Suppressors WA State

[curtmdavis]

Curious as to what y’all think the impact of the HB1016 passing will have on the regs? (The law regarding the legal use of suppressors in WA State.)  I can hear the arguments coming that it will increase the potential for poaching and how it is somehow unethical for whatever reason to use one while hunting, but it has passed, so what do you think will happen?

[BlackRidge]

I honestly don't think it will effect much hunting-wise

The regs likely won't change IMO, just because theres no need to change anything to accomodate suppressors.  The regs are already in-place to deal with such things, but again, thats just my 2 pennies on the subject

Shooting times are already set, so anyone shooting outside of them is just as much of an offender. poaching may increase, but with the amount of checks/balances involved with buying a suppressor, chances are those who are able to buy them will more trustworthy individuals... but that may just be me assuming too much (plus no one wants to risk losing such a privaledge)

If anything, it think it will help improve hunting for us as a whole.  Neighboring hunters won't spook game as much, giving you and others in the area a better chance of harvesting something.  Residents nearby areas open to hunting won't be as 'annoyed' with the sounds of gunshots ringing out, and ear protection/hearing loss for those of us in the field with cans won't be as much of an issue

[bearpaw]

I don't think there will be much change, bows are quieter than supressors...

[bigtex]

Well I would be shocked if the WDFW Commission doesn't vote to ban the use of silencers/suppressors for use while hunting, which they can do. It probably wouldn't affect this hunting season but definitely next year.

[BlackRidge]

Just out of curiosity Tex, why do you think the WDFW would be so opposed to them?

[MtnMuley]

........think what a poacher could do with a suppressor at night...............

[bigtex]

Just out of curiosity Tex, why do you think the WDFW would be so opposed to them?

The poaching issue definitely would be a big one. Now, if somebody shoots an animal illegally (other then bow) you can hear a shot which raises peoples attention, especially if its at night or in an area where poaching is an occurence. But with the passage of this bill there will be no "shot" which could raise people's attention. Most of the poaching complaints come in as somebody seeing a truck driving (headlights) after dark then hearing a shot, but now there will be no shot so it'll just be a guy driving his truck in the dark which obviously isn't illegal.

And to a lesser point, historically WA has some very restrictive hunting laws, for example the scope on muzzleloader reg and I just cant see the commission allowing a silencer.

Does anybody know of a state that does allow silencers on guns while hunting???

[JimmyHoffa]

My guess is that the WDFW would probably ban use for hunting.  A few other states that allow them for shooting, but not hunting tend to cite reasons like...if it is to be made 'silent', then subsonic ammo has to be used.  And those states require a minimum bullet energy for game animals.  I wouldn't think there would be too much in the way of 'scientific' reasoning to not allow them.  More of an opinionated/emotional bias against them.  Suppressors tend to get a bad rap when it comes to hunting, like a few other things:  lasers, night vision, crossbows, full auto.

As far as I know, though, the bill hasn't made it past the governor.

[carpsniperg2]

I am a huge fan of the idea. A lot of my yote shooting is done around areas with people. Not a bunch but still a few. I think it is more respectfull to use them "if it passes" to keep from disturbing people early in the morning or late evening. First time I shot a suppressed gun was in New Zealand. Nothing like plinking rabbits with no head phones and a rem 700 in 223 I was very supprised on how quite it was.

[curtmdavis]

 Floor Activity:
Passed House: 2/7/11, 88-4.
Passed Senate: 3/29/11, 47-0.
Passed Legislature.

Its passed, 90 days to law.

[carpsniperg2]

DANG! THATS SWEET!

Doesn't our wonderful Governor have to sign it still?

[bigtex]

DANG! THATS SWEET!

Doesn't our wonderful Governor have to sign it still?

Yes she does.

[curtmdavis]

DANG! THATS SWEET!

Doesn't our wonderful Governor have to sign it still?

Yes she does.

Yea I mispoke, and apologize for that,

[KillBilly]

The way I understand it is this.....You can currently get a Class 3 license (approx. $200.00) to possess items such as suppressors and fully auto weapons. You just can't use them.

I also understand that you will still have to obtain a Class 3 license to own/posses a suppressor but you will now be able to use it in public for sport shooting or just to show off.   Someone correct me if I'm wrong there....

The other thing we know is that crooks are able to obtain guns today illegally, they will also find a way to obtain suppressors illegally.

Another thing about a suppressor is that it decreases the velocity of a bullet and also diminishes it's accuracy.

There is way more poaching going on today than most folks dream about. Very few of those nighttime shots are heard anyway.... so if a few poachers get their hands on a suppressor it will probably not change things much. That is not a popular thought but it is probably fact.

 

[Todd_ID]

KillBilly,
You're right on the money with the poaching cases that are reported versus the number of shots that aren't heard.

You're somewhat correct on the owning of a suppressor.  The $200 fee is not for a Class 3 license, though; it is a one-time fee for a single item with a serial number that amounts to a tax paid to the Commerce Dept. for the privilege of owning that suppressor or short-barreled rifle.  To obtain a suppressor you order and pay for it through a dealer who holds it until you are cleared to own it, fill out an ATF Form 4 with the specs of that particular suppressor, obtain permission from a Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your jurisdiction (county sheriff, city police chief, or county prosecutor) certifying that they know of no reason you should not own one, obtain fingerprint card from sheriff's office, and send all to ATF along with a $200 check.  3 to 6 months later your approval or disapproval is mailed to you in the form of a stamp showing that you paid the tax.  It's generally referred to as a $200 tax stamp, but that is the process to legally own a suppressor.

It's currently legal to own one in WA but not to shoot it in WA.  You can, however take it to another state that allows them (Idaho) and shoot them there.  My county sheriff (Asotin County) upon my first call said that he would not sign the Form 4 to allow ownership of a suppressor and that he hadn't signed any through his years of office, but, after a conversation that included the above info and a description of the pending bill as well as owning land in Idaho, he finally submitted that he might sign one as long as the bill was signed into law and the person applying checked out in his mind.  Sometimes intelligent debate can prevail!