Suppressors WA silencer use bill Senate hearing.

Ranb

Ranb

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 15, 2008
13
2
Belfair, WA
#1
Judiciary
1/26/11 1:30 pm
Senate Full Committee
Senate Hearing Rm 1
J.A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA

Public Hearing:
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">1.SB 5112 - Changing restrictions on firearm noise suppressors</span></span>.
2.SB 5115 - Concerning private transfer fee obligations. (Hearing is on the Proposed Substitute.)
3.SB 5170 - Increasing the number of judges to be elected in Grant county.

Everyone needs to be at this one if you can. We need industry representatives, silencer owners and people who want to use silencers.

Ranb
 
#10
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

No matter how many people show up, they will allow up to about 3-6 people to speak for each side. Hopefully no anti's will show. I can post (after I get home) the statement I had with me to refer to as notes. It would be a good idea not to bring up the poaching issue unless someone asks about it. I was ready to address it, but did not as no one asked.

There is a signup sheet for each bill at the hearing. You write down your name and address/phone number, whether you are pro or con and if you want to speak. If someone like Brian Wurst (From WACOPS, they support the bill enthusiastically), be prepared to give up your chance to speak and let him take your place if need be, I certainly would.

If you speak, be calm sincere and have some enthusiasm, but do not be angry, upset or emotional like a few I have seen speaking at hearings. It will potentially offend the committee members and that will do us no good. I should be able to attend as long as work does not interfer. I am training for an important inspection the shipyard is performing in New Hampshire. See you there.

Ranb
 
#12
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

That was Tom L. I have been exchanging e-mails with him for a while. He is a frequent poster on the Subguns forum. When I encouraged him to show for the hearing, he said he did not have a suit. I told him "the hell with the suit, I don't have one either." So he drove 100 plus miles through the snow to Olympia the night before and stayed in a motel to ensure he would be on time.

The people that will benefit the most from this bill are the class 2's and he was the only one to show up and represent the industry. The WACOPS rep was the only one in a suit. I was the balding guy in the blue shirt, black jeans and thick glasses sitting next to the WACOPS rep.

Nice clothes are good, actually showing up to speak is much better.
smile.gif


Ranb
 
#13
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Here are some notes I wrote up for my presentation to the House Judiciary committee.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like Washington, 36 other states allow civilians to own suppressors, but unlike those other states we are the only ones that prohibit their use on a firearm. The WA statute banning suppressor use does not allow an exception for their use by the police or military.

Suppressors are useful in that they reduce the noise of a firearm usually to a level that does not require shooters or bystanders to wear hearing protection. While ear plugs can prevent hearing loss for the person using a firearm, they do nothing to protect the hearing of those nearby that are not wearing hearing protection. Large and expensive noise abatement structures can reduce the noise from shooting areas, but they are limited in how well they work.

A good quality firearm suppressor can reduce noise by 20 to 30 decibels which is a 100 to 1000 times reduction in noise intensity or a 4 to 8 times reduction in loudness as heard by the human ear. Their use can greatly reduce the sound level from shooting areas.

While suppressors can greatly reduce noise and reduce the risk of hearing loss, there are disadvantages to their use. They add length, bulk and weight to the firearm. Obtaining approval to buy them is an expensive and time consuming process. These facts mean that suppressors are rare compared to other firearms.

A license is not required to own a suppressor unless they are manufactured or sold as a business. The typical gun owner wishing to own a suppressor fills out an application and sends it to the BATFE along with finger print cards, and a check for $200. This application is required to be signed by the local sheriff or chief of police. After passing a background check, the application is approved usually in 3-4 months. Any adult who can own a gun in the USA can also own a suppressor provided they pay the tax and live in a state that allows them.

Violating federal gun control laws controlling suppressors can be very severe. Simply failing to pay the tax prior to buying or making a suppressor can result in a $10,000 fine or ten years in prison. Committing violent crimes with a suppressed firearm can result in life in prison. Using a suppressor on a firearm in Washington, even a legally owned one is a gross misdemeanor with up to a $5000 fine or a year in jail.

I contacted various organizations in Washington to get their opinion on suppressor use. Michael Wolfe said that Cease Fire Washington would take a neutral stance on the use of legally owned suppressors. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police chiefs is also taking a neutral stance. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs supports the language of the bill.

Suppressor related crime is rare in Washington. Letters were sent to every county sheriff’s office requesting data on any crimes associated with suppressor use and violations of RCW 9.41.250(c). All of the county sheriffs except for five responded to the request. Most of the sheriffs said they had no experience with any suppressor crime. Five counties reported a total of ten crimes associated with firearm suppressors going back as far as they kept records on the statute. With suppressors readily available to anyone who wants one, it appears that suppressor related crime is a not a problem in our state. Since suppressors are already legal to own in this state, they are not likely to become a problem if we allow their use.</div></div>

Ranb
 
#14
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Ranb,

I was simply thinking of pointing out that we, as a society, expect cars and motorcycles to have mufflers, and various municipalities have noise ordinances to help keep noise pollution to a minimum yet we don't allow the use of sound suppressors in direct contradiction to those principles.
 
#15
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

They don't want to hear about justice. They want to hear why they (the Senate) should allow them to be used when they (everyone else) have gotten along fine without anyone using them for the last 77 years.

Senator Kline is absolutely convinced that justice is having as many restrictions on guns as possible. If you try to tell him on TV (some hearings are live, all are recorded) that he is wrong, then it may not go good for us. We have to present silencers as a benign safety device that does much more good than bad.

Ranb
 
#16
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

77 years? I thought the use has only been outlawed here since 1994 when they banned any new machine guns, SBR and SBS.
Should it be pointed out that you can use them in our two neighboring states OR and ID?

CJG
 
#17
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Nope, RCW 9.41.250(c) has outlawed silencer use since the 30's. When I first moved to WA back in 1999, I wanted to drum up support for a silencer use bill. But I was told that when Olympia banned MG's, SBR/SBS they forgot to ban silencer possession as well. If I was to remind them that silencers were still legal to own, then they would ban silencer possession too, or so I was told.

A few years went by and a silencer use bill was proposed that would make an exception for registered ones; it died in committee. Another police use only bill also died. I pushed bill 1604 for a while until it died twice. By the year 2009, I have learned a bit more and was meeting with Representatives and writing more letters as well as distributing an educational video on the legalities of silencers and their uses. WACOPS also put their support behind the bill. The WAC has not taking any action except to write to various legislators expressing their support. By the time bill 1016 was introduced, many more legislators became interested in it, possibly as a means of placating gun owners who wanted some pro-gun bills passed into law.

Yes, it should be pointed out that WA is the only state west of the Mississippi that bans silencer use. Even California allows the police military and dealers to use them. I would not mention CA though. It was emphasized during the House hearing that 38 states allow civilians to use silencers.

Ranb
 
#21
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rcnpthfndr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i wish i was home from A-stan to be there. good luck to those attending.
</div></div>

If you can, please write to your State Representatives and Senator to remind them that the law as it is written now does not even allow the military to use legally owned silencers in Washington State. Although this does not seem to stop the military from using them on federal property, it is a bad law. You can find your legislators here; http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx Thanks.

Ranb
 
#22
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Sorry but I can't be there since my wife is already there this week for training(I have kid duty).

But I have had personal conversations with my representatives who are fighting for change. I will give them a call in the am to remind them of our fight.
 
#25
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Seems to have gone well. As someone stated at the meeting, there are possibly a couple of Senators that aren't on board. One of which has now been, hopefully, educated enough. And I believe someone mentioned the House Bill as being in suspension. So let's cross our fingers folks.
 
#26
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

As far as I am aware, the house version got out of their judiciary committee with an unanimous "do pass" recommendation, and has been passed on to the rules committee, who will decide if/when it will get a second reading on the the floor (which is the next step, I believe).

I don't think the house rules committee has started doing that for any bills yet, so I don't think there's specific reason for concern on the house side of things at this point.
 
#28
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Update from another forum from somebody who was there:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seemed good. No one was in opposition.
Roach asked some questions, hopefully she is changing her mind.
Mike Carrell seemed in favor.

On the House side it has been placed on the suspension calendar and should move right thruogh.
Just waiting to see the executive action taken by the Senate.
If this goes to a vote, PLEASE contact your Senators and ask them to support this.

Today was a good step forward.</div></div>

"Suspension Calendar" is good -- from the WA legislature site:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Rules Committee decides which bills will be scheduled for second reading. Those bills that will probably require some debate are placed on the regular calendar. Those that are probably not controversial may be placed on the suspension calendar in the House</div></div>

In other words, it is scheduled for a second reading, and isn't expected to be considered controversial. This is a very positive sign.
 
#29
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

A little disappointing, there was only 5-8 people there in favor and no one against it. I was expecting more of a turn out. I guess it just shows how few people are into NFA in this state. Other than that, it went pretty good. We will see what the next step is.

CJG
 
#30
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rotortuner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A little disappointing, there was only 5-8 people there in favor and no one against it. I was expecting more of a turn out. I guess it just shows how few people are into NFA in this state. Other than that, it went pretty good. We will see what the next step is.

CJG </div></div>

I think there is a combination of factors.

1) This isn't a well organized push. And not a lot of people even know about it or even how important it is to show up

2) A lot of misinformation, largely stemming from Hollywood as we talked about in hall.

3) There is probably a certain amount of "well it's not something I like so why should I care." kind of mentality. I.e. Single Action Shooters may agree with tactical shooters who may not agree with skeet shooters...so on and so forth.

I talked to Ayoob a while back about suppressors and we agreed that largely, there is still a bit of a negative stigma around them.
 
#31
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nw1911guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think there is a combination of factors.

1) This isn't a well organized push. And not a lot of people even know about it or even how important it is to show up

2) A lot of misinformation, largely stemming from Hollywood as we talked about in hall.

I talked to Ayoob a while back about suppressors and we agreed that largely, there is still a bit of a negative stigma around them. </div></div>

You ain't kidding. On almost every forum (including this one) that I have tried to discuss silencers, some jackass has told me that they are "illegal, I need a license, I am a criminal, or I should not talk about them here". The only two forums that I have found to be truly gun-friendly are SubGuns and SilencerTalk. I was even banned from The Firearms Forum for criticizing those who said silencers were illegal in the USA.

Ranb
 
#32
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

An issue that I notice at almost every forum (and gun shop, and show, and range, etc) is that people insist on telling others the in's and out's of C3 stuff when they #1 have no personal experience and #2 have no real idea what the process or legalities are. It just really gets annoying trying to teach the people who are trying to learn and correct the people who (just knowing they are right) refuse to listen to those with actual, factual knowledge.
 
#33
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

If we want to change the Hollywood myths then as a group we need to start referring to them as suppressors and not silencers. That only adds to hype and as far as I am concerned they can ban silencers as long as we can have and shoot our suppressors.
laugh.gif
 
#35
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ranb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You ain't kidding. On almost every forum (including this one) that I have tried to discuss silencers, some jackass has told me that they are "illegal, I need a license, I am a criminal, or I should not talk about them here". The only two forums that I have found to be truly gun-friendly are SubGuns and SilencerTalk. I was even banned from The Firearms Forum for criticizing those who said silencers were illegal in the USA.

Ranb
</div></div>

Wow. Unbelievable. Probably 10 years from now, no one will understand what we had to go through to get this done. On the other hand, exclusivity is it's own reward
 
#36
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rotortuner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A little disappointing, there was only 5-8 people there in favor and no one against it. I was expecting more of a turn out. I guess it just shows how few people are into NFA in this state. Other than that, it went pretty good. We will see what the next step is.

CJG</div></div>

I found out about it less than a week in advance and had appointments scheduled that day that couldn't be missed.

Give me more notice, even a couple of days on the right day and I'll be there for the next one.
 
#38
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

Lucky to live in AL in a lot of ways. We have pretty good laws that protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
Any thing Class III now OK. We finally got the OK for SBR.
It's pretty easy to get a concealed carry here too. Not many gun hating officials around.
I do wish we could do some hunting with suppressed weapons though. It would be sweet for the coyotes and such.
Good luck to all in WA. I hope you get what you want.
 
#40
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

I got this back from my representative, I wrote her saying that I went to the committe in support of the bill and then explained why this is a good move to change the law here is what she said:

Thanks for your message. You should've stopped by our office when you were in Olympia - I would've loved the opportunity to meet you. It seems like this bill has a good chance to get out of the legislature this year, and I appreciate hearing from you about how it might be beneficial to the broader community as well.

Sincerely,

Christine Rolfes
State Representative, Legislative District 23
 
#41
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

I've been in Thailand all month, but keep us informed. I will send off some emails, and will keep my fingers crossed. If there is another meeting let me know and I will try to get to it if I'm in the state.
 
#42
Re: WA silencer use bill Seante hearing.

I do not think there will be anymore meetings or hearings that the public can attend and provide input, unless the Rules Committee hearings are open. The best we can do now is letters and e-mail. Write to your Reps and Senators, especially if they are on the Rules committee.

There is nothing new on the House or Senate agendas for the silencer bills as scheduled out to 2/4/11. The session has started out moving these bills faster than I had ever hoped. Maybe we can encourage them to keep up the momentum.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ranb
Suppressors WA Silencer Bill 1016 Senate hearing 3/9/11.
Replies
21
Views
2K
Ranb
Ranb
S
Hunting & Fishing Georgia Senate approves silencers for hunting!
Replies
3
Views
669
ajwarrior
ajwarrior
Ranb
Suppressors WA silencer bill (5112) vote may be close.
Replies
103
Views
13K
Rotortuner
R
Ranb
Suppressors WA silencer bill passes House.
Replies
25
Views
4K
Rotortuner
R
Ranb
Suppressors Meeting with Rep Petersen on WA silencer bill 1604
Replies
10
Views
2K
Ranb
Ranb
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts