Vague laws and avoiding arrest.

[Ranb]

Are you talking about the lawsuit problem or the problem with installing noise reduction contraptions? I think the Gig Harbor range installed down range baffles as a result of a lawsuit. It was purely a safety measure though, not intended to reduce noise as far as I know. There is a Fred Store a few hundred yards down range from the shooting positions. It is much more confined than the 2400 yard buffer zone at the Kitsap Club.

As far as I know, no one has run into a problem with being told that a noise reduction structure was illegal, but I am not sure if any other shooting range in WA has installed a structure purely for noise reduction either. I have been away from home working on the east coast for over a month now, so I have not been able to discuss it much with the locals back home.

By asking the Attorney General if various devices or structures are legal, I fear that I might be opening a can of worms and making trouble for any sound reduction structures currently in use.

A brief Google search did not turn up anymore info on WA range lawsuits. I found a link to the NRA's involvement in WA lawsuits here; http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Washington . The info is a bit old. The Gig Harbor Club refused to move and is safe for the time being.

Ranb

 

[Spindrift]

Are you talking about the lawsuit problem or the problem with installing noise reduction contraptions?

Both, I guess.

Did anyone install a noise reduction contraption and run into trouble for doing it?

 

[Ranb]

I posted on several gun forums when searching for ideas on my rifle enclosure. The only contraptions like the one I made for noise reduction were on ranges outside of Washington. As far as I know the ranges in WA only use berms, baffles and shooting positions that are enclosed except for the front.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I have made some progress. One newspaper published an article on the State's prohibition of noise suppression associated with firearms. Another article should be out soon. The Attorney General has said he will issue an informal opinion on the law banning firearm noise suppression. Informal opinions are written by his minions, not by the AG. I have no idea how long it will take to get anything in writing or what it will say. I suspect that he will say that devices not attached to the firearm are allowed to be used.

I got an opinion from the ATF. Even though federal law describes silencers as devices for muffling portable firearms, is says nothing about the attachment or portability of the silencer. The ATF's letter said that the device I described (a large shooting box) would not be controlled as a silencer at the federal level.

A bill to allow the use of registered silencers will get a hearing in the House this month. Rumor is that it is likely to pass and go the Senate where it will also pass. The Governor is a bit of an unknown on this issue though.

I did find something else interesting in the Washington State RCW's. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.25.210 Apparently the State grants money to rifle ranges in part for noise abatement. I wonder how they get around the ban in 9.41.250(c)? Surely calling it abatement instead of suppression is not enough.

Ranb

 

[Uncayimmy]

The context, though, is that of dangerous and/or concealed weapons (switchblade knives, brass knuckles, and silencers for nefarious purposes) not noise suppression on a shooting range.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

I don't either. I would also note that you are not suppressing the noise with a device. You are redirecting it with a structure. With your design the amount of noise emitted from the weapon remains unchanged whereas with a "real" suppressor the noise is attenuated. By your logic any indoor firing range would be a suppressor, which I'm pretty sure is perfectly legal.

 

[Pantaz]

It's not a noise reduction enclosure, it's a safety enhancement. ;-)

 

[Ranb]

Yesterday was an interesting day. A few hours after I my last post here, I got a call from Representatives Finn's office telling me the Attorney General had issued an opinion. Since RCW 9.41.250 is part of the criminal code/dangerous weapons section, the AG's opinion it only bans the use of a weapon, not a structure or device used as noise abatement only.

The letter from Representative Finn said in part;

Does RCW 9.41.250 prohibit shooting ranges and clubs from erecting noise-reduction structures, such as buffers, berms, down-range walls or containments?

The brief answer from Deputy Solicitor General Jefrey T. Even is;

No. RCW 9.41.250(c) makes it a gross misdemeanor to use "any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm." This statute is directed at prohibiting dangerous weapons and not as noise-reduction more generally. Understood in context, the quoted phrase does not prohibit efforts to reduce noise more generally.

Now I know what the law means, at least in the eyes of the AG’s staff. I wrote a letter to the local prosecutor asking if he agrees with the AG; hopefully he will.

I also found out that the bill to allow firearm silencer use is getting a hearing in committee, is expected to pass the House and should not see serious opposition in the Senate.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

The local prosecutor agrees with the AG opinion and says that is would be impossible to prosecute a person for using a noise abatement structure that was not attached to the firearm. I installed my shooting box again yesterday. Another shooter and I fired about thirty rounds through it. It worked very well; it made the harsh loud noise of the muzzle braked rifles sound like a muzzle loaded rifle with a lower pitch.

There were several problems. The powder typically used in the 50 BMG is smoky enough to obscure the view through the box after firing only one shot. In fact so much smoke pours out of the gaps of the box that it looks like it is on fire for a brief period. The front panel of plywood was broken after only five rounds and had to be removed. The box needs to be securely fastened to the shooting bench to keep it from moving around. After twenty rounds the rear firing port broke from the shock waves of the muzzle brake. Removing it caused much more gas to vent back towards the shooter. While I can leave the front plywood port off of the box, the rear one needs to be installed for shooter comfort. I will try one inch plywood attached with angle iron next.

The club will head to court in March for the trial regarding the noise/safety lawsuit. I attended and spoke at the House Judiciary hearing for the silence use bill. It was later approved unanimously and sent to the House where it will be read then sent to the Rules committee.

Ranb