WA State bill to allow silencer use.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm attempting to send this, but it says that the bill number is invalid... I'll paste it here for now since I don't want to retype it, while I try to figure out where to send this email.
Good morning, I am writing regarding a bill that I was made aware of, house bill 1604, which can be viewed here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1604.pdf

This bill calls to legalize the use of sound suppressors on firearms. These sound suppressors are helpful safety equipment that are used to protect hearing and cut down on noise polution. There is a lot of negative mythology surrounding sound suppressors, or "silencers" as they are called in Hollywood movies. For one thing, what you hear in the movies is not nearly the reality of what a suppressed firearm sounds like. A suppressed firearm, even with the most advanced modern suppressor, is still quite loud. The suppressed firearm will still give a report of 115-130 decibels, which is not the "put" sound that the movies would have us believe they make. Hearing damage occurs at 135 decibels, so having these suppressors is a great way to protect the hearing of a frequent shooter. They are also useful in teaching new shooters to not flinch from the flash and noise of a gunshot.

As the law currently states, it is illegal to use a suppressor to muffle the report of a firearm. It is completely legal to own one in Washington state, but it is illegal to use it. The process to own one is much more difficult than the process of purchasing a firearm. There is a waiting period of 2-3 months, a $200 tax, and a much more involved federal background check. This bill would not change that, because that is a federal requirement. You will also notice that suppressors are almost never used in crime. Suppressors are legal in more than half of the states in the US, and Washington is the only state that has legal ownership, but where it is illegal to actually use the suppressor. Another interesting note is that in England where firearms laws are much stricter than they are in the US, suppressors are not only easier to purchase, but they are encouraged and it is even considered rude to not use one.

So to conclude, I would like to again ask you to support this bill to legalize the use of sound suppressors and to reinforce the fact that they are safety equipment, not tools of assassins as Hollywood would have you believe. Those of us that own suppressors, or would like to own them, would appreciate the ability to shoot on our property without upsetting our neighbors and to protect our hearing. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope that gun owners in Washington state have your support.

God bless,

(name omitted from THR for privacy reasons)
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should mail it in instead.
 
Expvideo,
Point out to your legislators that the people of Oregon are clearly so much superior to the people of Washington that they can be trusted to own AND USE suppressors with no detriment to the state.

A little bit of sarcasm may help :neener:
 
Learn to call a silencer a "noise abatement device". Legislators like noise abatement and the term relieves the need to explain that a silencer doesn't silence.

Emphasize the fact that the use of sound suppression mechanisms is beneficial to the community at large since it's well established that the noise of modern life is harmful to general health, mental stability, and of course, the hearing of all and the full maturation of the hearing abilities of infants and children as they grow.
Find and include supportive medical research data.
 
The website will allow emails on this bill now, so I sent the above email that I was waiting to send. I did add a bit about how citizens with farms can use suppressors for pest control without startling or annoying their neighbors.
 
Yes, that is good.

I emailed before and used the angle that it was a safety device, used for noise abatement.

It is another one of those odd laws where; hey I already own a heavily regulated device, but the State is confused on the issue.

I'd love to own a suppressor for shooting out in the fields around here. My friends, who are farmers, have no problem with that kind of thing, but there are animals such as cows that do get spooked...
 
Response from my rep:
Thanks for educating me on the bill. At this point, unless there are some other arguments raised against it that I am not aware of, I would be inclined to vote for it when it reaches the House floor.

Mike Sells, State Rep
38th Legislative District
Click to expand...
 
Cross-posted to SilencerTalk and GlockTalk. If other folks can help spread this around NFA-friendly websites, that'd be awesome.

Please post back here with where you're added it, so we don't have multiple folks going to Subguns.com or whatnot trying to get the good word out. This is pretty promising news, if enough folks can gear up and bug their reps. If nobody gets too upset about this, and it's portrayed as "just fixing a kink in the wording of a law" it just might fly in under the radar.
 
Sent a Email and got this response from Rep. Dave Upthegrove

Thanks - I think it is a very common sense measure. I'm not optimistic about the prospects though, given that gun issues often become very emotional and ideological and the Legislature in recent years has been reluctant to take them up (regardless of whether they reduce or increase gun control).

I see this bill as a way to protect health- hearing- and to prevent noise conflicts...and don't view it as an ideological issue. I also think it is silly that we can own a noise suppressor but not use one...and that many other states allow their use. But...you probably know all of that.

Other than writing to your own legislators, the only other thing I can suggest is to email the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jamie Pedersen. Be sure to keep your correspondence brief, positive, and focusing on the specific positive aspects (like the law enforcement angle you mention), rather than an ideological argument about guns. You might also cc: Speaker Frank Chopp & Majority Leader Lynn Kessler. I think you will find Rep. Kessler to be supportive (I'm just guessing).

As Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Pedersen has the sole authority to determine which bills will be considered for a hearing and/or vote in committee. Members of leadership (like the Speaker and Majority Leader) are in communication with committee chairs as well to coordinate priorities, so that's why I suggest you include them.

That's all I can think of right now...other than getting other people to call & email their legislators too. Hope this helps,

Dave Upthegrove


So it looks like one of the most important people to convince at this point is Rep Jamie Pedersen of the 43rd district. so anyone who lives in the Seattle, capital hill or wallingford area needs to Email Pedersen with support for this bill ASAP
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/memberemail/MailForm.aspx?Chamber=H&District=43&Position=1

The law enforcement angle that I used was a letter I got back from the ATF and the DOL firearms division in which the director said that law inforcment officers are not exempted and are subject to prosecution under RCW 9.41.250 and unlesss HB 1604 passes hundreds of police officers who either currently use or have used silencers in training or in real life situations can be charged under .250 and face up to a year in jail.
 
The house Judiciary supported the bill to drop green card holders from the alien firearms licensing in the state, they may agree to fix this silly law too, you never know.

You may have found the exact thing needed with contacting the BATFE, do you have a copy of the letter you can post?

If so please scan it to PDF.

The reason is, now you have concrete evidence that we can share with our local LEAs... and you're right, any one of them that uses a suppressor as intended is just as guilty as any "joe blow"... all you would need to do is get a video tape of the police training and bingo.. they could get busted.

That angle is a good sell to the .gov employees
 
These are some excerpts from my correspondence with Bruce W. Tanaka
Firearms Unit Program Manager Dept. of Licensing Business and Professions Division.

"You are correct in your interpretation of 9.41.250, it does not give any exemptions to LEA’s"

"You bring up some insight and research that yes does and doesn’t answer a lot of the questions here. In my mind it will take changing the law and making it more clear either to exempt or not, police officers using silencers or mufflers while in their official capacity. I would suggest that since you have done some research on this subject that you contact your district rep or senator and talk about this. I’m sure that they would listen to you regarding something that would hinder law enforcement in carrying out their public service duties."

I was placed in contact with Program manager Bruce Tanaka by the ATF when they were unable to find where police officers were exempted from RCW 9.41.250 inspite repeatedly insisting that they must be. So essentially this is from the office of the guy who The ATF directly defers to on issues of state gun laws.
 
Great.. even though they are now able to issue the AFLs, the DOL is not exactly "on the ball" at all times..

However, If both the DOL and the ATF are saying that the law is gimped, that is just further evidence that WA State should change the law...
 
At this rate WA state is gonna be a pro gun state , much like texas , uh MG's anyone ? but seriously keep up the good work guys , I'll throw in my 2c worth .
 
Texas just needs to get her open carry rights restored and I would pack up and move there in a heartbeat. But this silencer issue is a fight I have been involved in for quite some time, I have a ton of vested interest in its outcome.
 
I'd be even more excited to see short barrelled rifles. I can only dream.
Click to expand...

Out of all NFA items, I'd say Suppressors are the most important to expand/promote. SBRs and SBSs are just slightly handier versions of stuff we can already get, and as long as the registry is closed Full Auto is just a rich man's toy.

Suppressors, on the other hand, are a big boon in terms of reducing noise pollution, making shooting more pleasant, and making teaching beginners easier. Definitely the highest NFA priority.

That said, I'm not a WA resident, but I went and emailed a bunch of SOTs to ask them to help spread the word. I emailed the following folks, but feel free to double-tap them and explain how important this is.

- Discount Gun Sales
- AWC
- GemTech
- SWR
- SureFire
- YHM
- Major Malfunction

I'll try and call my brother and parents in WA. If I spoonfeed them the lines and ask as a personal favor, maybe I can get them to spend 5min calling their state rep to say "I hear there's this bill, and it seems reasonable to me, so support it."

As mentioned above, the fact that LEOs are also prohibited gives us an interesting angle: "Please legalise firearm mufflers to protect the hearing of our LEOs... and strictly federally approved and licensed individuals per Federal Law like almost every other state follows."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
WA state suppressor laws can be fixed in 2009. Help!
Replies
1
Views
282
ACBMWM3
A
G
  • Locked
Washington State Propossed Handgun Ammo Bill --oh Crap!
Replies
6
Views
680
Flyboy
F
P
  • Locked
WA State HB 2264 - Gun Show Restrictions
Replies
2
Views
2K
twoclones
T
Ranb
  • Locked
Meeting with Representative Petersen about silencer bill.
Replies
9
Views
1K
Ranb
Ranb
Ranb
  • Locked
Meeting with Representative Petersen about silencer bill.
Replies
22
Views
2K
General Geoff
General Geoff
Back
Top