Washington Votes

2005 Senate Bill 5167 (Changing restrictions on firearm noise suppressors)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Jim Hargrove, (D-Hoquiam) on January 17, 2005, to allow the use of a noise suppression device for a firearm if the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law.
    • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 17, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Jim Hargrove, (D-Hoquiam) on January 17, 2005. New Comment

1) Improved Safety [by Anonymous Citizen on March 24, 2005]
The legal use of suppresors could greatly reduce the frequency of ear damage to shooters. I have permanent ear damage due to shooting without sufficient (not enough) ear protection in the past. In addition, the general reduction is noise would be welcome to those of us in rural settings who have to tolerate the noise from casual target shooters. Given the time and cost invovled in acquiring a suppresor (I own one), it is silly not to allow their use in our state.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) How did you get it. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]
Do you think the King County Sheriff would sign an request for a private citizen to buy a surpressor, as I agree they are a safety tool as guns are loud and damage hearing. What county do you live in.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Private Ownership [by Anonymous Citizen on March 15, 2005]
This taken from:
http://www.gem-tech.com/legal.html

"To the best of our knowledge, silencers are legal for private ownership in the following states: AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY."

36 States listed above...

Does anyone know of any other state than Washington that allows ownership, but not use within federal guidelines?

-Charles
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Suppressors Are Safety Devices [by Anonymous Citizen on March 15, 2005]
I have used suppressors extensively in other states. They simply reduce the sound of a muzzle blast to a non-deafening tone.

I happen to live on a cattle ranch and calving season is coming up soon. Imagine how dangerous it would be to fire a rifle to kill an attacking group of coyotes while among a few dozen cows. It would cause a stampede of dozens of frightened 1500 pound cows that would kill calves and potentially people trying to aid the calving process (Assuming the cows don't break through the fence and get onto State Highway 2).

Every year, every rancher I know dreads this season because of the dangers involved with the inability to protect our herds as well as our selves. I have seen coyotes eat a calf before it could get all the way out of the cow and could do nothing but put the mortally wounded cow down later. Cost of cow, breeding and calf aside, this is expensive as well as dangerous.

Being allowed the use of suppressors during this time would be greatly helpful.

In addition, suppressors are easy to make. Do you really think that criminals that want one couldn't get a book or get this information off the internet? If people think that banning suppressors in Washington State is needed, they might have problems banning plastic soda bottles, raw potatoes and pillows.

Criminals don't care about the laws. They're going to acquire whatever they want. For a private citizen to legally purchase a suppressor one must:
-Get photographed,
-Finger printed
-Background checked with their local police
department
-File federal paperwork to apply for a suppressor
-Pay $200 for a Federal Tax stamp application
-Wait until NFA clears the manufacturer to ship
the suppressor that you've already paid
between $500 and $2,000 for (not counting $200
in federal tax). This takes about a month and
a half.
-The suppressor arrives at the Class 3 Dealer
that you paid for the suppressor, but you
can't pick it up until NFA notifies the Class
3 dealer that they are officially authorized
to transfer the suppressor to the private
citizen. This takes about another 2 months.

Legal:
Total time invested: 3-4 months
Approximate monies invested: $750-$2500

Illegal:
Total time invested: 1-2 minutes
Cost of a full 2 liter soda bottle: $1

We, as private citizens, want to have suppressors legally just like most of the other states and are willing to put up with the months of background checks, huge registration fees and taxes to legally acquire suppressors.

-Charles
Reply New Comment

Line

5) This bill does not "allow" suppressors/silencers [by Anonymous Citizen on March 7, 2005]
This would only make it legal for legally registered (Federally) suppressors to be used. Mind you this includes Law Enforcement officials as well as citizens. Currently the law is unenforceable as many Police Officers use these tools in the conduct of their duty and are thus breaking the law.

To be honest, I am neither a firearms nor anti-firearms advocate, I am only and Attorney. The rule is that gun laws are never useful as the understanding of the real issues rarely translate into sound legislation. My opinion is that they only serve as a political tool of both sides in order to shape the hearts and minds of the resources that each party controls. This bill is one of the exceptions that make the rule true as it supports Law Enforcement efforts as it closes a legal liability on the part of Law Enforcement.

Reply New Comment

Line

6) Silencers [by mdb4517 on January 20, 2005]
There is no reason why a private citizen should require a silencer on a weapon.

I am opposed to this legislation amendment allowing silencers...registered or not.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Please Consider This [by Anonymous Citizen on March 15, 2005]
I have used suppressors extensively in other states. They simply reduce the sound of a muzzle blast to a non-deafening tone.

I happen to live on a cattle ranch and calving season is coming up soon. Imagine how dangerous it would be to fire a rifle to kill an attacking group of coyotes while among a few dozen cows. It would cause a stampede of dozens of frightened 1500 pound cows that would kill calves and potentially people trying to aid the calving process (Assuming the cows don't break through the fence and get onto State Highway 2).

Every year, every rancher I know dreads this season because of the dangers involved with the inability to protect our herds as well as our selves. I have seen coyotes eat a calf before it could get all the way out of the cow and could do nothing but put the mortally wounded cow down later. Cost of cow, breeding and calf aside, this is expensive as well as dangerous.

Being allowed the use of suppressors during this time would be greatly helpful.

In addition, suppressors are easy to make. Do you really think that criminals that want one couldn't get a book or get this information off the internet? If people think that banning suppressors in Washington State is needed, they might have problems banning plastic soda bottles, raw potatoes and pillows.

Criminals don't care about the laws. They're going to acquire whatever they want. For a private citizen to legally purchase a suppressor one must:
-Get photographed,
-Finger printed
-Background checked with their local police
department
-File federal paperwork to apply for a suppressor
-Pay $200 for a Federal Tax stamp application
-Wait until NFA clears the manufacturer to ship
the suppressor that you've already paid
between $500 and $2,000 for (not counting $200
in federal tax). This takes about a month and
a half.
-The suppressor arrives at the Class 3 Dealer
that you paid for the suppressor, but you
can't pick it up until NFA notifies the Class
3 dealer that they are officially authorized
to transfer the suppressor to the private
citizen. This takes about another 2 months.

Legal:
Total time invested: 3-4 months
Approximate monies invested: $750-$2500

Illegal:
Total time invested: 1-2 minutes
Cost of a full 2 liter soda bottle: $1

We, as private citizens, want to have suppressors legally just like most of the other states and are willing to put up with the months of background checks, huge registration fees and taxes to legally acquire suppressors.

-Charles


Reply New Comment

Line

8) Suppressors [by Puppis on January 27, 2005]
Have you ever used a suppressor? I doubt it. You probably get most of your ideas about ‘silencers’ from movies. The first thing you should know is that, other than on a .22, suppressors do not silence anything. Sure they make guns quieter, but to call it a silencer is incorrect, shooting most guns with a suppressor is still loud.

Also, the cost of a registered suppressor is upwards of $500 and takes several months to acquire due to federal restrictions. No criminal is going to go through this hassle when they can probably get their suppressor through the same illegal channels they got their illegal gun. In other words this legislation allows law abiding people to use a suppressor and does little to make them readily available to criminals.

Suppressors are currently legal to use in about 35 states and there are some good reasons to use them. Mainly they make shooting ranges quieter and are less harmful in the shooters hearing.

Lastly, it is a whole lot of fun to shoot a gun with a suppressor. I know because I have done it before, in a state where it was legal.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) In Support of SB 5167 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 21, 2005]
This bill should be passed. The bill does nothing to make suppressors more or less available to citizens and/or criminals. The only thing this bill would do is allow people who own these devices to use them in the state of Washington. If target shooters were allowed to use suppressors, many people especially non shooters would benefit. In many areas, sportsman's clubs with firing ranges are close to residential communities. If supressors were used or required at these firing ranges, the local residents would not have to deal with as much noise. The suppressors also help to preserve the hearing of shooters, and the staff at the ranges.

The current federal laws list firearms suppressors as NFA weapons. These NFA weapons require special permissions from the BATF and your local chief law enforcement officer (Sherriff or the head of the state patrol). Also required is a $200 tax and national registration of the supressor. It takes as much as 90 days or more to receive approval to aquire an NFA weapon. SB 5167 does nothing to change this permission/registration process.

This bill should be passed as it benefits both the shooting and non-shooting citizens of Washington State.


Chris
Port Orchard, WA

Reply New Comment

Line

10) Ignornace [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2005]
I agree with Puppis, most opposers have no idea and no desire to learn about the true nature of firearms suppressors. 1) Is that manufacturers and Class 3 license holders can legally own them in Washington State, however it is a crime to attach it to a firearm or even test them. 2) "Silencer" is a misnomer. There is no such thing. Most sound suppressors can be heard from a great distance away. 3) People get their knowledge about sound suppressors from movies and view them as an assasination tool. They are in fact widely used as a safety device to prevent hearing loss. A great number of police departments use them to protect their officers. As do alot of suppressor owners in the states where they are legal. Again, like Puppis said, the application and approval process is very long, intensive and thorough. Some of it includes mandatory fingerprinting, photographs, a $200 tax and FBI background checks. Some people think you can walk into a shop, pay the money and walk out with the suppressor. In fact, you are lucky to be approved after a few months time, and only then are you allowed to pick up the item. I can see this becomming much like the supporters of the Assault weapon ban. Most of which thought that this meant NO assault weapons could be manufactured. They didn't take the time to educate themselves and find that this ban did nothing to stop the manufacturing of assault weapons. It did however limit options, some of which are magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, bayonet lugs, folding stocks and flash suppressors. I really do wish that people would educate themselves before forming an opinion.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Illeglal to use them iffy [by Anonymous Citizen on April 10, 2007]
The use of suppresors in the satate of washington is a iffy thing. Yes you can legally buy one and it is supposedly illegal to use them but the police set a precedent with the use of thiers. There is nothing in the rcw sthat states it is ok for the police dept. to use them hence they are setting a usage precedent.

Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: