Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/9/2006 6:07:36 AM EST
Ok I'm working on getting my silencer here in Washington State and I know I cant shoot it here but I have a good friend in Idaho who has a small range behind his house, what do I need to take with me as far as paper work? Also what do I need to do to take it to Idaho is there any legal work I need to do first? Also I did a search and cant find it now but I know I saw the article here that states I can do everything except shoot it here. The reason is I have a aquaitance how is a small town cop who informed me it is illegal to mount it up here, where I informed him he is wrong but you know town clowns they know it all, I just want to show him that I can.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:31:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 6:32:39 AM EST by PCR-00]
Long story short, Employ/Use = Putting a bullet down the tube.



It is not unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to merely possess a
device for suppressing the noise of a firearm.

August 30, 1988

Honorable Kent Pullen Cite as:
State Senator, 47th District AGO 1988 No. 16
Institutions Building
Olympia, Washington 98504

Dear Senator Pullen:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked for our
opinion on a question we have paraphrased as follows:

Is it unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to possess a device for
suppressing the noise of a firearm?

We answer your question in the negative for the reasons set
forth in our analysis.


RCW 9.41.250, the provision about which you have inquired,

Every person who shall manufacture, sell or dispose of or have
in his possession any instrument or weapon of the kind usually
known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring
blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically
released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or
any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected
into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward,
downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement; who shall
furtively carry with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk,
pistol or other dangerous weapon; or who shall use any
contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any
firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(Emphasis added.)

Hon. Kent Pullen 2 AGO 1988 No. 16

In essence, your question is concerned with whether the term
"use" in the underscored language of RCW 9.41.250 includes mere
possession of a noise suppression device. Absent a statutory
definition, words in a statute are to be given their ordinary
meaning. Davis v. Department of Empl. Sec., 108 Wn.2d 272, 737
P.2d 1262 (1987). The ordinary meaning of the term "use" is to put
a thing into service or action. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, 2523-2524 (1981). Thus, the use of a device for
suppressing the noise of a firearm contemplates employing that
device or putting it into service. Although use of such a device
may be incident to possession, use is quite different from simply
possessing the device or exercising control over it.

In our opinion, the language of RCW 9.41.250 about which you
have inquired is unambiguous. It does not prohibit mere possession
of a device to suppress the noise of a firearm.

Even if the term "use" in RCW 9.41.250 were ambiguous, rules
of statutory construction would dictate against interpreting the
term to include mere possession. First, RCW 9.41.250 is a criminal
statute. Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute
are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most
favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v.
Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). Here, of course, that
would be an interpretation excluding mere possession. Second,
where the Legislature employs certain language in one part of a
statute and different language in another part, a difference in
legislative intent is indicated. United Parcel Serv., Inc. v.
Department of Rev., 102 Wn.2d 355, 687 P.2d 186 (1984). The
Legislature has employed the term "possession" in RCW 9.41.250 and
thereby has made mere possession of certain weapons a misdemeanor.
The Legislature did not employ that same term with reference to
noise suppression devices. According to this rule of construction,
the Legislature's failure to do so indicates that it did not intend
"use" to include mere possession.

We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you,


Attorney General

Maureen Hart
jf Sr. Assistant Attorney General

Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:48:01 AM EST
Regardless of the law, an LEO might take possession of a firearm with an attached silencer and let the court decide whether or not is is illegal.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:57:11 AM EST
From what I gather you want to keep a copy of your approved transfer form with you any time you are in possession of an NFA item. Keep the original in a fire proof (ATF proof) safe deposit box.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:32:17 AM EST
Yes but are bank safe deposit boxes ATF proof
Top Top