Posted: 1/31/2007 9:04:46 AM EDT
|
So i reciently purchased a Gemtech HALO supressor for my AR and a AAC for my .45 I have been trying to get info on the legality of using them. everyone seems to know you can legally own them but suposedly not legally shoot them but the knowledge seems to peter out when the topic is raised about what law specifically banns the actual usage of the silencers everyone I have talked to who owns them has the same response "Oh I never shoot it, Wink wink!  "but I would like to hear from anyone who knows the law and what kind of punishment someone would face for actually using a gun equiped with a supressor or anyone who has had A LE officer check them for using one and what was done about it. Basicly is it illegal like jaywalking is illegal or is it "send you to fedral pound me in the ass prison and throw away the key illegal" 
|
|
You can legally own it. You can legally attach it. However, you cannot legally shoot it in the state of Wa. If you are caught, i believe it is a misdemeanor. Although I don't know what class misdemeanor, but most misdemeanors are a fine and some community service. I'm sure Phil will chime in shortly with the full legal info... |
Most if not all of which is available in a subthread contained in the Forum Help and Links Page thread that is tacked at the top of the forum. |
|
Phil, the "silencer" question is getting old. Between ATF/DOL agents who are trolling, |
| While it is not quite "federal pound me in the ass prison" county jail is not a fun place. And there is always the example you would be setting for anti gunners should you get caught. Nothing would make the ceasefire guys happier than an arrest involving a suppressor. |
If you are this paranoid about it. DON'T FUCKING DO IT. Do you like playing russian roulette? Does the idea of flirting with Bubba @ County turn you on or something? Sorry but this is a public bulletin board, you are not going to get a lot of people that will say "hell yeah, I do it all the time" ... Duh?!?!?!  |
|
|
No specifics on an individual case. But I have a scenario for you. You decide to ignore the advice expressed on this forum. You go out and shoot it, you get caught. Your arrested and charged. While you are in jail awaiting bail to be set the police decide to get a warrant for your house since you committed a weapons violation. Judge decides that probable cause exists given your actions. The ensuing search may or may not lead to additional charges, not sure don't know you. Regardless your house is trashed. You make bail to come home and clean up. You go to court in a month or so and run the risk of going to jail for one year. All this because you knew the law and chose not to obey it. I am not sure where you live, but even without knowing you I will tell you you do not want to be in the King or Pierce County Jails. Not trying to be a dick, but seriously consider editting out your comments above. ETA: As for the Myth busted comment. I assure you it is illegal. I spoke with the Range Master of a local Sheriffs department about this when I first considered buy one. He said it was a no no. Everyone on here says it is a no no. If you do not buy contact the state attorney generals office and ask them directly. Do not try using the defense "the guy on AR15.com told me it would be ok" in court. |
RCW 9.41.050 specifically denotes the legality of carrying a concealed pistol with the proper license, superseding the WAC code you cited. There is, unfortunately, no such legal provision for the use of devices to suppress the sound of a firearm. Just because we might wish there to be one, does not make it so. The law and what it states are hardly a myth. Your "reasonable expectations" are the kind that open people to criminal prosecution when they ought to know better. Like any other law, one has to weigh the odds of being prosecuted (perhaps low in this case) with the stakes (loss of thousands of dollars of equipment, legal fees, penalties, wages, time as a free citizen, etc.) Based on your personal calculation of the risk/reward and your own faith in the validity of your statements, are you willing to be a test case?
|
Nevermind the legal costs of proving your innocence |
Not trying to be a dick, but you're contradicting yourself. No one here (yet) is able to give a specific court case, therefore no one can say with authority "you can" or "you can't." You're saying that we can/should heed the advice from ARFcom (if it coincides with *your* views) and that we can/should not heed the advice (if it conflicts with your views) Yes, I understand the hypothetical scenario--is it worth it to me? No. But then, we're not talking about *me*, ar we? Mcgyver007 was the one who asked--and rather than genuflect whilest many preach "don't do it" (without legitimate reason, btw) I chose to offer another perspective. A license either allows one to do what is otherwise unlawful, or it is no license. Also-- a range master from anywhere is not, by virtue of his job, an authority on the law. I also would recommend going to the Attorney General and get a clarification on this. |
|
I can't find any place in the RCW that says using a firearm is covered by a CCW... |
Is it reasonable? No. Is it the law? Yes. There is no license to use a device designed for suppressing the sound of a firearm. The law clearly states it is not allowed and lists no exeptions. You don't seem to have a valid argument. Wheter someone was convicted of breaking a specific law does not validate or invalidate the fact that it is a law. |
|
The source of the above cited materials is the RCWs, not the WACs, just a technical note. As for the license idea, while the state has a provision for the issuance of CPLs, I am unaware of any "licensing" or "license" by the state of Washington to own a silencer. The Sheriff in some counties may sign off on a Federal application (mine won't), but as we know, that signature is not always required in order to obtain one. There actually is, I believe, an Attorney General's Opinion Letter on this topic floating around somewhere. If someone doesn't chime in soon with it, I'll see if I can dig it out. |
www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/agopinions/washington_ag_opinion_silencer.txt ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON CRIMES -- FIREARMS 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. 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.) 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, Sincerely, KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY Attorney General [signed] Maureen Hart jf Sr. Assistant Attorney General |
1988 No. 16 www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8666
|
Just because something is legal to purchase does not make it legal to use. An example of this a police dash light or light bar. You can own it, legally. You can attach it, legally. But try driving down the road with it flashing and you broke the law. Regardless of any opinions of the law and whether or not it is "reasonable" is irrelevant. The law clearly states that you can not fire a weapon with a suppressor attatched. I have found no case law detailing the prosecution of this crime, but the law is clear. |
HAHA - those are dangerous words... Pac. Nw. Shooting Park v. City of Sequim We thought RCW 9.41.290 and .300 were pretty black and white too... Nothing's B&W with the law... That's why KA3B gets so uptight with me. 
|
The opinion is on the site, but it doesn't show as a result from the search engine. There are a couple of things I want to look at on their revamped website before I bust their chops over it. |
That's only because I know the year and number for the opinion, with that it's easy to find. If you try to search using 9.41.250, suppressing, or Pullen for the search and the 1988 No. 16 opinion does not come up as a result.  Besides it's Fu not Foo. 
|
I've read the Sequim case a couple of times. The biggest problem was that the attorney for the Shooting Park did not do a very good job in handling the case. The court can't rule on what's not there. As for the RCWs cited, the court ruled in a fairly black and white manner in regards to the law. The law says that cities can make rules regarding possession of firearms in city owned facilities and convention centers, transfer is an issue of possession as well as sale. It wasn't even really a rule, but rather a condition of use in a contract to rent the facility. So, by strict interpretation it falls outside of the cited statutes. The court was very narrow and precise in its ruling. As I said, the biggest problem with this case is the attorney that drafted the initial/subsequent pleadings and lack of their follow through on their own motions. |
A link to the AG's letter is in the above post too.
|
|
Ok, I concede. (Except for the range master as authority) Thanks for clarifying with proof. Who was it that said, "The first thing we should do, is kill all the lawyers"? hinking.gif |
Ummmm, you can give it a try, but I'm fairly well armed and have a lot of ammunition.
|
The quote when read in context doesn't mean what you think it does Dick the Butcher said it. Shakespeare King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2 Dick was a follower of a trouble making anarchist Jack Cade, a despicable leader of ignorant rabble with a vastly inflated ego. In context he is saying that the first thing a tyrant must do to quash freedom is to kill all the lawyers. |
|
"Despicable" and "ignorant rabble" depends on one's point of view....to us, anti-gun people are both; to them, we are.... Another funny is, if one reads some pro-gun literature, the abolishment of the RTKBA is the first thing a proto-tyrant must do...."the second amendment protects all the others." Perhaps that would make a good thread (in GD or The Pit?).... |
...he says from the comfort of home and hearth.... Look, everyone online is going to be bold and bad-ass, the only way such a statement would have any meaning is on the battlefield, as shots are being fired. (Truth be told, if one *were* to be a future threat to proto-tyrants, he/she would not post such on the Net) But since that's not happening (and I am relatively new here) perhaps I should play Tough Guy as well... |
I'm pretty sure home and hearth is what the lawyer was talking about defending, not being called out onto the playground... err, battlefield.
|
Says the unpaid member with 35 posts. Don't assume too much around the WAHTF. There are folks here that can help keep you out of all kinds of trouble, or help get you into all kinds of trouble faster!
|
|
That would be from the point of view of William Shakespeare as the character Jack Cade, even though he is based on a real person, is in that piece of work a fictitious creation. |
I don't get uptight, I can't stand people who talk out their ass or won't take action. You think that you can get a machine gun into Washington state by your "understanding" of the current laws then get off your ass and do it. |
|
Any once again someone's "understanding" of the law. READ and COMPREHEND the law as written. 9.41.250 has three SEPERATE PARTS, hence the NUMBERS 1, 2, 3. Part one is about manufacturing, selling, disposing or possesing. Part two is about carrying with intent to conceal. Part Three is about using anything that supresses the noise of a firearm. Three SEPERATE parts to the law. You do any ONE ot the three you are guilty (according to the law as written). It's not a menu for a Chinese take out restaraunt.
|
I'll take the mongorian beef. |
Yup, KA3B nailed it on the 4th post of this thread. It's old. If you have one and want to use it, go for it. Don't call me when you get busted, I will not bail you out. Don't brag about it here. Don't show pictures. If you get busted, good luck... I think that sums it up for me... |
In not-so-rare form again? You seem very angry, very confrontational, very intimidating. I'm worried about you, its like a cry for help. |