Are local WA suppressor ordinances preempted?

[Flopsweat]

With the passing of Washington HR 1604 "Relating to firearm noise suppressors; and amending RCW 9.41.250", are local suppressor ordinances no longer valid via state preemption? I was poking around and found this in 10.41.280 of Bellevue’s Ordinance NO. 5271:

C. Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

I’ll bet there are more of these. Are they worth pursuing, or are they usually just left as-is and (theoretically) not enforced?

Thanks, Floppy

 

[NavyLCDR]

Yes, the local ordinances would be preempted by RCW 9.41.290. Yes, they are worth pursuing. The problem that I have with local ordinances that violate preemption is that lesser informed people will believe them to be valid and allow the local government to violate their rights, especially when local governments have such erroneous ordinances posted on 'no firearms' signs at parks and public places.

 

[Flopsweat]

Thank you. How would you recommend that I go about pursuing this? IANAL and I’ve never done this sort of thing before.

---------------

ETA: While reading RCW 9.41.290 “State preemption” I found this:

Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter.

and in 9.41.300 I found only this that seems to authorize a local ordinance:

(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.

It sounds like the entire Bellevue ordinance may be invalid, but I wouldn’t take my word for it. I should probably ask a lawyer. Any ideas?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I would just write a letter to the city council explaining that RCW 9.41.290 prohibits municipal governments from restricting firearms more than state law and ask them to amend the offending ordinance to match the wording in RCW 9.41.250:

Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

If they don't answer your letter, then show up at the next city council meeting and talk to them in person.

If you want to talk to more people who are active in doing such things, check out the Washington subforum at:

http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/forum.php

 

[Flopsweat]

Thanks!

 

[FourTeeFive]

Has anyone asked gun ranges about the use of suppressors?

 

[Powderman]

I can tell you that most ranges will not break a sweat when you show up with your suppresor of choice. However, I would advise suppresor owners--especially during the first few months of the new law--to print out a copy of the new law and carry it with you for a while when you have the suppressor mounted.

 

[deadin]

I can tell you that most ranges will not break a sweat when you show up with your suppresor of choice.

But will they drop their requirement for hearing protection while shooting?
(One of the main legitimate reasons for having a suppressor.)

Maybe, if you are the only one on the range.

 

[Rmeju]

Actually, the wording of the ordinance sounds less restrictive than the state law, which if I remember correctly prohibits the mounting of the suppressor onto the firearm. In order to violate the ordinance, you'd have to mount the suppressor first and then fire a round through it.

That said, the preemption exceptions don't seem to allow Bellvue to pass such an ordinance in any case.

 

[Powderman]

Deadin, a good suppressor will reduce the sound of a shot to about that of a .22 LR in most small to medium calibers. This means that you STILL should wear hearing protection in any case.

 

[deadin]

This means that you STILL should wear hearing protection in any case.

Gee, you mean that all of the excuses that "I want a suppressor so I don't have to wear cumbersome earmuffs" or "I want a suppressor so I won't upset the neighbors when I'm shooting in my backyard" or "I want a suppressor so I won't hurt my ears in a HD situation", don't really hold water?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Actually, the wording of the ordinance sounds less restrictive than the state law, which if I remember correctly prohibits the mounting of the suppressor onto the firearm. In order to violate the ordinance, you'd have to mount the suppressor first and then fire a round through it.

Not any more. RCW 9.41.250 has been amended to read:

RCW 9.41.250:
Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.