HR 1604: Washington State considers legalizing firearm suppressors. Write your reps!

State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session ^ | 1/26/09 | Representative Upgrove

[I can has Low Taxes?]

AN ACT Relating to firearm noise suppressors; and amending RCW 9.41.250.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

(1) Every person who: ... Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law (bolded is proposed modification to law) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

[I can has Low Taxes?]

For those unfamiliar, a suppressor (muffler, silencer) for a firearm can legally be owned and used in the majority of states, except for the usual suspects (IL, NY, HI, CA). You have to fill out a form and pay a $200 tax to the feds, but that aside it's not hard at all.

However, WA has had this weird quirk where you can own them, but you can't use them. And recent investigation has shown that that law even applies to LEO, as there's no exemption in the law. HR 1604 seeks to ammend the law, stating that those who have properly registered their firearm suppressors with the Feds can use them for legal purposes.

This one is pretty much a no-brainer. Criminals aren't going to register a suppressor, or be stopped by not being able to buy one. They'll just stuff a plastic bottle with some insulation and get a "silencer" good for three shots of poaching or shootout. No point punishing law-abiding target shooters who just want to preserve their hearing and not bug their rural neighbors. And it's pretty silly for WA to say that the Fed's approval isn't proof enough of good intentions, when 30-some other states say "if the ATF says you're safe, that's good enough for us."

Please write your reps and speak your mind. Folks on THR have already gotten many positive responses from reps in various parts of the states... even Democrats!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I think the fee is increased if the suppressor looks scary.

[sionnsar]

Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

[JRandomFreeper]

The laws enacted in 1968 are largely responsible for my hearing loss.

It would cost $5 to make a suppressor, if I had to buy materials. I could make a bunch from the junk pile.

But the Feral Gooberment doesn't allow that, and I follow the rules.

One of the things I want in the new Constitution is an IRON-CLAD rule against government making rules about firearms.

/johnny

[Cobra64]

"HR 1604: Washington State considers legalizing firearm suppressors. Write your reps!"

Aren't they already legal? If they are, what's the point of "legalizing" them again? Seems redundant to me.

[The Cajun]

I think the fee is increased if the suppressor looks scary.

Scary looking huh, that would make it an assault suppressor.

[I can has Low Taxes?]

Aren't they already legal? If they are, what's the point of "legalizing" them again? Seems redundant to me.

Legal to own, but not to shoot. That's pretty much like DC's "guns aren't illegal here at all... you just have to have registered them before 1978 and store them unloaded and disassembled and never take them out of the house without permission."

Presumably the law was meant to actually ban silencers back in the 1970s or whatnot, but it was poorly-written and just said "you can't shoot with them," so some folks just started arguing the fine print, buying them, and only shooting them on vacations to OR and ID. Or else just saying "forget that law" and shooting them out in the woods on their property.

Make enough dumb laws and eventually everyone is a criminal.

[MississippiMan]

Can you recommend a good legal source for suppressors these days? I wouldn’t mind hanging one on my Kimber. Never fired a suppressed weapon at all.

MM

[LukeL]

like high velocity magazines?

[wendy1946]

The Russian army has recently started using dog-whistle type supressors on their army rifles. Those don’t SILENCE a rifle so much as reduce the noise to where it doesn’t hurt human ears. They got tired of having everybody who ever served in the army being hard of hearing afterwards.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Jonathan Arthur Ciener, Inc.

http://www.22lrconversions.com/

[org.whodat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udQsexO1NY&NR=1

[SkyDancer]

ping

[I can has Low Taxes?]

Can you recommend a good legal source for suppressors these days? I wouldn’t mind hanging one on my Kimber. Never fired a suppressed weapon at all.

I'm mostly familiar with .22LR suppressors, and just got a .380 as well (but haven't shot it yet). I understand that Major Malfunction is a pretty big distributor, so if you check out their Pistol section it'll give you at least some idea of what's on the market:

http://www.major-malfunction.com/maj_malf_5u_011.htm

For a 1911, you'll have to get a sort of threaded barrel, but I'm pretty sure any suppressor company you buy from can explain how you go about attaching the suppressor properly.

Bear in mind that most calibers/loading won't be "movie quiet" in a handgun, though since .45 is already subsonic it'll be pretty quiet. On a rifle, with a really big suppressor, you can get 100% ear-safe though. I've seen some .44 Mag rifles with huge fat cans (imagine three cola cans stacked together) that were quieter than clapping:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zia1VzdBGQ

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b25/Racer351/SilentDestroyeronPorch.jpg

(how do I get the pic to show up? It's pretty awesome)

[JRandomFreeper]

.22 loaded sub-sonic is cool stuff. It's like throwing rocks. Quiet, accurate, and very dependent on learned skills.

Part of the reason politicians don't like suppressed sub-sonics.

If they see what I can do with a .38 ball bearing and a couple of strips of surgical tubing.... they would outlaw that as well.

/johnny

[SpaceBar]

Suppressors were originally devised to allow the hunting of vermin without disturbing one’s neighbors. It wasn't until much later they became associated with criminal activity.

[SuperLuminal]

bttt

[Myrddin]

In Europe you are expected or required to use a suppressor at many shooting ranges. Shooting without one is considered impolite. On the order of a Harley with extra loud pipes installed.

Hollywood deserves the blame for demonizing "silencers". Hearing protection is still a good idea, but a good suppressor helps a bunch. On a subsonic .22LR, the sound is reduced to a puff like an air gun.

[Myrddin]

My dad could have used a suppressor. He was the port 5" gunnery officer on the Iowa in 1952. He had the misfortune to be forward of the muzzle plane when a round was fired. Growing up, I was never certain whether he had real hearing loss or was mocking me when he claimed not to understand something I said.

[JRandomFreeper]

Watch the eyes to see if they are reading lips.

/johnny