Posted: 9/24/2007 7:16:14 PM EDT
| So A guy came into my gunshop today and we were talking about silencers in this state and had information from another gunshop that the laws regarding the "use" of silencers had been changed within the last couple days and it is now legal to operate a firearm with a silencer attached. Can anyone conferm or refute this? |
...Looking to see if the Legislature suddenly came back into session and passed a new bill or if the AG changed his mind on what the word "use" means... brb |
|
Nope, the only change to 9.41.250 is an exemption for LEO's to have super cool knives with springs in em. See PDF here |
Ok, checking his website. The last I heard, he had said that use meant to put a bullet through it. The law still only says "Use" not "Use in a Crime", So I can't see any lawyer looking at the following and saying it only applies to a crime.
brb |
Hasn't happened. In 2005 & 2006 Senator Hargrove sponsored SB5167 which would have changed 9.41.250 to read:
5167 was read and referred to Judiciary where it died. |
Have anyone that believes this contact me right now. I have some land to sell them for |
| The latest rumor I herd this weekend about the use of a surpressor was that you could have the Chief of the county police sign a form for you to that would allow you to use it in that county. The reasoning was that county rules/laws can over ride state law. What makes me believe that there might be some truth to this was that the person that told me this knew of an instance where this had happend. So maybe it's something to look into. |
 9.41.290
Local governments can not: 1. Make something legal that the state specifically says is illegal 2. Make something illegal that the state specifically says is legal Local governments are allowed to adjust firearms laws only as dictated below: 9.41.300
In short they can restrict certain areas to possession, discharge, or sale. |
In the real world. No. |
You bucking for a promotion or something? 
|
Always 
|
Now, I'm just messing with ya, but let's have some fun with this one... The latest rumor I heard this weekend about the use of a hooker was that you could have the Chief of the county police sign a form for you that would allow you to use her in that county. The reasoning was that country rules/laws can override state law - when it comes to hookers! 
|
I've always wondered about that. Where does it say that a misdemeanor has to happen in the presence of a LEO for them to make an arrest? I send lifters to jail all the time for misdemeanors, and the cops are never there until after the fact. |
I'll have to actually search the specifics, but WA law, like others allows the arrest of a lifter based on the word of a manager or employee. |
|
RCW 10.31.100 "Misemeanor presence rule" Arrest without warrant. A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section. (1) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the unlawful taking of property or involving the use or possession of cannabis, or involving the acquisition, possession, or consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of twenty-one years under RCW 66.44.270, or involving criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080, shall have the authority to arrest the person. (2) A police officer shall arrest and take into custody, pending release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that: (a) An order has been issued of which the person has knowledge under RCW 26.44.063, or chapter 7.90, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 26.50, or 74.34 RCW restraining the person and the person has violated the terms of the order restraining the person from acts or threats of violence, or restraining the person from going onto the grounds of or entering a residence, workplace, school, or day care, or prohibiting the person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location or, in the case of an order issued under RCW 26.44.063, imposing any other restrictions or conditions upon the person; or (b) A foreign protection order, as defined in RCW 26.52.010, has been issued of which the person under restraint has knowledge and the person under restraint has violated a provision of the foreign protection order prohibiting the person under restraint from contacting or communicating with another person, or excluding the person under restraint from a residence, workplace, school, or day care, or prohibiting the person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location, or a violation of any provision for which the foreign protection order specifically indicates that a violation will be a crime; or (c) The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes: (i) A felonious assault has occurred; (ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or (iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider: (i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010; (ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury; and (iii) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved. (3) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a violation of any of the following traffic laws shall have the authority to arrest the person: (a) RCW 46.52.010, relating to duty on striking an unattended car or other property; (b) RCW 46.52.020, relating to duty in case of injury to or death of a person or damage to an attended vehicle; (c) RCW 46.61.500 or 46.61.530, relating to reckless driving or racing of vehicles; (d) RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504, relating to persons under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; (e) RCW 46.20.342, relating to driving a motor vehicle while operator's license is suspended or revoked; (f) RCW 46.61.5249, relating to operating a motor vehicle in a negligent manner. (4) A law enforcement officer investigating at the scene of a motor vehicle accident may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle involved in the accident if the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed in connection with the accident a violation of any traffic law or regulation. (5) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a violation of RCW 79A.60.040 shall have the authority to arrest the person. (6) An officer may act upon the request of a law enforcement officer in whose presence a traffic infraction was committed, to stop, detain, arrest, or issue a notice of traffic infraction to the driver who is believed to have committed the infraction. The request by the witnessing officer shall give an officer the authority to take appropriate action under the laws of the state of Washington. (7) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing any act of indecent exposure, as defined in RCW 9A.88.010, may arrest the person. (8) A police officer may arrest and take into custody, pending release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that an order has been issued of which the person has knowledge under chapter 10.14 RCW and the person has violated the terms of that order. (9) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has, within twenty-four hours of the alleged violation, committed a violation of RCW 9A.50.020 may arrest such person. (10) A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person illegally possesses or illegally has possessed a firearm or other dangerous weapon on private or public elementary or secondary school premises shall have the authority to arrest the person. For purposes of this subsection, the term "firearm" has the meaning defined in RCW 9.41.010 and the term "dangerous weapon" has the meaning defined in RCW 9.41.250 and 9.41.280(1) (c) through (e). (11) Except as specifically provided in subsections (2), (3), (4), and (6) of this section, nothing in this section extends or otherwise affects the powers of arrest prescribed in Title 46 RCW. (12) No police officer may be held criminally or civilly liable for making an arrest pursuant to RCW 10.31.100 (2) or (8) if the police officer acts in good faith and without malice. short version: Officer will probably refer charges to prosecutor and let them decide to charge and issue an arrest warrant. Will not arrest on sight, but may ( and probably will) confiscate supressor. |
Thats nice, lets say an employee has an axe to grind and make a false statement against an ex-friend. 
|
then that person is filing a false report and get into all sorts of trouble (both criminal and civil) |
RCW 10.31.100, and it lists the exceptions. Its also one of the reasons that the officer should be looking for specific info when they come in. There are some squared away LPO, and some that are pretty embarrassing. The good ones are a pleasure to work with. |
|
I try to have everything squared away for when the cops show up. Sometimes I have to call them before I am ready. but generally they get there. I tell them what's up, hand them the paperwork and they cart the person off to jail. In and out in under 15 minutes. I have seen some LPs that call the cops and take forever getting their shit together. You can tell the cops hate showing up for them. |
...and it is much appreciated. There were a few LPOs in the Juanita area (not naming any names...PHOENIX) that would call before even starting any paperwork. I love sitting for an hour just to advise of Miranda and then cut them loose. Something that should take 45 min max to get info, write the report, and send it to the court, takes two hours.  |