*PASSED* WA senate hearing on legalizing suppressors

[GrumpyM4]

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.

[KTR03]

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

[Iraqgunz]

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

[KTR03]

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".

[Iraqgunz]

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".

[GrumpyM4]

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.........

[KTR03]

Doh! Thanks for the edit.

[CLHC]

According to that link above (first one), did something happen today?

[mattj]

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!

[MookNW]

Should be called the thousand dollar bill. Cuz that's what I'll be out if it passes.