MNGunTalk.com

Lawbreakers are not deterred by laws. They are a minor inconvenience at best. Yet poachers only extremely rarely use suppressors. To think that suppressing the sound of a firearm will some how allow a poacher to get away with his crime, or that legalization will lead to more poaching is just plain ridiculous.

Suppressors don't commit crimes anymore than guns commit crimes. The availability of certain tools that can be misused doesn't change the occurrence of crime, only how it's executed. Since home made devices to muffle a firearm are trivial to make, yet aren't used by poachers is evidence that poachers aren't interested in these devices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

33 states allow hunting with suppressors, and 39 states allow their ownership. Many of those 33 hunting with suppressor states passed their pro suppressor legislation in the last few years. The wave of progress in suppressors is much faster and stronger than it was with carry laws.

Let's turn the discussion to HOW to make suppressors legal in MN.

HOW you can help make suppressors legal in MN is to sign up for the GOCRA and MNGOPAC email updates. You should call/write/email/visit your representatives and those serving on committees when the suppressor bill is introduced and heard. You can show up and be counted for each of the committee hearings, wearing a maroon shirt in support of the bill. You can call/write/email/visit Gov. Dayton and let him know your opinion on the bill as it makes it's way to his desk.

Wheels are in motion. Please encourage everyone you know to join the team in getting this done and to become as visible as possible as the bill works it's way through the process. We need a significant showing of support to get this done.

One recommendation that I highly suggest when voicing your opinion is to keep the tone civil and polite. Many people tend to become angry, pound the table and shake their fists at the sky when discussing firearms rights. While that might be appropriate when trying to defend against an infringement, it's counterproductive when trying to advance our rights. We are the reasonable, intelligent, polite, law abiding majority. We should show them this side if we want them to see the reasonableness of our cause.

jshuberg wrote:HOW you can help make suppressors legal in MN is to sign up for the GOCRA and MNGOPAC email updates. You should call/write/email/visit your representatives and those serving on committees when the suppressor bill is introduced and heard. You can show up and be counted for each of the committee hearings, wearing a maroon shirt in support of the bill. You can call/write/email/visit Gov. Dayton and let him know your opinion on the bill when it gets to his desk.

Wheels are in motion. Please encourage everyone you know to join the team in getting this done and become as visible as possible as the bill works it's way through the process. We need a significant showing of support to get this done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jshuberg mentions a lot. I think the first step for everyone is to call their representative, and yes your one call or e-mail does a lot. I talk to many that claim that their one response will have no effect. But if 100 people that have the same thought would get off their butt and decided to call or e-mail, then their 1 added to the other 99 that decided to contact their representative does get attention.

If you can, attend committee meetings to show support. For those of you that have not made it to a committee meeting, you really have to. Some of the anti arguments that come up will make you laugh, but remember to bite your lip, the committee chair does not approve of laughter at stupid statements.

Here is another interesting tidbit to toss into the suppressor argument:

http://iweb.tntech.edu/cpardue/pregnant.html

Pregnant women, many of them who have to shoot weapons professionally, may be at risk for high frequency hearing loss for their unborn fetuses. This article from Tennessee Technological University and in cooperation from Perdue University recommends pregnant women use silencers to protect the hearing of their unborn fetus. Looking at this from the angle of "denying pregnant women the right to protect their unborn child's hearing" may be a way to get more traction. Could be turned into a "war on women" issue. If a pregnant woman were to make the argument in front of a crowded room of state legislators, it could have a powerful effect.

I attended a hearing yesterday (3/12) chaired by Rep. Tony Cornish, which was also heavily attended by a pro-gun group (can't remember which one) and, of course, Heather Martens and protect Minnesota. I was there to lobby for my gov't job and didn't even realize that the two gun bills (suppressors and carry notification at the capitol) were on the docket. The hearing flew by and ended before the bill related to my job was even mentioned.

I'm one of the schlubs in uniform in the phot from this article:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28 ... l-midnight

ijosef wrote:I attended a hearing yesterday (3/12) chaired by Rep. Tony Cornish, which was also heavily attended by a pro-gun group (can't remember which one) and, of course, Heather Martens and protect Minnesota. I was there to lobby for my gov't job and didn't even realize that the two gun bills (suppressors and carry notification at the capitol) were on the docket. The hearing flew by and ended before the bill related to my job was even mentioned.

I'm one of the schlubs in uniform in the phot from this article:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28 ... l-midnight

GOCRA.

b

ijosef wrote:I attended a hearing yesterday (3/12) chaired by Rep. Tony Cornish, which was also heavily attended by a pro-gun group (can't remember which one) and, of course, Heather Martens and protect Minnesota. I was there to lobby for my gov't job and didn't even realize that the two gun bills (suppressors and carry notification at the capitol) were on the docket. The hearing flew by and ended before the bill related to my job was even mentioned.

I'm one of the schlubs in uniform in the phot from this article:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28 ... l-midnight

I was wondering what all the corrections guys were doing there. One theory was to lobby against the gun bills. Thanks for letting us know.

Relevant headline stinger on an article in the STrib this morning...

Napa winery murder-suicide had ex-Minnesotan at its core

Police say a business dispute climaxed Monday with a wounded investor racing through the grapevines as Robert Dahl, carrying a silencer-equipped .22-caliber semi-automatic pistol, pursued and then killed the fleeing man

http://www.startribune.com/nation/296829851.html

yuppiejr wrote:Relevant headline stinger on an article in the STrib this morning...

Napa winery murder-suicide had ex-Minnesotan at its core

Police say a business dispute climaxed Monday with a wounded investor racing through the grapevines as Robert Dahl, carrying a silencer-equipped .22-caliber semi-automatic pistol, pursued and then killed the fleeing man

http://www.startribune.com/nation/296829851.html

That shows that California's laws don't work.

It happens every great once in awhile. Suppressors aren't legal in California, so it wasn't legally owned and registered with the Feds.

Chances are it wasn't a commercially manufactured device, but a home made one. Either way, it shows that just like any other prohibited object, if a bad guy wants one he can find one. With suppressors though, bad guys simply don't want them.

This is the exception that proves the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PhilaBOR wrote:

ijosef wrote:I attended a hearing yesterday (3/12) chaired by Rep. Tony Cornish, which was also heavily attended by a pro-gun group (can't remember which one) and, of course, Heather Martens and protect Minnesota. I was there to lobby for my gov't job and didn't even realize that the two gun bills (suppressors and carry notification at the capitol) were on the docket. The hearing flew by and ended before the bill related to my job was even mentioned.

I'm one of the schlubs in uniform in the phot from this article:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28 ... l-midnight

I was wondering what all the corrections guys were doing there. One theory was to lobby against the gun bills. Thanks for letting us know.

I can almost guarantee you that not a single one of us would've been opposed to that bill. One of my coworkers is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal democrat but he's doesn't buy the anti-gun rhetoric of that crowd. Even he said to me, "if suppressors are legal in Minnesota, how many people are actually going to own them given the federal hoops you have to jump through?" He largely saw it as a moot point - if MN's ban is repealed, the number of people out there who will get suppressors will probably be statistically insignificant.

What was the word on this? Did it look like anything will change? I just saw this post today..

Maniac117 wrote:What was the word on this? Did it look like anything will change? I just saw this post today..

Made it through committee on a nearly unanimous vote. Hasn't been heard by the full house yet.

I don't think it has been introduced in the Senate yet. If/when it gets introduced, it has to pass anti-2A Sen. Latz's committee to be heard by the full Senate.

If it makes it out of the House and Senate, it goes to Governor Dayton, who has all but said he will veto it.