ATF will only cause YOU problems. They are a Govt. agency paid to support local law enforcement, and they will do just that.


The ATF is actually pretty customer friendly at the NFA branch. As a former license holder I can honestly say I have always been treated well by the ATF

Just my .02

Mine too


Heres my Washington owned and home built silencer...Shot on the Oregon side of the river

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeKquXp8gKY&feature=email

 

[Bhowe]

Nice vid Wired. Quietest AK I never heard.

 

[tionico]

Nice, Wired. And you built that one? Hmmm...... interesting.


The more I read on this thread, the more convinced I am this cop is a moron, but also that, somehow, he will escape any responsibility for his wrongdoing and ingnorance. He's used to everyone bowing down to HIS whim..... somehow, I HOPE he gets his comeuppance. I hope so REAL bad.

I've read how, years back, open carry, whilst legal in Washington, was being met with harsh and illegal responses. Folk were panicking upon mere sighting of a "man with a gun", never mind he was just walking his dog, maybe stopping for a coffee, happens to have a revolver on his hip. There were some arrests, under the Washington laws against brandishing, misinterpreted. A few court cases established clearly that, in order to be "brandishing", one had to be showing the weapon in a menacing manner, with the intent to instill fear, panic, concern for safety, in the mind of the viewer. Plainly, one judgement stated that the mere possession, even visible, of a weapon was NOT against the intent of this law. After wasting signigicant amounts of public money, the AG's office finally got round to sending off letters to all police chiefs and sheriffs advising them to make it clear to their officers precisly what comprises "brandishing". Phoney arrests stopped, and even 911 operators were trained to ask the pointed questions to ascertain whether the caller was on about mere possession in public, or there was something more sinister going on. If mere possession, the operators would advise the caller that mere possession in public is legal, and they neither could nor would do anything about it. THAT defused the whole situation.

It looks like a similar thing needs to happen here... though the better thing would be to make use legal in this state.Why not? Its stupid to allow ownership but criminalise use. Time we caught up with reality.

 

[Ranb]

Here is part of my collection. Several silencers, many hosts. I can hardly wait to get out of WA or get the stupid law changed.



Ranb

 

[watcher]

RanB,
Did you make the integral on the Enfield?
I, planning on the same thing in 45 Auto rim without the folder.

 

[Ranb]

Yes I did. It is shown with a silencer shaped barrel shroud for using in WA. I use the 510 whisper silencer on it when using it in other states. If the law ever gets changed to allow use, then I will completely redo the whole thing. I will make a dedicated offset steel can for it, set back the barrel and chop it down to ten inches, and shorten the bolt to make it more like the original Delisle.

The 45 auto rim might do better on the Enfield bolt, but it will still feed poorly unless the bolt is shortened and berrel set back in the action.

Ranb

 

[Marauder]

There is currently a bill in the works to make silencer usage legal: HB 1604

This one died last year, but was reintroduced again this year. Call and e-mail your reps, don't let it die again.

 

[Ranb]

I have been writing about this and other silencer bills for years. It is rare that I get an honest and direct answer from any Rep in the WA gov unless they are sponsoring the bill. Rep Pedersen is the key to this bill. He does not like it and will not let it out of the Judiciary committee. He needs lots of letters. Good luck.

Ranb

 

[watcher]

Can someone point me to the statute that says illegal suppressor use must be witnessed by a LEO?
I found the rest of the law and AG opinions but I can't find that one.

 

[wired]

I believe thats one thats by omission. Theres a list of misdemeanor crimes that have to be witnessed by LEO's to be prosecutable. Stuff like speeding. Silencer use is not on that list.

 

[clearconscience]

Here is part of my collection. Several silencers, many hosts. I can hardly wait to get out of WA or get the stupid law changed.



Ranb

Does a suppressor on a revolver really make it more quiet? That just seems funny to me.
Nice collection. What do you do for a living? Cause that's a spendy habit. That looks about $3600 just in tax stamps.

 

[coyote223]

Does a suppressor on a revolver really make it more quiet? That just seems funny to me.
Nice collection. What do you do for a living? Cause that's a spendy habit. That looks about $3600 just in tax stamps.

Only on that specific revolver, otherwise it's a waste of $$$$.

 

[HahnsXD]

Does a suppressor on a revolver really make it more quiet? That just seems funny to me.
Nice collection. What do you do for a living? Cause that's a spendy habit. That looks about $3600 just in tax stamps.

Nagant revolvers seal the cylinder when they fire...

 

[The B]

Does a suppressor on a revolver really make it more quiet? That just seems funny to me.
Nice collection. What do you do for a living? Cause that's a spendy habit. That looks about $3600 just in tax stamps.

wouldn't it be significantly quieter? no blow-back.. no action operating. i suppose if you could lock down the slide on an auto, that'd be even quieter than a revolver. as i recall, there are, or at least have been, autos with this feature.. but obviously most autos cant be locked down

 

[Ranb]

The photo is a composite (poorly done ) of seven silencers on various guns. So it is only $1400 in taxes, about $40 in material for each, and an investment of about $2000 in tools that I have other uses for. This comes out to $368 for each silencer so far; SSK wanted $2500 for a 510 whisper can. Ef that! Hahahaha. I just bought his 510 whisper Encore barrel for $500 and did the rest myself.

The 1895 Nagant revolver is a pipsqueek of a gun that shoots a +90 grain bullet 700-1000 fps and will hit the broad side of a barn as long as you are in the barn. It has the second worst double action trigger I have ever experienced; the 38 Webley is the worst. What is does have is a <$100 price tag and a cylinder that moves forward to close the gap when the hammer is cocked. The brass is about 1/10th inch longer than the cylinder and seals the gap. I removed the barrel and attached an adaptor I turned on my lathe to fit my HP 9mm silencer. The brass is a pain to reload, but I used the Lee die set after inserting a spacer to seat bullets below the mouth and made a longer expander to prevent case bulging when seating the bullet. A 30 carbine Lee factory sizer die crimps the mouth shut far enough to ensure the case enters the barrel when the hammer is cocked. It is not as quiet as a suppressed 22lr bolt action rifle, but much less noisy than any 9mm semi-auto pistol IMHO.

I plan on making at least ten more silencers before I retire from the PSNS shipyard in Bremerton. I might obtain an FFL/SOT class 2 when I move to NV to retire and wear out everything I own at the range before I die. I am retired Navy and gross about 70K a year. The reason i can afford this stuff is that I put guns together from parts when I can, reload almost all of my own ammo, live in a cheap house that took me less than ten years to pay off, drive cheap little cars and have a frugal wife. My ammo budget far exceeds what I spend on silencer taxes and material.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Only on that specific revolver, otherwise it's a waste of $$$$.

Nah.... If I had desire, I could set back the front sights on my 44 and 357 revolvers and thread them for a silencer that I already own. While the noise from the gap alone would make it unsafe to shoot without ear plugs, it would still be much less noisy. But it has all of the drawbacks of using silencers and much less of the advantages. I guess the best thing about it would be a demonstration of how much noise does come out of the gap.

I need to be a much better gun smith before I am able to relocate revolver sights and thread the muzzles though.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Can someone point me to the statute that says illegal suppressor use must be witnessed by a LEO?
I found the rest of the law and AG opinions but I can't find that one.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.31.100

RCW 10.31.100 says a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer.

If any police officer claims that owning (or using) a silencer is a class C felony, they are lying, or stupid. Neither is an acceptable attribute for a police officer.

Part of me is hoping that the things said about Deputy Haley are not true. It is very sad if we really have bullies out and about armed with guns and charged with protecting society. I also sincerely hope that Bhowe did nothing wrong and gets his silencers back.

Ranb