Need 50 cal rifle noise reduction device.

[IndispensableDestiny]

IANAL, but I read the complaint, and looked at the property on Google Earth. Seems you've had many Seattle liberals cross the water and move into your parts.

But, most of the complaint has nothing to do with noise. Lawyers do throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks, but its fairly common that a non-conforming use cannot expand its activities. Imagine you own a trucking company and have space for 10 trucks and an office in a non-conforming use. If you try to expand that to 20 truck spaces and start storing gravel on the site, you will run into legal problems.

So even if you abate the noise with the wonderful ideas presented in this thread, they will still want you out, and likely have enough "ammo" to enjoin the club from operating as it does now.

Not that's its relevant, I couldn't help but notice that the Navy owns adjacent land and stopped shooting activities there. I also noticed that the club leases the land from WA DNR. I suspect a result of the suit will be that DNR does not renew the lease in 2018, or finds reason to terminate it early.

 

[Ranb]

The club owns the land now. Kitsap county and the DNR did a land swap, then KRRC bought the land outright.

Improving berms and adding a few shooting bays should not lead to problems. It is still a 200 yard range at the farthest and has been that way for a long time. Whether or not these alleged unauthorized improvements should result in denial of shooting privileges is something for the courts to decide now.

Ranb

 

[Z-Michigan]

but its fairly common that a non-conforming use cannot expand its activities

Common, but land-use lawyers make their money arguing over what constitutes an expansion of activities. Seems like an arguable issue here.

Good luck, Ranb.

 

[Ranb]

I got an e-mail from the Kitsap County prosecutor. He says that using anything to reduce the noise of a firearm even if not attached to the gun would be illegal. I guess the only legal way to lower the noise level from a rifle range in WA is to ban loud gun use at the range or ban them all together. This sucks big time.

Ranb

 

[LaEscopeta]

He says that using anything to reduce the noise of a firearm even if not attached to the gun would be illegal.

I am not a lawyer, but that does not seem correct. But a lot about the law does not seem correct to me.

 

[Z-Michigan]

I got an e-mail from the Kitsap County prosecutor. He says that using anything to reduce the noise of a firearm even if not attached to the gun would be illegal.

Unless WA has some incredibly bizarre laws (and I know that's possible, given the law that you can own a suppressor but can't use it), this seems 100% wrong, and probably made up by him out of ignorance and/or just to get you depressed and ready to give in.

Various sorts of noise baffles are used at ranges across the country. I'm sure you can find some clubs in WA using them. I've never heard of anyone on the planet equate noise control measures on a range with a firearm-attached suppressor.

 

[Ranb]

The DA's letter in part said;

The statute declares "any device" to suppress sound illegal. That's a very broad statement. Although I can say that pursuing someone for testing a device like the one you describe would rank pretty low on our list of priorities, it sounds like it would be technically illegal.

It was "common knowledge" a few years ago that the police were exempt from prosecution for silencer use. That is no longer so, or so says the WA AG. I wrote to him asking if form 1 and 4 owners could enjoy the same exemption and I got a letter back saying the AG is not authorized to exempt anyone from prosecution for breaking the law.

I cannot be arrested for breaking RCW 9.41.250(c) unless it is witnessed by the police, but I am not about to risk it or ask club members to take the same risk either. Not when the club is being sued by the county.

Here is a link to the law; http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.250

Ranb

 

[waterhouse]

Any indoor ranges in the state? Seems like those walls and roof and such would reduce noise without being attached to the firearm. It's hard to play the game when the other side gets to make up the rules as they go along.

Good luck on your very uphill battle.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Wow, WA states are written more poorly than those in my state:

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

Sounds like it was written by some 1930's college students playing dress-up.

Any way, certain types of baffles only redirect sound, they don't suppress it in any way. That might be an option. But I absolutely understand your caution given the situation.