I chose Pedersen because he is the House Judiciary Chairman. He is the one who is refusing to give the bill a hearing in committee and letting it die each session. He will not give any bill a hearing unless he thinks it will pass the House and someone tells him it is a priority. He claims that not a single Rep told him it was. He says he only has time to give about 25% of the bills a hearing, so a bill like 1604 that no one cares about is not going to get one.
Noise reduction is the most important thing to bring up. Rifle ranges in WA are being sued partly over noise complaints. In WA is illegal to use any kind of device to reduce the noise of a firearm, even if it is not attached to it. The Kitsap County prosecutor made this very clear when I asked him for his opinion on the box I made to insert a high powered rifle barrel into to reduce noise.
Bill 1604 was the only bill that would have helped to reduce firearm noise in WA. But even if the new bill passes next session, it is not enough because it only allows those devices that are registered with the feds to be used. Downrange baffles, berms and shooting enclosures are all banned in WA and will continue to be illegal even if a silencer use bill is passed because the ATF does not register rifle range berms and other noise reduction measures.
Even though some noise reduction devices are currently used at WA rifle ranges, it is only a matter of time in my opinion before they are attacked by the local prosecutors as a method of shutting down the range. RCW 9.41.250(c) needs to be amended more than bill 1604 would have, it needs to be eliminated, or at the very least, changed so that devices that aren't attached to the gun are not banned.
Senator Kline is the other important person to convince as he is the Senate Judiciary chairman. While Pedersen says he has nothing against registered silencer use, Kline is an outspoken gun control fanatic. He used to try to convince me that silencers were illegal in the USA, but has recently backpedaled to being against their legal commerce.
Cease Fire Washington, the WASPC and WACOPS (the two largest police associations in WA) have all agreed to take a neutral stance on registered silencer use in WA. Cease Fire says they have Kline’s ear, so I hope this helps. When I get letter from these groups I will post copies online so you can print them out and show them to anyone you talk to.
If you talk to a Rep or Senator, make sure you bring printouts of 9.41.250 and the silencer use bill as they will most likely be unfamiliar with them. Pedersen was unfamiliar with the bill even though I had exchanged several e-mails on the subject before the meeting. Be familiar with the federal regulations on silencer registration and the severe penalties for the NFA tax evasion and silencer use in a crime. These range from a $10,000 fine and a year in prison to a quarter million dollar fine and life in prison.
You can also inform them of the extremely low crime rate with silencers in the USA and how registered silencers are used in crime even less often then illegal ones. Those people who pay a $200 tax on each one and pass an FBI background check are less likely to abuse the privilege of owning one. I call it a privilege because the feds should not be allowed to license or tax a right.
Here is a link to good info you can study before a meeting.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34895808/House-Bill-1604-r4 It is a summary of federal and state law and has some examples of ATF tax stamp applications. If you are familiar with the contents of this link, then you will know much more than almost any WA legislator currently in office. Make a copy that you can leave with the Rep for them to look at. If you are familiar with the law and regs, then you can just casually talk about it, then hand them the "proof" in your print out for them to look at later. It is important to make silencer use seem boring and routine, like putting a muffler on a motorcycle. And in a way it is. The ATF approves ALL tax stamp applications that are filled out properly. I have yet to see one denied that was error free. It is easier for a non-felon in the 37 states that allow them to get a tax stamp for a silencer (or other title 2 weapon) than it is to get a driver's license. It is more time consuming, but can be less expensive.
Ranb
Edited to add; The main benefit that silencers have for society is noise reduction. There is no need to bring up why the police and military want to use them. Their use should be encouraged for the same reason mufflers are used on engines. Imagine restricting muffler use on engines to those people who only lived in certain states, got a signature from the local sheriff and paid a $200 tax. Silencers and mufflers protect the hearing of everyone nearby, not just the firearm or engine user. This is why silencer use should be standard. You may want to use the more benign sounding words "firearm suppressor" or "sound suppressor". You could also explain that silencer and muffler are the legal terms used by the federal government. The word silencer as a gun muffler was coined by Maxim over 100 years ago when he was marketing his new suppressors. The word silencer is also commonly used to describe the devices used to suppress engine noise in countries other than the USA. I use the word silencer on gun forms because then everyone knows I am talking about a gun muffler and not a flash suppressor. When I had my meeting with Representative Haigh and started into my spiel about firearm suppressors, she asked if I meant silencers. So I kept on using the word silencer in the meeting.
But I have been learning a lot in the last three years about the political process here in WA. 
