• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vague laws and avoiding arrest.

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,313
Location
WA USA
The rifle range I use is being sued by the county over noise, safety and zoning issues. The club that owns the property asked me to come up with a shooting enclosure to reduce the noise of the high powered rifles used there. I obtained three foam filled steel doors and bolted them together to form a seven foot long triangular box with small openings in the front and rear. Inserting the rifle barrel into the box when shooting would significantly reduce sound levels near the rifle range.

The problem is that RCW 9.41.250(c) prohibits the use of "any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm". I had always assumed that this only applied to devices (silencers) attached to the firearm. The law was enacted as an anti-poaching measure back in 1934 as far as I know. Just to be on the safe side, I contacted my county sheriff and prosecuting attorney for advice, but no answer from them. So I contacted the prosecuting attorney in Kitsap County (the one suing the rifle range). His opinion was that the broad nature of the law meant that use of my box would be illegal, although he was unlikely to "come after me" for using it.

The last thing I need is to facilitate a gross misdemeanor at the club while it is involved in the expensive business of defending itself against a lawsuit. I felt that the best thing to do was ask the State Attorney General for an opinion. The AG will provide an opinion "to clarify the interpretation of statutes whose meaning is in dispute or doubt, or which appear to be inconsistent with other state laws."

I cannot ask the WA Attorney General for an opinion as he does not respond to resident requests. One of my district Representatives sent the AG a letter requesting an opinion, but was denied. I'm still not sure why the AG refused to provide an informal or formal opinion as I was not allowed to read his response to my Representative, but his aide said the request did not meet the AG’s requirements to be worthy of an opinion.

I needed to know if devices like shooting boxes, berms, down range baffles and sound insulated shooting rooms would be legal. Some of these devices are currently in use in Washington State, but it seems like it would only take a complaint by a disgruntled neighbor near the range to make legal problem for their use. I have heard people say that RCW 9.41.250(c) could be interpreted to ban ear plugs and indoor shooting ranges, but this is almost certainly not true

It seems that the only way to find out if these devices are legal to use in WA, is to use them and see what the judge and jury say. That is a bit reckless for my taste. Anyone else here ever have a problem finding out what their state laws mean?
Thanks.

Ranb
 
Could the club hire an attorney to give them an opinion? Not foolproof but if you get an opinion that says don't do it, then you know it may not be a good idea.

Is any member of the club an attorney?

Your state representative sounds pretty lame. I would get multiple people to ask for it and perhaps from other state reps even if they aren't in your area. Target (no pun intended) those in leadership in both the majority and minority parties.

BTW: If you really want to read the response from the AG to the State Rep you probably can. It probably falls under Freedom of Information.
 
It could get pricey, but you could challenge the law in court by alleging you are in danger of prosecution. Even without using the item, plans to use the item putting your liberty at jeopardy is enough to give rise to a justicable controversy.
 
I see no problem. I don't see this being any different than soundproofing a shooting range. To be clear, is it a fixture that will be left at the range?

You don't plan on carrying around 3 foam filled steel doors around with you when you knock off the 7-11, do you? :)
 
Go for it!
Build away!

Innocent until proven guilty.

Plus, there is the whole "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" stuff.

My brother is on the radio in Baltimore, and I listen to his show. One of the morning show crew was talking about how a man wiggled his way out of a passing a stopped school bus ticket.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e18ec2db23988f7d

There's a bunch of results that I found for the story.
Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law.
 
I assume the shooting club was there long before the countryside built up with people. Isn't there some kind of grandfathering "we were there first" law you could take advantage of? I know farms are typically protected against incursions by snotty city folk who try to sue over the stink. And often against tax burden creep due to surrounding development raising the land's value.
 
C_Felix said:
Plus, there is the whole "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" stuff.

My brother is on the radio in Baltimore, and I listen to his show. One of the morning show crew was talking about how a man wiggled his way out of a passing a stopped school bus ticket.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e18ec2db23988f7d

There's a bunch of results that I found for the story.
Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like you've cited an example where the letter of the law trumped the spirit of the law. Which sounds like the opposite of the situation the OP could find himself in.
 
The club has a lawyer and legal team representing them in court now, and so far it appears to be going well for the club. The club has been in the same location since 1926, the complaining neighbors moved in within the last 20 years. The most vocal of those complaining lives right next to the range and allegedly shoots from his porch to a makeshift berm bordering the club property. The county has not been able to provide any evidence of safety violations, we have some sort of noise waver, and I think the only zoning problem was a failure to obtain a permit to install outdoor lighting.

The problem with the law is that it makes no exception for portability or attachment. It simply says “any device”. The problem with any sound proofing is that I have already been told by the prosecuting attorney in the county that it is illegal. It might be a slam dunk case in his favor if I was caught using any such device. I have already built the box, and installed it. I was about to use it when the e-mail arrived telling me that it was illegal to do so. Now it is at home sitting next to my garage.

The NRA has not shown any interest in the club’s problems. The club is no longer associated with the NRA due to other issues in the past. I have contacted them asking for advice on amending the law, but no response so far. As far as I know, the NRA has never assisted anyone when they needed help in amending state laws concerning title 2 (machine guns, silencers etc) firearms.

I contacted the ATF about an opinion, but this can backfire. Soemtimes letters asking questions give them more ideas on what to prohibit. For example it used to be legal for an FFL/SOT class 2 to replace any parts on a silencers. But after a manufacturer asked for clarification, the ATF decided it was no longer legal to do so and came out with more restrictions. The ATF has not answered my lastest letter either, but I did send it in two months ago and it can take 3-4 months for an answer.

My local politicians have resisted giving an opinion on the law because they believe that federal law will impact what they say about it. Unfortunately federal law defines a silencer as anything that muffles the report of a portable firearm. It does not say if it is required to be attached or if the silencer has to be portable. But as far as I know, the ATF has only concerned itself with portable silencers that attach to portable firearms. My district Representatives and Senator are also reluctant to meet with me about this. It took months to set up a meeting with the two Reps, and my senator has not answered a letter or e-mail from me since 2009. So yes, they are rather lame in my opinion too.

I can not force my Rep to show me the letter he got from the AG. It is not an opinion, just personal correspondence.

I have been trying to amend the law for the last few years but there is little interest in that too, not only from the legislators, but from WA gun owners as well. The WAC, the largest pro-gun group in WA has little interest in committing resources to amending the law. They want to wait until the political climate changes. Since Kline and Pedersen (the two biggest obstacles) are two of the most popular politicians in the state, change will be a long time coming.

Washington State is a diverse group of people, just like the ones on this forum. When I mention silencer use, I am likely to get the usual “silencers are illegal” retort for my trouble. Mocking the use of gun mufflers is also common. It doesn’t matter what kind of forum I post on; JREF or a gun forum. In fact the only two forums I have ever posted on where I was not accused of breaking the law when discussing silencer use are SubGuns and SilencerTalk. I need a grass roots movement and money to amend the law, and I have neither.

What I have is support in one form or another from Cease Fire WA, WASCP and WACOPS. I have managed to convince the Senate Judiciary Chairman that silencers are not illegal in the USA, but I have not convinced either one of them to give the silencer use bill a hearing in their committees instead of letting it die session after session. I have also budgeted $1000 a year to change the law, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to what I need.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
The NRA has not shown any interest in the club’s problems. The club is no longer associated with the NRA due to other issues in the past. I have contacted them asking for advice on amending the law, but no response so far. As far as I know, the NRA has never assisted anyone when they needed help in amending state laws concerning title 2 (machine guns, silencers etc) firearms.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the range is not NRA sanctioned. Even if it is just for cheaper insurance.

I know the NRA helped keep a Trap, Skeet and Sporting Clay range open in my county. Same thing, with the noise complaints even though the range has been there since the 1920's. In this case they were helpful.
 
Ranb said:
I can not force my Rep to show me the letter he got from the AG. It is not an opinion, just personal correspondence.
Click to expand...
Didn't the AG respond in his official capacity as AG to the State Rep, a state official? Whether it's an opinion or not shouldn't matter, it should be available under FOI, it is correspondence pertaining to the business of the state.
 
The Painter said:
I'm surprised the range is not NRA sanctioned. Even if it is just for cheaper insurance.
Click to expand...

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
 
Ranb said:
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
Click to expand...
Just so you know, it's been my experience that state and local government staffers often have no clue what the Freedom of Information allows and requires. Many think that they can just declare something 'private' or 'unofficial' and that makes it so. Doesn't work that way. I attended a FOI training session and one of the things we were told was "It doesn't matter if you call a mule a thoroughbred, it's still a mule."
 
I've sure heard the term "unconstitutionally vague" bandied about.
 
Wow--I'm sure the intent of the law was to reduce shooting crimes (like driveby shootings and such) that might be more prevalent if you could do it with silencers.

I'd also be willing to bet the language was vague so as not to provide easy loopholes. For example, if it had specified "muzzle-attached silencers or mufflers" some clever person could probably come up with a silencer that covers the muzzle but attaches elsewhere or something. I doubt any judge or jury would believe that it was meant to cover sound proofing fixed in place or attached to a building.

On the other hand, if there's a legitimate zoning issue, is that issue *only* related to noise?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom