WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Not about banning silencer use, about amending the silencer law to exempt sound damping devices that don't attach to the firearm. Perhaps explicitly in gun ranges.
Vague laws and avoiding arrest.
- Thread starter Ranb
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun issues silencers
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,335
I have to wonder -- would it be illegal for an indoor range to put sound dampeners in its walls? There are plenty in urban areas, and they have to do it just for courtesy, for the same reason a sound store would.
It has nothing to do with a surreptitious silencer (much less a portable one.)
It has nothing to do with a surreptitious silencer (much less a portable one.)
House bill 1604 would have made an exception for silencers that were registered (typically have $200 tax paid) with the feds, but said nothing about other devices. I wrote to the bill sponsors back in October requesting that they add words exempting devices not attached to the gun. They said they would consider it. It will be at least a few weeks before I find out more.
I polled the few interested persons in WA about the silencer use bill and changing it to allow devices that were not attached. The general consensus was that adding anything to the bill would just confuse the issue for legislators that know or care little about guns and make it less likely to get a hearing in committee.
In the unlikely event that the silencer use bill passes, it should be easier to amend 9.41.250(c) further or completely do away with the law all together as it really is a meaningless law with the very strict federal laws already in place. I mean, who cares about paying a $5000 fine and a year in WA jail when the feds are ready to tack on $250,000 and 10 years to life for miss-use of silencers? Only WA legislators I guess.
The strictest interpretation of the law would prohibit indoor shooting areas. I think the law banning firearm suppression is widely ignored. The police departments use silencers I am told although the law prohibits their use by everyone, military included. I have only heard of two persons that had their silencers seized for alleged use, they were not even arrested as the WA police can only arrest people for misdemeanors they witness except for certain traffic and drug offenses. The police are only allowed by law to seize evidence of felony and drug crimes, so I have no idea how they got away with seizing misdemeanor evidence, especially when police possession of the seized silencers in this case was against federal law.
Ranb
I polled the few interested persons in WA about the silencer use bill and changing it to allow devices that were not attached. The general consensus was that adding anything to the bill would just confuse the issue for legislators that know or care little about guns and make it less likely to get a hearing in committee.
In the unlikely event that the silencer use bill passes, it should be easier to amend 9.41.250(c) further or completely do away with the law all together as it really is a meaningless law with the very strict federal laws already in place. I mean, who cares about paying a $5000 fine and a year in WA jail when the feds are ready to tack on $250,000 and 10 years to life for miss-use of silencers? Only WA legislators I guess.
The strictest interpretation of the law would prohibit indoor shooting areas. I think the law banning firearm suppression is widely ignored. The police departments use silencers I am told although the law prohibits their use by everyone, military included. I have only heard of two persons that had their silencers seized for alleged use, they were not even arrested as the WA police can only arrest people for misdemeanors they witness except for certain traffic and drug offenses. The police are only allowed by law to seize evidence of felony and drug crimes, so I have no idea how they got away with seizing misdemeanor evidence, especially when police possession of the seized silencers in this case was against federal law.
Ranb
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
You're doing it wrong. You need to attend one of those $5,000/plate fund-raising dinners your reps have. Then they take you seriously, and it's a small fraction of what you're paying the lawyers.
Yes, it's sleazy and ugly but that's how politics works. Reality, not Schoolhouse Rock.
eta: oh, and it wouldn't hurt if the rep your gun club sends to the dinner is a flirty hot chick.
Last edited:
Sounds like an idea, but my finances are going towards retirement, travel and enhancing my gun collection. The gun club's money is being sucked down the tube by the lawyer's legal fees. We have a few attractive flirty members, but they are not well healed.
On the serious side, I read that the people in Kansas hired a lobbyist for $25,000 to amend their laws allowing civilian ownership of title 2 firearms. It worked for them. I can write a check for $25K, but it is going to be for something tangible, like my new retirement home in Thailand, not to finance a Senator's hooker holiday in Vegas when he is supposed to be acknowledging my mails and phone calls.
Ranb
On the serious side, I read that the people in Kansas hired a lobbyist for $25,000 to amend their laws allowing civilian ownership of title 2 firearms. It worked for them. I can write a check for $25K, but it is going to be for something tangible, like my new retirement home in Thailand, not to finance a Senator's hooker holiday in Vegas when he is supposed to be acknowledging my mails and phone calls.
Ranb
Delscottio
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 810
I'm not sure about the US but the UK has resistance to sound built in to Building Regs for pretty much all structures.
It may be an idea to look into resistance of sound in the US building regs that all structures have to abide by then come up with an excuse to build the thing for another reason.
I asked the club about building an enclosed shooting position for high powered rifles, but they lack the money. It is a good idea though. I think the WA police would not make a big deal about a building even if it is intended to suppress the noise of gunfire.
Ranb
Ranb
Read all this over again and I've rethought things.
I think as long as whatever you make cannot be moved, then it will be fine. The law is clearly about portable silencers. Heck, even that lawyer you talked to said they basically wouldn't do anything if you built it (when they say "very low on our priority list" that's a nice way of saying "go ahead"...they can't tell you to do something they think is technically illegal).
Worst case scenario is you go to court and they'll interpret the law to find it ok (though I don't know how long that would take). Probably never see a court though.
I think as long as whatever you make cannot be moved, then it will be fine. The law is clearly about portable silencers. Heck, even that lawyer you talked to said they basically wouldn't do anything if you built it (when they say "very low on our priority list" that's a nice way of saying "go ahead"...they can't tell you to do something they think is technically illegal).
Worst case scenario is you go to court and they'll interpret the law to find it ok (though I don't know how long that would take). Probably never see a court though.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
This was one of the first suggestions he was offered (Post #5), and rejected (Post #11).
Personally, that's what I'd do. But then I can get a bit mule-headed about things like that sometimes. I think the chances are that the resulting publicity if they did go to court would be in the club's favor, and the potential to solicit donations from sympathetic supporters via Internet would be huge. They could end up with a net profit.
If it goes to court, the NRA will pay the legal fees too, I'm sure. End result would probably be the law getting changed or clarified by case law. That's assuming it even gets to court.
If I go to court, I would just be another outlaw gun owner that can not be bothered with obeying the law. Part of the State's case against me will be that I knew what I was doing was illegal and that I have no respect for the law. This will not help at all.
If the NRA will not help me now (I have already asked), it might be foolish to count on them later. I'm just not willing to do anything that might get my ass arrested.
Ranb
If the NRA will not help me now (I have already asked), it might be foolish to count on them later. I'm just not willing to do anything that might get my ass arrested.
Ranb
How did you get that from this?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.250
Nothing about portable silencers. Is says any device.
Ranb
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
A structure is not a device.
Yes, but interpreting as anything that makes things quieter is, frankly, insane. It would mean that firing a gun in a forest is illegal (you have used a contrivance -- the trees -- to suppress the noise of a firearm. Any reasonable interpretation of that statute has to be that a contrivance or device must be portable or something to that effect.
As for the NRA, they will get involved in an actual case, I'm sure. They probably can't be bothered to deal with every little thing that doesn't even come close to a court room.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
The NRA wasn't interested in helping some poor, unknown shmuck who was tangling with a greedy county government. Get some headlines and they'll be camping on your doorstep, talking to every microphone they can corner about how they've backed you from "the beginning". They're publicity whores and a money pit. As long as you make the 'little guy' popular enough to get some decent air time they'll be 'championing' you 'til you can't stand it any more.
It shouldn't be 'you vs. them' anyway. It'll be 'whoever let you build the things in their facility vs. them'. You might get an honorable mention.
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
After decades of building them, I've grown to think of structures (as in "buildings") more as machines and processes, especially big structures, but I take your meaning and agree with you in that sense.
Trying to stifle an established legal gun range with a pristine record for attempting to address the concerns of surrounding citizens would be like grabbing a political third rail once the neo-cons got hold of it. I suspect that playing semantic party games with the verbiage of a law with clear intent would be raw meat. Especially when the little part about ulterior motives and negotiating in bad faith got the right sort of emphasis.
Last edited:
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
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.
Last edited:
I guess calling a building a device is a stretch. I may be overcautious.
The club does have an image problem. One of their officers (Marcus carter) is one of the most vocal proponents of the right to keep and bear arms in the county. He was arrested for illegal machine gun possession 11 years ago and has been tried (and dismissed) three times so far. Russ Hauge, the PA who prosecuted him is the one leading the lawsuit against the range. Some people think that the lawsuit is a personal vendetta against Carter. Carter does have a problem filtering his thoughts before he opens his mouth at times.
Headlines sound like a good idea. The Kitsap Sun, a local newspaper, has been giving the range lawsuit very even coverage. I was actually shocked to read that they are not the typical fear mongering press that I have come to expect from other media like CNN. I will have to write to them and see if I can get a story on the legal difficulties associated with noise reduction.
Ranb
The club does have an image problem. One of their officers (Marcus carter) is one of the most vocal proponents of the right to keep and bear arms in the county. He was arrested for illegal machine gun possession 11 years ago and has been tried (and dismissed) three times so far. Russ Hauge, the PA who prosecuted him is the one leading the lawsuit against the range. Some people think that the lawsuit is a personal vendetta against Carter. Carter does have a problem filtering his thoughts before he opens his mouth at times.
Headlines sound like a good idea. The Kitsap Sun, a local newspaper, has been giving the range lawsuit very even coverage. I was actually shocked to read that they are not the typical fear mongering press that I have come to expect from other media like CNN. I will have to write to them and see if I can get a story on the legal difficulties associated with noise reduction.
Ranb
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Have any other gun ranges in the state run into this problem?
You may be fighting a battle that's already been fought.
You may be fighting a battle that's already been fought.
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Hindsight is 20-20, but you probably would have been better off just building the thing in the first place without asking anyone about it. I seriously doubt that anyone would have thought what you want to build is illegal until you pointed it out to them. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse it might be a mitigating circumstance. The club could have easily said, we were just trying to please the neighbors, so that the worst that would have happened was that you might have been told to remove it. It's often easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.
I would still just go ahead and build your baffle. Don't call it a silencer or suppressor. Make sure it is done under the auspices of the club. Have it recorded in the club minutes that the club approved it. That way if the law comes down, it's not just you on the hook.
The fact that there seems to be some ire between a club member and the local prosecutor doesn't help, but the fact you're doing it to try to please the neighbor might help.
I would still just go ahead and build your baffle. Don't call it a silencer or suppressor. Make sure it is done under the auspices of the club. Have it recorded in the club minutes that the club approved it. That way if the law comes down, it's not just you on the hook.
The fact that there seems to be some ire between a club member and the local prosecutor doesn't help, but the fact you're doing it to try to please the neighbor might help.