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

[wired]

I sneak off in the woods and shoot with mine a few times a month. Going to do it this weekend if the weather holds up. I know that if I am pulled over after shooting in the woods and the officer asks to search my car I will decline and that if he asks me ANYTHING I will not answer save for my name and other such generic information. Any information he gets after that he'll have to work for. I'll probably drive over the speed limit on the way out there and talk on my cell phone whilst driving too .

 

[watcher]

Basically, if the facts we are being given are correct, no crime has been committed. I can jump on a mo'bike shouting "Let's see how fast this hummer will go", I have stated my intent to commit a crime, I have the means to commit a crime, but - I have not committed a crime I can be charged with until I ride through the radar gun.

The OP may be using shaky judgment but, as reported he has committed no crime.

 

[Bhowe]

1. To make a long story short, a few of us had not met but maybe once, we met up there to shoot. We brought them to show/compare but not shoot them. We were not looking for confrontation (we didn't even think early on a tuesay anyone would even be out there), we were not stupid and forgot, and we were not trying to sneak off and use them. I shoot them enough, I only had 115gr with me for the glock and it will not operate with anything lighter than 124 with the can on and I didn't even have a gun that the .223 can would fit on with me.

2. I have friends that own major indoor ranges in the area, I won't name ANYONE, but I will say the majority of members only facilities, or ranges that have closed off members only areas really don't care. I have shot lots of full auto, SBR and suppressed firearms right along side a variety of law enforcement. 30% just don't care and the other 70% would never do anything to jeapordize their relationships with the owners.

 

[thelendog]

WHY NOT????

They are legal to possess in Wa

So ignorant LEO's won't confiscate them, that's why not.

 

[SquatchWorks]

So ignorant LEO's won't confiscate them, that's why not.

If thats the case, We should NEVER open carry and leave our guns at home, because We wouldent want an Ignorant LEO arresting us because that is another legal thing that they might not know about....

I hope you understand that what your saying is that because an LEO does not know better, he can do what he wants as long as he thinks its right...

Ignorance IS the issue here, There should be a memo sent out, with the information about suppressors in WA. but Im betting this will not happen

 

[Ranb]

I make silencers as a hobby. I bring them to the local range in WA occasionally as conversation pieces. Many of the people that see them did not know that they are legal or that WA is the only state that allows ownership but bans use. They usually generate some interest and a few people have decided to make their own on ATF form 1's as a result of seeing and handling mine.

I have been trying to get the law changed in WA and showing off my silencers is part of my campaign. That is why I bring mine to the range in WA.

Ranb

 

[HahnsXD]

Still.

Enquiring minds want to know...

WHY did you have your suppressors with you?

None of your damn business. The OP did not commit a crime and certainly wasn't witnessed committing a crime. Intent means absolutely nothing here.

 

[ch139]

None of your damn business. The OP did not commit a crime and certainly wasn't witnessed committing a crime. Intent means absolutely nothing here.

You're right, it isn't any of our business at all, the OP did post it here though and it got me thinking. That's all. It does appear that a crime was not witnessed. Intent may or may not mean anything here, but it may well mean something to the OP in what it takes to get his suppressors back and stay out of trouble. Be that as it may, the OP appears to be soliciting advice/sympathy here. I my mind, its just not adding up; appears some of those among us aren't too bright.

case in point:

I sneak off in the woods and shoot with mine a few times a month. Going to do it this weekend if the weather holds up. I know that if I am pulled over after shooting in the woods and the officer asks to search my car I will decline and that if he asks me ANYTHING I will not answer save for my name and other such generic information. Any information he gets after that he'll have to work for. I'll probably drive over the speed limit on the way out there and talk on my cell phone whilst driving too .

 

[coctailer]

Still.

Enquiring minds want to know...

WHY did you have your suppressors with you?

Any legal purpose............that's why.

I'm carry mine in my GHB. It's in the trunk of my car right now.

 

[TonsOfOregonBrass]

Still.

Enquiring minds want to know...

WHY did you have your suppressors with you?

Because rights not exercised are lost.

 

[SquatchWorks]

Any legal purpose............that's why.

Is that what you put on your form 4????

I put "to take care of neighbors dog" oops








I keep checking for an update!! I think we are all rallying for your on this one!!!

 

[Jerry]

Maybe this has been posted already....


AGO 1988 No. 16 - August 30, 1988

<broken link removed>
CRIMES - FIREARMS

It is not unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to merely possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
August 30, 1988
Honorable Kent Pullen
State Senator, 47th District
Institutions Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
Cite as: AGO 1988 No. 16
Dear Senator Pullen:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked for our opinion on a question we have paraphrased as follows:
Is it unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm?
We answer your question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.
ANALYSIS
RCW 9.41.250, the provision about which you have inquired, provides:
Every person who shall manufacture, sell or dispose of or have in his possession any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement; who shall furtively carry with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(Emphasis added.)
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
In essence, your question is concerned with whether the term "use" in the underscored language of RCW 9.41.250 includes mere possession of a noise suppression device. Absent a statutory definition, words in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning. Davis v. Department of Empl. Sec., 108 Wn.2d 272, 737 P.2d 1262 (1987). The ordinary meaning of the term "use" is to put a thing into service or action. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 2523-2524 (1981). Thus, the use of a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm contemplates employing that device or putting it into service. Although use of such a device may be incident to possession, use is quite different from simply possessing the device or exercising control over it.
In our opinion, the language of RCW 9.41.250 about which you have inquired is unambiguous. It does not prohibit mere possession of a device to suppress the noise of a firearm.
Even if the term "use" in RCW 9.41.250 were ambiguous, rules of statutory construction would dictate against interpreting the term to include mere possession. First, RCW 9.41.250 is a criminal statute. Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). Here, of course, that would be an interpretation excluding mere possession. Second, where the Legislature employs certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another part, a difference in legislative intent is indicated.United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Department of Rev., 102 Wn.2d 355, 687 P.2d 186 (1984). The Legislature has employed the term "possession" in RCW 9.41.250 and thereby has made mere possession of certain weapons a misdemeanor. The Legislature did not employ that same term with reference to noise suppression devices. According to this rule of construction, the Legislature's failure to do so indicates that is did not intend "use" to include mere possession.
We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY
Attorney General
MAUREEN HART
Sr. Assistant Attorney General
RCW 9.41.250
Dangerous weapons — Penalty — Exemption for law enforcement officers.
(1) Every person who:

(a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

(b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

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

is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to:

(a) The possession of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer while the officer:

(i) Is on official duty; or

(ii) Is transporting the knife to or from the place where the knife is stored when the officer is not on official duty; or

(b) The storage of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer.

 

[Bhowe]

Maybe this has been posted already....


AGO 1988 No. 16 - August 30, 1988

<broken link removed>
CRIMES - FIREARMS

It is not unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to merely possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
August 30, 1988
Honorable Kent Pullen
State Senator, 47th District
Institutions Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
Cite as: AGO 1988 No. 16
Dear Senator Pullen:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked for our opinion on a question we have paraphrased as follows:
Is it unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm?
We answer your question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.
ANALYSIS
RCW 9.41.250, the provision about which you have inquired, provides:
Every person who shall manufacture, sell or dispose of or have in his possession any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement; who shall furtively carry with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(Emphasis added.)
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
In essence, your question is concerned with whether the term "use" in the underscored language of RCW 9.41.250 includes mere possession of a noise suppression device. Absent a statutory definition, words in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning. Davis v. Department of Empl. Sec., 108 Wn.2d 272, 737 P.2d 1262 (1987). The ordinary meaning of the term "use" is to put a thing into service or action. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 2523-2524 (1981). Thus, the use of a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm contemplates employing that device or putting it into service. Although use of such a device may be incident to possession, use is quite different from simply possessing the device or exercising control over it.
In our opinion, the language of RCW 9.41.250 about which you have inquired is unambiguous. It does not prohibit mere possession of a device to suppress the noise of a firearm.
Even if the term "use" in RCW 9.41.250 were ambiguous, rules of statutory construction would dictate against interpreting the term to include mere possession. First, RCW 9.41.250 is a criminal statute. Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). Here, of course, that would be an interpretation excluding mere possession. Second, where the Legislature employs certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another part, a difference in legislative intent is indicated.United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Department of Rev., 102 Wn.2d 355, 687 P.2d 186 (1984). The Legislature has employed the term "possession" in RCW 9.41.250 and thereby has made mere possession of certain weapons a misdemeanor. The Legislature did not employ that same term with reference to noise suppression devices. According to this rule of construction, the Legislature's failure to do so indicates that is did not intend "use" to include mere possession.
We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY
Attorney General
MAUREEN HART
Sr. Assistant Attorney General
RCW 9.41.250
Dangerous weapons — Penalty — Exemption for law enforcement officers.
(1) Every person who:

(a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

(b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

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

is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to:

(a) The possession of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer while the officer:

(i) Is on official duty; or

(ii) Is transporting the knife to or from the place where the knife is stored when the officer is not on official duty; or

(b) The storage of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer.

I have seen the language used (no pun intended) in the RCW section and been very confused myself. I think this is very interesting though and thank you for posting it as it may help tremendously.

Further to the point of unclear language, I finally got a call back from a special agent from the ATF and was told that, according to how he inturpreted WA state law (which he even made reference to being kind of dumb in different words), you cannot even put one on your gun in the state.

He cited a recent case he worked on, and without giving too much detail, a person who lived on the WA/ID border travelled frequently to a place on the ID side to shoot his suppressors. I think what he said was the man either did, or almost did get in trouble for crossing the line on his way back home after shooting (the road weaves from one side of the border to the other) just for having them on his guns.

News to me. What are we supposed to make of all this. Perhaps we should all take a shot everytime someone representing the justice system gives a different insight on what the laws actually are...just to make things interesting.

 

[Bhowe]

Furthermore, I would have to find the Federal law, but there is absolutely no law in the RCW that says anythng about silencers being illegal in ANY manner, other than using them. Does this mean we can manufacture them for ourselves, then go out of the state to test them/use them?

 

[Ranb]

Does this mean we can manufacture them for ourselves, then go out of the state to test them/use them?

It most certainly does.

Ranb

 

[wired]

You're right, it isn't any of our business at all, the OP did post it here though and it got me thinking. That's all. It does appear that a crime was not witnessed. Intent may or may not mean anything here, but it may well mean something to the OP in what it takes to get his suppressors back and stay out of trouble. Be that as it may, the OP appears to be soliciting advice/sympathy here. I my mind, its just not adding up; appears some of those among us aren't too bright.

case in point:

I shoot at ranges quite often. In fact I welcome the opportunity to become a test case if it came down to it. The possibility of a misdemeanor conviction for standing up for something I believe in doesnt bother me. I'm still going to drive over the speed limit and talk on my cell phone.

As far as the ATf agent thinking they cannot be attached to a gun thats not what the RCW says and if that is their position they should probably stop approving integrals.

 

[Outrider]

What are we supposed to make of all this. Perhaps we should all take a shot everytime someone representing the justice system gives a different insight on what the laws actually are...just to make things interesting.

There are three times a law gets meaning. The first time is when it is enacted. The second time is when it is interpreted by those charged with enforcing it. And the third time is when it is finally interpreted in a court case.

Each phase has an interpretation that gives the words meaning and context. The written word may be that a suppressor may not be "used" in the state of WA, but "used" may have an expansive definition that includes suppressors attached to the gun. -There are classes and seminars on statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court often has to address what a law actually means and what interpretation goes too far.

 

[ZachS]

. -There are classes and seminars on statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court often has to address what a law actually means and what interpretation goes too far.

And in courts at every level even well-trained, experienced judges will interpret the same law in different ways (often for reasons that have nothing to do with politics).

It seems like it should be easy to interpret statutes, and their meanings can seem obvious and clear - but they aren't written or applied in a vacuum.

So be careful out there, Washington silencer owners.

 

[watcher]

Though I am sure they have more important concerns I guess that the State of WA AG's office knows that this law is going to eventually cause a problem.

As soon as one "civilian" gets hauled into court over using a suppressor a hundred witnesses will appear at the trial, under oath, describing how they have witnessed LE using suppressors. There is no exemption under the state law or an AG's opinion that permits LE to use a suppressor.

There are at least two PDs in the Seattle area that openly use suppressors in their SWAT team training.

The State is screwed. They can hardly give an amnesty to PD offenders and not civilians for breaking the same law. They can't stand the publicity of a lawsuit that exposes years of officially condoned law breaking. The best thing that could happen for the state judiciary is that the law is rewritten permitting use, then nobody will have a reason to bring up the previous state of affairs. The only difficulty there is the bunch of Seattle area anti politicians who would rather fry than give an inch on gun rights.

 

[wired]

Good old civil disobedience.