View Full Version : *PASSED* WA senate hearing on legalizing suppressors
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5112&year=2011
This is today at 1:30pm
Link to T.O.S. thread
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=15&t=434430&page=1
http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2011011195&TYPE=V&CFID=2430454&CFTOKEN=93706872&bhcp=1
I can't get that video to work. How did the hearing go?
Seems it went positive and the Washington State Senate Judiciary Committee even stated that "we have several folks signed it and not a single person signed in opposition to the bill."
I can't get that video to work. How did the hearing go?
It looked like it went well to me. 6 people testified in favor, including LEO's, nobody was opposed, and the house bill was passed unanimously. The board asked legitimate, seemingly intrigued questions and got correct answers from those testifying.
Does the bill now go to both houses for a vote and then onto the Governor? Since you guys know current WA politics is there a chance it will pass?
I find this statement curious- Washington law does not regulate the possession of firearm suppressors. However, it is a gross misdemeanor crime in Washington for any person to use any device or contrivance for suppressing the noise of any firearm.
It would seem as if they certainly do regulate it. Since a person has to follow federal guidelines to obtain one only to be told you can't discharge a round through it while within the state it sounds like they are regulating it to me.
Does the bill now go to both houses for a vote and then onto the Governor? Since you guys know current WA politics is there a chance it will pass?
I find this statement curious- Washington law does not regulate the possession of firearm suppressors. However, it is a gross misdemeanor crime in Washington for any person to use any device or contrivance for suppressing the noise of any firearm.
It would seem as if they certainly do regulate it. Since a person has to follow federal guidelines to obtain one only to be told you can't discharge a round through it while within the state it sounds like they are regulating it to me.
At this point it looks very good that it will get a vote in the state house (it is scheduled for a second reading, which is the next step in the process -- and it is on the "not controversial" schedule).
We'll have a better idea re: the senate once the senate judiciary committee takes whatever action they decide on it (possibly tomorrow?).
In the state of Washington, if the governor takes no action, then the bill becomes law -- so unless the gov goes out of her way to veto it, all that really needs to happen is for it to pass in both the house & senate.
What is the current make up of the house and senate? Isn't the Governor a democrat? If I remember correctly she was the AG when I was living there back in the mid-90's.
At this point it looks very good that it will get a vote in the state house (it is scheduled for a second reading, which is the next step in the process -- and it is on the "not controversial" schedule).
We'll have a better idea re: the senate once the senate judiciary committee takes whatever action they decide on it (possibly tomorrow?).
In the state of Washington, if the governor takes no action, then the bill becomes law -- so unless the gov goes out of her way to veto it, all that really needs to happen is for it to pass in both the house & senate.
WA has a generally democrat favored government but I was shocked to see the gun laws in WA are really good. I have more gun rights here in WA than I did in Florida. The suppressor thing is really the only dumb one, and a lack of firing ranges but thats why everyone just goes out into the parks.
In general WA is liberal, but relatively relaxed when it comes to firearms. Also, the hardcore liberals are mostly confined to a few counties. Our CCW permit system is favorable and we don't have any magazine bans or 'assault weapon' style bans. The only real restrictions are related to NFA items: SBRs, SBSs, and DDs are out; AOWs are in, and suppressors are in with the caveat you can't actually use them.
I am cautiously optimistic. After this, I'd love to see the SBR ban struck down.
The Judiciary Exec Committee has yet to vote on it. This may happen in the next day or so. If it passes, there will be a 90 day period before it takes effect.
What is the current make up of the house and senate? Isn't the Governor a democrat? If I remember correctly she was the AG when I was living there back in the mid-90's.
The Democrats control the Senate 27-22 and the house 57-41, and yes, she is the Governor.
jklaughrey
01-27-11, 12:01
I would love to see suppressors allowed for use. Currently when I am not on duty I have to go across the river to Idaho. And if this happens hopefully SBR/SBS will be allowed. Ironic, I carry a 12.5 suppressed for work, but can't own one. Our citizens don't mind us having these types of weapons as long as they are quiet!:D
I would love to see suppressors allowed for use. Currently when I am not on duty I have to go across the river to Idaho. And if this happens hopefully SBR/SBS will be allowed. Ironic, I carry a 12.5 suppressed for work, but can't own one. Our citizens don't mind us having these types of weapons as long as they are quiet!:D
Technically even as LEO or .mil -- you are committing a gross misdemeanor if you fire a suppressed weapon on the state. There are NO exemptions to the suppressor portion of the law.
That is a major reason the bill has support from the Washington Association of Police and Sheriffs.
jklaughrey
01-27-11, 13:02
Yeah, I know. My Sheriff knows. Us on the east side aren't as ignorant as the west thinks we are.:D Anyways it would be wonderful if our state could get on board with everyone else in a free state. But I will say that having to use an AR unsuppressed in some areas where I live is okay, other areas the citizens don't like to be bothered by noise. Imagine that, PNW people upset by the sound of gunfire? I thought that only happened in Portland!
Overall I was happy with most of Washingtons laws when I lived there. Especially getting my CCW in less than 7 days. I was disappointed by the suppressor and other NFA nonsense.
That is why I ended up with a Remington AOW.
I would love to see suppressors allowed for use. Currently when I am not on duty I have to go across the river to Idaho. And if this happens hopefully SBR/SBS will be allowed. Ironic, I carry a 12.5 suppressed for work, but can't own one. Our citizens don't mind us having these types of weapons as long as they are quiet!:D
Ironically the Washinton law provides no exemption for law enforcement officers so theoretically an anti-gun anti-cop prosecutor could charge you if you discharged a 12.5 suppressed SBR in the line of duty in Washington... yes the law is that screwed up. Edit: I see that you know that already and it was already mentioned... Anyways, I have seen this law broken in circumstances that would make people LOL. A law that is held this much in contempt, including by those who are supposed to enforce it, needs to be gotten rid of.
To Iraqgunz: There is a local guy named Joe Waldron for the CCRKBA and SAF who does an email list for alerts on state legislation and according to him this one has a good chance of getting through... this is the second attempt after it stalled last session for some reason.
Does the bill now go to both houses for a vote and then onto the Governor? Since you guys know current WA politics is there a chance it will pass?
I find this statement curious- Washington law does not regulate the possession of firearm suppressors. However, it is a gross misdemeanor crime in Washington for any person to use any device or contrivance for suppressing the noise of any firearm.
It would seem as if they certainly do regulate it. Since a person has to follow federal guidelines to obtain one only to be told you can't discharge a round through it while within the state it sounds like they are regulating it to me.
The statement is very correct. It states "Washington law does not regulate the possession of firearms supressors." It clearly does not.
The wording of the RCW relating to supressors is written as such: "Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, " meaning that it's the "use" thereof, not the possession of that is in violation of the law.
I know it's splitting hairs, but for all practical purposes, the statement is completely correct. We are allowed to own and possess supressors here in WA, we are just not allowed to actually shoot a gun with one attached.
Even worse, the law is so poorly written that technically, foam ear plugs can be construed as being illegal...:blink:
I am well aware of the pitfalls of owning them in WA State. I am no legal expert, but if someone owns a suppressor and cannot discharge a round through it (which is what it was designed for), then it sounds to me like it's being regulated.
In any case I hope that the law passes.
The statement is very correct. It states "Washington law does not regulate the possession of firearms supressors." It clearly does not.
The wording of the RCW relating to supressors is written as such: "Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, " meaning that it's the "use" thereof, not the possession of that is in violation of the law.
I know it's splitting hairs, but for all practical purposes, the statement is completely correct. We are allowed to own and possess supressors here in WA, we are just not allowed to actually shoot a gun with one attached.
Even worse, the law is so poorly written that technically, foam ear plugs can be construed as being illegal...:blink:
WA has a generally democrat favored government but I was shocked to see the gun laws in WA are really good. I have more gun rights here in WA than I did in Florida. The suppressor thing is really the only dumb one, and a lack of firing ranges but thats why everyone just goes out into the parks.
I just moved here from FL....what rights are you talking about? CCW is easy in both states but most NFA shit is a no go here. Just wondering.
I am well aware of the pitfalls of owning them in WA State. I am no legal expert, but if someone owns a suppressor and cannot discharge a round through it (which is what it was designed for), then it sounds to me like it's being regulated.
In any case I hope that the law passes.
Like I said, it's splitting hairs. Strictly speaking, WA does not regulate the ownership or possession of supressors, only the use.
Taken word for word, that statement is 100 percent correct. It states that WA does not regulate possession but does regulate the use. It's quite simple really. ;)
In answer to our recent immigrant from Florida. The state laws in WA are pretty decent. No machineguns, no short barreled rifles. AOWs are cool. The track record on self defense shootings in WA state is very good. If you act half way reasonably you are unlikely to get prosecuted. There have been some pretty well publicized cases that frankly I thought would have been prosecuted that were not.
Interestingly, in WA State, if you get charge and the jury rules that you acted in self defense, the state is on the hook for all your legal bills. I suspect that this influences who gets charged and who doesn't.
I realize that this is a sweeping generalization. I live in King County, the most liberal of counties, and moved here from California. I have found that the liberals in Washington state are much different then those in CA. They tend to be socially liberal, and believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs. This extends to gay marriage, choice, and gun rights. I have tought many liberals to shoot and several of them now have CPLs (CCWs). Your rights to swing your fist stops at my nose, pretty much sums it up. Its a pretty cool state all things considered.
Any yes, I hope the supressor law gets changed. I have a coupel and am tired of driving to Oregon.
Damien
Florida has almost the same provisions, IIRC. The same goes for Arizona. I believe that Florida also has a castle doctrine.
I liked living in Snohomish county- it was less ghey in a way.
In answer to our recent immigrant from Florida. The state laws in WA are pretty decent. No machineguns, no short barreled rifles. AOWs are cool. The track record on self defense shootings in WA state is very good. If you act half way reasonably you are unlikely to get prosecuted. There have been some pretty well publicized cases that frankly I thought would have been prosecuted that were not.
Interestingly, in WA State, if you get charge and the jury rules that you acted in self defense, the state is on the hook for all your legal bills. I suspect that this influences who gets charged and who doesn't.
I realize that this is a sweeping generalization. I live in King County, the most liberal of counties, and moved here from California. I have found that the liberals in Washington state are much different then those in CA. They tend to be socially liberal, and believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs. This extends to gay marriage, choice, and gun rights. I have tought many liberals to shoot and several of them now have CPLs (CCWs). Your rights to swing your fist stops at my nose, pretty much sums it up. Its a pretty cool state all things considered.
Any yes, I hope the supressor law gets changed. I have a coupel and am tired of driving to Oregon.
Damien
I wrote my representatives:
Here are some of the talking points from my letter, if y'all want to borrow them.
The process of acquiring sound suppressors is rigorous and involves the payment of a 250 dollar tax stamp and an extensive ATF background check that can take several months. Those of us who go through this process are likely to be the most upstanding and law abiding citizens. Approval of this bill would not allow anyone who is committing a crime to use a suppressor, nor would it allow shooting in areas where it is not currently permitted. If a suppressor is used in a crime, the crime carries mandatory minimum of 30 years under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1) and this bill would not change that. Suppressors do not pose a significant danger to the public. Between 1995 and 2005, there are only two cases of a suppressor being used in murders that resulted in federal charges (Paul Clark, Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers, Western Criminology Review 8(2), 44-57 at 52, (2007), available at http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf.) Given the extremely low use by criminals and the high hurdles that exist to suppressor ownership imposed by federal law, it is reasonable to conclude that SB 5112 would pose no additional risk to Washington residents.
Hunting applications of Firearms could be controlled by administrative rules and need not be evaluated when discussing SB 5112 because the Department of Fish and Wildlife has the authority to regulate the use of suppressors in hunting applications.
Suppressors allow people with hearing disabilities to participate in shooting sports that might otherwise be too painful for those with sensitive hearing, such as persons with traumatic brain injuries. Hearing protection helps, but for the highly sensitive, only a suppressor combined with hearing protection can give them access to the recreational opportunities available through the shooting sports.
I also added a bit about "don't get sucked into the extreme positions, pro or con, just look at the law and prove that people of good will can meet in the middle".
You may want to change that. The cost of a tax stamp is only 200.00 for a transfer.
I wrote my representatives:
Here are some of the talking points from my letter, if y'all want to borrow them.
The process of acquiring sound suppressors is rigorous and involves the payment of a 250 dollar tax stamp and an extensive ATF background check that can take several months. Those of us who go through this process are likely to be the most upstanding and law abiding citizens. Approval of this bill would not allow anyone who is committing a crime to use a suppressor, nor would it allow shooting in areas where it is not currently permitted. If a suppressor is used in a crime, the crime carries mandatory minimum of 30 years under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1) and this bill would not change that. Suppressors do not pose a significant danger to the public. Between 1995 and 2005, there are only two cases of a suppressor being used in murders that resulted in federal charges (Paul Clark, Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers, Western Criminology Review 8(2), 44-57 at 52, (2007), available at http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf.) Given the extremely low use by criminals and the high hurdles that exist to suppressor ownership imposed by federal law, it is reasonable to conclude that SB 5112 would pose no additional risk to Washington residents.
Hunting applications of Firearms could be controlled by administrative rules and need not be evaluated when discussing SB 5112 because the Department of Fish and Wildlife has the authority to regulate the use of suppressors in hunting applications.
Suppressors allow people with hearing disabilities to participate in shooting sports that might otherwise be too painful for those with sensitive hearing, such as persons with traumatic brain injuries. Hearing protection helps, but for the highly sensitive, only a suppressor combined with hearing protection can give them access to the recreational opportunities available through the shooting sports.
I also added a bit about "don't get sucked into the extreme positions, pro or con, just look at the law and prove that people of good will can meet in the middle".
You may want to change that. The cost of a tax stamp is only 200.00 for a transfer.
This is correct.
The transfer fee on the other hand.........
Doh! Thanks for the edit.
According to that link above (first one), did something happen today?
Yes!
Yesterday the house version passed 88-4 in the full house, and today it passed unanimously in the Senate judiciary committee with a 'do-pass' recommendation. The chairman (Kline, a D who isn't generally a big supporter of gun stuff, to say the least) made a statement about how this brings us into line with federal law.
This is very very good. Very likely there will be a vote on the senate version in the full Senate...
Then (assuming it passes in the Senate), unless the Gov goes out of her way to veto it, it will become law 90 days after the close of the session -- meaning it would take effect July 23rd!
There is a VERY high probability that we are good to go at this point!
Should be called the thousand dollar bill. Cuz that's what I'll be out if it passes.
You and me both. I just warned the wife that things are about to get expensive and quiet around our house.
Well, looking forward to the end result and hoping it'll turn out okay. Just asked one of the local dealer about SF.Suppressors (in particular the Mini and/or Micro), and the response was that orders are in place and will be forthcoming soon enough. The wait is the "tortuous path" I must say.
I'll pray to the NFA gods for you guys. Maybe it will help to open up some more business and possibly a step towards getting SBR's and SBS's.
Yes!
Yesterday the house version passed 88-4 in the full house, and today it passed unanimously in the Senate judiciary committee with a 'do-pass' recommendation. The chairman (Kline, a D who isn't generally a big supporter of gun stuff, to say the least) made a statement about how this brings us into line with federal law.
This is very very good. Very likely there will be a vote on the senate version in the full Senate...
Then (assuming it passes in the Senate), unless the Gov goes out of her way to veto it, it will become law 90 days after the close of the session -- meaning it would take effect July 23rd!
There is a VERY high probability that we are good to go at this point!
I'll pray to the NFA gods for you guys. Maybe it will help to open up some more business and possibly a step towards getting SBR's and SBS's.
The quote by Kline above is interesting. If the idea of aligning with federal law is appealing, it would seem that SBRs and SBSs could also be considered at some future point.
Not sure. In this case suppressors are already legal and for sale in Washington. SBR's and SBS's are not.
I may be wrong, but all they are really doing is decriminalizing their use after purchase within the state.
The quote by Kline above is interesting. If the idea of aligning with federal law is appealing, it would seem that SBRs and SBSs could also be considered at some future point.
kaltesherz
02-09-11, 20:03
Should be called the thousand dollar bill. Cuz that's what I'll be out if it passes.
More like TWO thousand dollar bill, as I'll have to build another upper, my current setup is a USGI clone(ish) so I'll probably get a DD 16" LW upper with 12" rail. I'm still on the fence about getting AACs M4-1000 or M4-2000... I wish I would've known about this before I picked up that V93!
Not sure. In this case suppressors are already legal and for sale in Washington. SBR's and SBS's are not.
I may be wrong, but all they are really doing is decriminalizing their use after purchase within the state.
That's correct. But they were already in alignment by allowing us to buy them in the first place (at least in theory). Now they are just letting us use them.
Since fed law allows us to buy SBR and SBS it would seem 'aligning' to federal law would allow us to own those too.
But perhaps my hopes and dreams are letting me read too much into it.
I just hope this passes cause of if it does I'll be ordering a Gemtech.
Maybe I am expressing myself wrong. In any case I hope that it passes.
That's correct. But they were already in alignment by allowing us to buy them in the first place (at least in theory). Now they are just letting us use them.
Since fed law allows us to buy SBR and SBS it would seem 'aligning' to federal law would allow us to own those too.
But perhaps my hopes and dreams are letting me read too much into it.
http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer...0085630&bhcp=1
hearing today. Looks like it went ok. I wanted to go but unfortunately had a work crisis.
Apparently the chairman indicated that the bill was "certain to pass".
My only feedback, coming from someone who couldn't come, is that when I testify, visit representatives... I wear a suit. Even if I hadn't, I would not have jeans and a t shirt.
Snipped from arfcom:
HB 1016
"Firearm noise suppressors
Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage
3/29/2011
Yeas: 47 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Excused: 2
Voting Yea: Senators Baumgartner, Baxter, Becker, Benton, Brown, Carrell, Chase, Conway, Delvin, Eide, Ericksen, Fain, Fraser, Hargrove, Harper, Hatfield, Haugen, Hewitt, Hill, Hobbs, Holmquist Newbry, Honeyford, Kastama, Keiser, Kilmer, King, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Litzow, McAuliffe, Morton, Murray, Nelson, Parlette, Pflug, Prentice, Pridemore, Ranker, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Schoesler, Shin, Stevens, Swecker, Tom, and White
Voting Nay:
Absent:
Excused: Senators Sheldon and Zarelli"
Now as long as the Gov doesn't veto, we're GTG.http://www.comediangamer.ca/POTD/****-yeah.jpg
SeriousStudent
03-29-11, 16:58
That is great stuff. I have some friends that live in WA, and this will be terrific for them.
Thanks for passing on the excellent news.
kaltesherz
03-29-11, 17:48
Woot! Great news!
Now, uh, anyone want to buy a kidney?
Sweet. I have two cans and have 2 more on order. Super excited.
Quick suggestion: Email the democrats who voted for this bill and thank them for their support. This is useful for two reasons: 1 it will help get SBRs next time around, and two it will remind them that if they vote for gun rights, gun owners will give them credit.
It is time to make sure that republicans don't take us for granted and that democrats know that if they vote for our issues, we will give them credit.
If i were gonna get one, I'd wait till the session ends at the end of April. There will then be a 90 day period before the law takes effect= July 23.
Just to be safe. But that's just me. If the Governor doesn't veto in the next week, we are gtg.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1016&year=2011
kaltesherz
03-29-11, 21:13
Sweet. I have two cans and have 2 more on order. Super excited.
Quick suggestion: Email the democrats who voted for this bill and thank them for their support. This is useful for two reasons: 1 it will help get SBRs next time around, and two it will remind them that if they vote for gun rights, gun owners will give them credit.
It is time to make sure that republicans don't take us for granted and that democrats know that if they vote for our issues, we will give them credit.
Awesome idea, people forget not all Democrats are anti-gun and not all Republicans are pro-gun and it's always good to remind both parties that we appreciate it when they support us.
crusader4x
03-29-11, 21:15
Great news!
mbacelonia
03-30-11, 01:04
Its great to finally hear this news. I've been waiting to find out more and just pray that the Governor doesn't take the time to go against it.
all i can say is its about time...
From the NRA
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6519
The governor is scheduled to take action on this bill, and others, at 2:00pm today. Action must be taken today or it will become law automatically.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/billaction/2011/20110407.pdf
She signed it.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/breaking-gregoire-signs-suppressor-legislation
kaltesherz
04-11-11, 17:05
Awesome news! Now I have to have a fire sale to pick up a AAC SPR/M4...
Awesome news! Now I have to have a fire sale to pick up a AAC SPR/M4...
I'm about two weeks ahead of you. I sold a rifle and sent in my paperwork for my SPR/M4 last week. Now I have to wait....and wait....
....and wait.
kaltesherz
04-11-11, 18:53
I'm about two weeks ahead of you. I sold a rifle and sent in my paperwork for my SPR/M4 last week. Now I have to wait....and wait....
....and wait.
Sooo jealous. I just posted for sale a rifle, bunch of mags, and ammo on our EE and put up some gear on ebay... let's hope stuff goes quick...
Rainer Arms said that they were getting paperwork back after only 50 days recently, so your wait might not be too long...
Great news! An impending apocalypse for my disposable income, though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.