Washington state suppressor use - legal in home defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FourTeeFive

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
1,078
Location
PNW WA
I know it is a weird question, but here it is. I can legally own a suppressor in Washington state, I just can't fire a weapon using a suppressor. I can't legally fire a weapon in city limits but I can use my weapon for self defense in my home within city limits. So... can I legally use a weapon for self defense in my home with a suppressor?

I would imagine the court would have a field day with someone using a suppressed weapon in home defense. Anyway, just curious how this would work.
 
The answer is "NO."

If you use the firearm with a suppressor for self-defense in the home, you have firedthat gun when using a suppressor.

Admittedly, the Washington statute is nuts, but it's still the law, and you will find that cops and prosecutors are rather persnickety when it comes to suppressors.

Just don't go there.
 
As Dave said:
Just don't go there.
Click to expand...

There is an affirmative defense in the law known as "necessity." That is, you had to break a malum prohibitum law in order to prevent a greater harm. For example, you swerved across the double yellow line (against the law) in order to avoid hitting a child who stepped into the roadway. Or, you discharged a firearm within city limits (where it may be prohibited) in order to defend your life or the life of another.

If you really think you can prove (remember the burden of proof is on you) that you had to use a suppressor in self defense . . . Let's just say, your attorney will want his fee up front.
 
Thanks guys. Pretty much what I thought. I don't HAVE to use a suppressor but it would be nice as compared to getting hearing damage using a handgun in close quarters.
 
WA suppressor laws are a little corny. you can buy one, posses one, attach one to your gun, but as soon as you fire through it, you're a felon. pretty 'tarded. i wish we could find a legislator that could put forth a bill to strike that part out. of course, with a democratic near-supermajority, it wouldn't have much chance of passing. keep that in mind when you vote!

Bobby
 
The rule with NFA weapons for self defense is simple: Just dont do it.

A prosecutor with the smallest hint of anti-gun ideals would have a field day with you afterwards.

Kharn
 
Wow, I thought the law was against attaching it to a gun in WA, didn't realize you could put it on but not fire it. That's like letting us have full autos but making it illegal to load it, backdoor ban.
If you really think you can prove (remember the burden of proof is on you) that you had to use a suppressor in self defense . . . Let's just say, your attorney will want his fee up front.
Click to expand...
Like if for whatever reason you always left the suppressor on the gun and didn't have time to remove it, or if it was integrally suppressed and that was your only gun (which you've NEVER shot in WA)...
Yeah I would agree with "don't go there"! :uhoh:
 
LOL. My son and I went to meet Dino Rossi when he was at our local gun range on Monday. My son actually asked him if he would consider looking at fixing the supressor law and making it legal to put a bullet though one.

Dino was really surprised that you could own one legally yet not be allowed to shoot a bullet though it.
 
On another forum I read an interesting argument that since there is NO exemption written in for LEO use of supressors... than if they prosecute a civilian then there could be legal repercussions for police who have (and do) use them. Without explicit exemption for LEO use, they are in the same boat as the rest of us.

Makes logical sense to me, but I didn't research it.
 
I am a new poster here, and I too was interested in not only Washington State law, since I reside here, but National policy on it.

While I have no real need of a suppressor...the paper targets aren't going to hear me coming...in consideration of getting one of the new Colt Tactical Rimfires tricked out with a faux suppressor, I'm concerned about treading on very thin ice with that.

For those of you who want to know, I want it because it looks cool. Yeah, I know, at my age (51) looking cool is silly and I don't need it, but I live in a very large military town, with lots of guys on the ranges with AR15 clones, and one of those on a .22LR should almost sound like a suppressed .223. It would be enough to turn a head or two, but I don't want to turn the head of law enforcement.

Now, I read elsewhere that there is a bill in Washington Congress that would allow a legal and registered suppressor to be fitted in the state of Washington, and used. This is current as of 5/20/2009.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2009#documents

So, who knows. Maybe.

Gary
 
While I have no real need of a suppressor.
Click to expand...
Gary, you must never have had the pleasure of a session at the range with your friends without constantly put "ears" on and off.
 
It is illegal, don't do it. That being said, there is no exception in WA state law for law enforcement using suppressors, but most major departments do. A prosecutor wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. And on top of that, the cop would pretty much have to witness you shooting it, because that's almost the only way they can enforce that law. But still... it's illegal. Don't do it.
 
expvideo,

If you use a weapon with a suppressor in a SD situation then they'll know you fired it with the suppressor on.

Removing the suppressor in an attempt to conceal its use would open you to a charge of tampering with evidence and jeopardize your self-defense justification.
 
ok, first of all, in most cities in Washington it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits. Obviously this is given an exception in home defense schenarios. The same would most likely happen with a suppressor, because it was not your intention to fire through it, nut a necessity for self defense. Intent matters in this case. Also, since using a suppressor is only a gross misdemeanor, you can't be charged unless the cop physically witnesses you discharging it, regardless of how obvious it was that you used it. However, if you leave it on and admit to using it, they can also charge you. And suggesting that removing a suppressor is "tampering with evidence" does not do a lot of good for your argument. It is no more "tampering with evidence" than putting the safety on or unloading the gun.

It's not a felony, and possession of the suppressor + nobody heard the shot does not = proof.

Besides, like I said, the cops use thm illegally. Prosecuting would open a can of worms that nobody wants opened, especially over gross misdemeanor charges.
 
I'd run that by a lawyer if I were you.

Putting on the safety or unloading the gun doesn't change the circumstances of the shooting.

Using a silencer in self-defense would almost certainly fall under the general self-defense exception for the firing charge but removing the silencer post-shooting, if discovered, is going to raise questions of "why" which you are going to have to answer when making your case the shooting was justified.
 
It absolutely will raise those questions, if it is discovered that a suppressor was used. No argument here. But what it won't do is constitute "tampering with evidence".

Remember that a self defense shooting is rarely like what you see on CSI. Unless you shoot the guy from very close, you aren't going to leave suppressor burns anyway, and the balistics will be the same. The aren't going to fin out that you were using one. But the fact of the matter is that you shouldn't lie or try to cover anything up in a self defense shooting. It is much better to be charged and convicted with a gross misdemeanor than to risk looking anything less than 100% innocent. I would never advise breaking the law or lying about a shooting. I was simply refuting your argument about removing the suppressor constituting "tampering with evidence". I don't believe it would. It seems like enough of a grey area that nobody other than a judge could tell you for sure.
 
but removing the silencer post-shooting, if discovered, is going to raise questions of "why"
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that you are also making it awfully clear that you KNEW you were doing something wrong, and would probably kill any chance that you might have to claim that you thought it fell under an exemption.
 
It absolutely will raise those questions, if it is discovered that a suppressor was used. No argument here. But what it won't do is constitute "tampering with evidence".

-clipped but read-
Click to expand...

Putting it that way, I can go along.
 
Gary Curran said:
I am a new poster here, and I too was interested in not only Washington State law, since I reside here, but National policy on it.

While I have no real need of a suppressor...the paper targets aren't going to hear me coming...in consideration of getting one of the new Colt Tactical Rimfires tricked out with a faux suppressor, I'm concerned about treading on very thin ice with that.

For those of you who want to know, I want it because it looks cool. Yeah, I know, at my age (51) looking cool is silly and I don't need it, but I live in a very large military town, with lots of guys on the ranges with AR15 clones, and one of those on a .22LR should almost sound like a suppressed .223. It would be enough to turn a head or two, but I don't want to turn the head of law enforcement.

Now, I read elsewhere that there is a bill in Washington Congress that would allow a legal and registered suppressor to be fitted in the state of Washington, and used. This is current as of 5/20/2009.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1604&year=2009#documents

So, who knows. Maybe.

Gary
Click to expand...
Nice...
I just RSS'd the status on the bill.
Thanks!
 
Now- I know the law on silencers; before I joined this thread I was researching it.
So, if you want to purchase a silencer, you must obtain a signed authorization letter from your local sheriff, chief of police, whoever. Check out this site for some really good info:
http://www.tacticalinc.com/suppressor-purchasing-c-294_303.html#check

The one thing I cannot find on any website is this:

"When you approach your sheriff to ask for the signing of an authorization to purchase/own a suppressor, and they ask why you want/need to own one, what do you say to that person that won't set off cuckoo alarms and make them deny you the signature?"
 
"When you approach your sheriff to ask for the signing of an authorization to purchase/own a suppressor, and they ask why you want/need to own one, what do you say to that person that won't set off cuckoo alarms and make them deny you the signature?"
Click to expand...

I would think this might work:

I have a gun at home for self defense. It is not my intention to shoot anyone with that gun, but it is there if I need it. That is deemed as acceptable and lawful under the law and is, in fact, a right guaranteed to me by the Constitutions of the state of Washington and the United States. Given that fact, I would like to have a supressor fitted to that gun at home, so that in the unlikely event that I am forced to use that gun in self defense I will not cause damage (possibly permanent) to my hearing or damage the hearing of others who may also be in my house at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Buying a suppressor in Washington State
Replies
3
Views
1K
bikemutt
bikemutt
D
  • Locked
Suppressor for CCW?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
D
  • Locked
Class III self defense
Replies
14
Views
616
Don Gwinn
D
carnaby
  • Locked
S-0056.1 2005 to Allow Suppressors in Washington State
Replies
11
Views
1K
FourTeeFive
F
C
  • Locked
Using machine guns for self-defense
2 3
Replies
65
Views
7K
bdickens
B
Back
Top