Vague laws and avoiding arrest.

[Ranb]

That is a good idea. There is a long list of definitions in RCW 9.41.010 and they are not included. I guess I could include that in a request if I can convince anyone else to make one.

Ranb

 

[quadraginta]

Well, "contrivance" and "device" aren't defined terms, so the meaning is unclear.

However, if it meant permanent structures then ANY kind of soundproofing could be interpreted as illegal. Though, perhaps not given that general sound proofing isn't explicitly for firearms.

That said, call these things "privacy booths" and the fact that they reduce the noise of high-powered rifles is just a coincidence would cover things...right? I mean, they reduce all noise, so you can say the intention is to reduce the noise coming from other people at the range.

I like this one. The burden of proof would go to the prosecution, and they'd have to explain why your construction violated the spirit of the silencer law. Then, if they start chasing a "letter of the law" interpretation the appeals will get you the review you want.

Very public ones. That will bring you as much NRA support as you could stand. They're publicity sluts at heart. If you time it right the appeals could end up coming around in time for the 2012 elections. The local politicians will be beating a path to your door.

 

[Ranb]

I wonder how much would this cost me in legal fees? I have yet to find a pro-gun lawyer in WA, or even one that knows much about gun control or trusts as they relate to NFA weapons.

Ranb

 

[casebro]

Cheaper than fighting on the legal front, the range ought to buy the neighbor out, put a clause on the deed, and resell to some one else. Would only cost real estate commissions, plus the overpayment needed to convince the pitas to sell.

 

[Ranb]

The people that moved in next to the range do not want to sell, they want the club shut down or shooting hours curtailed. I hear there are still plans for suburban development in the area.

I don't think that will work. The county has had eyes on the clubs property for many years. It was owned by the Department of Natural Resources up until about two years ago. The club had a lease back then. Recently the land was traded with the county. As the county allegedly had a history of vacating leases on properties they wanted to develop, about 300 people showed up to the county commissioners meeting to support the club when the land swap was in the works. The end result was the land swap took place; the county sold the land to the club.

Here is the County's position on the lawsuit. http://www.kitsapgov.com/pros/krrc.htm
Here is the club's position. http://save-our-range.org/declarationsnew.html

A poster on another forum suggested that I try to get a declaratory judgment in the district court. There is a lawyer that is a member of the club. I will have to contact him about it.

Ranb

 

[Drachasor]

I think the noise thing is a valid issue, but seems to me like it can all be resolved without too much difficulty.

What's the budget like for the soundproofing? Would fences like the ones used along some stretches of highways work and be an option?

 

[quadraginta]

The "noise thing" reminds me of people moving into new sub-developments next to the Greensboro, NC airport, and then complaining about the noise from runway expansions that had been planned for twenty years.

The property reverts to the county if the gun club goes belly up? For free? In a residential growth area?

Man, you are so screwed. The kids at the new elementary school that gets built there will still be finding spent rounds when your great-grandkids are attending.

 

[Ranb]

I think the noise thing is a valid issue, but seems to me like it can all be resolved without too much difficulty.

What's the budget like for the soundproofing? Would fences like the ones used along some stretches of highways work and be an option?

The club has already restricted shooting hours. My attempt to reduce noise by installing a noise barrier was shot down by the local prosecutor when he told me it would be illegal to use. This means sound proofing is potentially a legal liability. I am trying to find out what kind of improvements are legal, but the state will not co-operate.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

The property reverts to the county if the gun club goes belly up? For free? In a residential growth area?

Man, you are so screwed. The kids at the new elementary school that gets built there will still be finding spent rounds when your great-grandkids are attending.

The property does not revert to the county if the club has to stop shooting as far as I know. But of shooting is not allowed, club members will no longer pay dues, the club will not have any income and will not be able to stay on the land as they can not afford to pay the taxes. I'm not sure who gets the land if it is forfeited due to non-payment of tax.

The property nearest the downrange buffer zone is a secondary school. The school administrators are not concerned about the range and have never reported any problems as far as I know.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Go for it!
Build away!

Innocent until proven guilty.

The thing is I am not Rosa Parks; I am not demanding equal rights. I am merely trying to protect an area in Kitsap County that has been used for recreational shooting for the last 84 years. If I get nailed for using an enclosure to contain muzzle blast, then I am on my own. Spending thousands of bucks to secure the release of my property and clear my record is not something I am willing to do when I am 12 years from retirement.

Getting caught using an illegal firearm suppression device is likely to cost me any firearm I have with me at the rifle range as well as legal problems for anyone else there. Some of the police here feel that owning or attaching a suppressor is intent to use, therefore illegal. It does not matter that no law was broken when your property is seized by the police. You have to kiss the county's ass to get it back, and then hope it is still in the same condition if they decide to be nice and actually release it.

Ranb

 

[quadraginta]

The property does not revert to the county if the club has to stop shooting as far as I know. But of shooting is not allowed, club members will no longer pay dues, the club will not have any income and will not be able to stay on the land as they can not afford to pay the taxes. I'm not sure who gets the land if it is forfeited due to non-payment of tax.

This is what your club's injunction rebuttal document (.pdf)says.

If KRRC no longer operates the range then the land reverts back to Kitsap County. If County orders the range to cease operation, it places KRRC in direct violation of the covenant and might trigger the reversion of the property. This raises the question of whether the County was negotiating in good faith when it negotiated the terms of the Bargain and Sale Deed. Equitable Estoppel should certainly prevent the County from gaining anything from its bad faith.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but it not only seems to say that the county gets the land back, but also that the county planned the whole thing all along. Sort of a badger game.

The property nearest the downrange buffer zone is a secondary school. The school administrators are not concerned about the range and have never reported any problems as far as I know.

Ranb

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I just pulled 'school' out of my hat, because that is one of the sorts of things that county governments can spend a lot of time, energy, and money on. I didn't realize they also had a school property already adjacent to the club. (I must have missed that. ) You have to realize that this would not improve matters. Starting a new school facility is one thing, expanding an existing one would be even more attractive.

Maybe the hazmat thing will help, but you're sitting on what amounts to a pot of cash for the county.

Good luck, dude. You're standing between politicians and free money. There probably aren't enough rifles.

 

[Ranb]

I read some of the declarations a while back, but I did not remember everything I read. But those items you brought up do not really concern me right now as there are other people devoted to the club's legal problems. But thanks for bringing them to my attention again.

The club has requested that I design and build noise reduction devices; so that is what I did. It is the noise reduction legal hurdles I need help with now. The club attorneys are busy with the actual court battle and we are not paying them to make the club less noisy. I do not trust the county attorney who is suing the club to keep me from being arrested for use of an illegal firearm noise suppression device. I need an opinion from his boss in Olympia before I spend any more money on a noise reduction project.

With my district Representative unable or unwilling to help, I need to move on to someone else who can talk the AG into writing a formal opinion. Or I need to obtain a declaratory judgment from the court.

Ranb

 

[geni]

1)asking for legal advice on the web is of limited ultilty

2)in most western countries any reasonable attempt to meansure the number of laws is going to produce an answer in tons.

There is at this point in time no way to be certian that any given action is legal.

 

[WildCat]

That is nice. As far as I know, the NRA has not helped with the KRRC. I may be wrong though. The KRRC stopped making NRA membership a requirement after they refused to help out when a club member was accused of machine gun possession. The ATF refused to prosecute, but the county has indicted the guy three times (keeps on getting dismissed) and plans on trying him again.

The dues used to be $60/year plus ten hours of labor at the club. The club is almost completely dependant upon the membership to keep it in proper condition for safe shooting. $100 was tacked on to each renewal (even life members) for 2011. The club estimated that we will lose about 25% of the nearly 1000 members, but this will help a lot with the legal bills.

The club paid several thousand bucks for an expert to give them advice on a strategy when fighting it in court. They are also trying to raise $100,000 for the defense by raising dues and asking for donations. The US Navy is not allowed to use the range for training anymore after complaints (allegedly) were made to Senator Murray who then complained to the local admiral.

I have to talk to Representative Finn about the letter before I can find out if he is willing to give me a copy. Unfortunately I end up talking more to his aide, when I can talk to anyone at all over there.

Ranb

How about asking Finn about amending the law, and a nice fat check to his campaign fund wouldn't hurt.

Probably way cheaper than the lawyers.

 

[Ranb]

How about asking Finn about amending the law, and a nice fat check to his campaign fund wouldn't hurt.

I have been talking to Finn and others for over two years about changing the law banning silencer use. I do not have the money for campaign contributions and lobbying. There is no large grass roots organization willing to devote time and money to this cause. I need to convince more than one Representative to support the bill. I do not think Finn can convince the Judiciary chairmen to give the bill a hearing.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

1)asking for legal advice on the web is of limited ultilty

2)in most western countries any reasonable attempt to meansure the number of laws is going to produce an answer in tons.

There is at this point in time no way to be certian that any given action is legal.

Not looking for legal advice, I'm looking for ideas. I do understand that free advice is frequently worth what I paid for it.

I am trying to find out exactly what is legal. There is supposed to be a means of finding out, but the AG is not willing to play ball.

Ranb

 

[geni]

I am trying to find out exactly what is legal. There is supposed to be a means of finding out, but the AG is not willing to play ball.

Err the means for finding out is to get taken to court and then have one side or the other to appeal all the way to the supreme court. The attorney general doesn't know if it is legal or not and would be foolish to go on record on way or the other.

 

[Ranb]

The AG knows that using a device to suppress firearm noise is illegal. I need to know what constitutes a device that suppresses firearm noise. The AG will issue an opinion on a law under certain conditions. I feel that an AG opinion is much safer than facing a judge.

The AG clarified the definition of a shotgun here, http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=14312 and he defined the word "use" here, http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8666

I want to know what the words device and contrivance mean. I want to know if devices that are not attached to the firearm are banned by law. The AG can do this.

Ranb

 

[quadraginta]

The AG knows that using a device to suppress firearm noise is illegal. I need to know what constitutes a device that suppresses firearm noise. The AG will issue an opinion on a law under certain conditions. I feel that an AG opinion is much safer than facing a judge.
The AG clarified the definition of a shotgun here, http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=14312 and he defined the word "use" here, http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8666

I want to know what the words device and contrivance mean. I want to know if devices that are not attached to the firearm are banned by law. The AG can do this.

Ranb

You say this as if no one ever contemplated challenging a state AG's opinion in a court of law. I don't think history bears this out. It might help discourage some challenges, but if someone disagrees strongly enough, or wants something badly enough it'll end up in court just like any other legal disagreement.

Good luck. You certainly have a reasonable position as far as this particular issue is concerned. I hope that's enough. Unfortunately laws, when the wording is ambiguous and other factors are at play, often need to be tested and adjudicated in courts. That's pretty much what the courts are for. I wish you well in your efforts to avoid them, but I'm not very sanguine about your chances. It sounds like there are a lot of other interests involved beyond that one point of interpretation. They're probably going to get their day in court, too.

 

[Ranb]

I am aware that an AG opinion does not have the force of law, but I think it will be a good way to avoid legal hassles. The AG's website says the opinions are worth something.

Attorney General Opinions are researched much like opinions issued by appellate courts and require a similar analytical and drafting effort. Attorney General Opinions are not binding on the courts, but they are usually given careful consideration and respect.

I am devoting much more time and resources to amending the law than to obtaining an AG opinion. The suggestions and opinions in this thread have been illuminating.

Ranb