Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/17/2006 1:04:24 PM EDT
So let me get this straight I can have a silencer in Washington State but I cant use it? Can this be explained to me? It already sucks I cant have a Machine Gun, SBR or SBSG But I can own a Silencer I just cant use it on a gun???? WTF? Will Washington States laws ever change? In Idaho you can have them in Oregon you can have them, heck all of our close and neighbor states allow them.
Thanks,
Mike
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:19:16 PM EDT
Yeah it's silly. You can have it, even have it on the weapon, but you could go to jail for three months for firing the weapon with the hearing protection attached to the weapon instead of to your head.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:23:59 PM EDT
Aint it crazy, I thoughts how it meant I was just checking.
GO Zags!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 10:29:39 PM EDT
The law was intended to ban them:


RCW 9.41.250
Dangerous weapons -- Penalty.

Every person who:

(1) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses 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;

(2) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

(3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,

is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.



but like many laws it was poorly written and after an Attorney General opinion to clarify what the law does not affect we can own them.



August 30, 1988







Honorable Kent Pullen

State Senator, 47th District

Institutions Building

Olympia, Washington 98504



Cite as: AGO 1988 No. 16





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.



ANALYSIS



RCW 9.41.250, the provision about which you have inquired, provides:



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.)



[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]



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 is did not intend "use" to include mere possession.



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



Sincerely,





KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY

Attorney General





MAUREEN HART

Sr. Assistant Attorney General



Come by the WA Hometown forum more often, this question gets answered about every six to eight weeks.

www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:14:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 6:18:44 AM EDT by Black_Rifle_Fan]
Apparently, there are quite a few silencer owners in WA state. I am about to become one of them.
Top Top