MN Suppressors

[jshuberg]

I know, it sucks. But you're just gonna have to deal with it. We can't be trusted with the solution. Not in MN. Just think of the killing sprees the ninjas will go on!!!

[Grayskies]

Wait... The ninja would be poaching the endangered white tail deer?

[xd ED]

Not to drift the topic, but I recall Jeff Cooper, I believe, recommending that a pair of electronic ear muffs be kept close the HD weapon- for hearing protection, as well as heightened listening capabilities.

[Grayskies]

As of late my my middle name seems to be topicdrift, anyway...

Batteries can die and circuts can fail, suppressors seem less fail prone.

Do make shift suppressors work like the potato or pop bottle ones, legality?

[Hmac]

Not necessarily. Ever notice that elderly hunters wear hearing aids in a much higher percentage than the rest of the population (other than ex-military of course)?

The reason is that protecting the hearing canal isn't enough to prevent hearing loss. It's very effective at eliminating instantaneous damage caused by dangerous sound levels, but isn't very effective at the cumulative effect over years and decades. The reason is that conventional hearing protection doesn't protect against bone conduction of low frequencies from the jawbone into the ear canal. This is the reason even very careful sportsmen suffer hearing loss significantly more than the general population.

The only way to guarantee that a person won't suffer permanent hearing loss is to reduce the sound at its origin to safe levels.

Also, in a home invasion scenario the donning of hearing protection isn't always possible. The idea that I'm allowed to defend myself and my family against a home invasion, but must suffer permanent hearing damage in doing so is offensive.

The concerns of the DNR are unfounded and demonstratively false. The concerns of sportsmen and home owners are very real, and is backed by hard science.

Jeez...how many shot are you going to take in this home defense scenario?

Yes. Shooting causes hearing loss over a period of time. Suppressors are a good thing. The DNR's bias against them is stupid. If they made them legal today, I'd have three Form 4s in the mail next week. Let's all exhort GOCRA or our other favorite lobbying organizations to put suppressors closer to the front burner.

[jshuberg]

If something like this were to be introduced, I would *highly* encourage everyone to take a day off of work and go to the committee hearing. There is significant resistance to overcome on this. Without millions of dollars to throw around, we need people to not only write letters, send emails and make phone calls, but also to show up in GOCRA maroon shirts and make sure the legislature knows this is important to us.

As far as any "other" MN gun rights organizations go........ maybe some day they'll actually succeed at something, maybe not. Until then, I'd recommend backing the team that's actually had fantastic success for the last 30 years or so. Just sayin'......

[Grayskies]

Supressors, a good idea, should be no-brainer...

Stand Your Ground, trumps this easil.

Hearing aids vs massive legal fees and possible jail time. Frith, I am tired of hearing these libs whine anyway...

[jshuberg]

I agree. GOCRA was able to get SYG legislation passed in both the MN House and Senate, and sent to Gov. Dayton, who decided to veto it.

We need to keep pushing for SYG, but the reality is that until we have a different Governor, we can pretty much guarantee that it won't become law, or that the legislature will be willing to spend time on legislation they know has little chance of success.

The same may be true of suppressors, it might not be possible under Dayton, but we won't know until we try. However, the failure of government to protect the city of Ferguson from being destroyed by rioters does evidence the fact that the people need the right to stand and defend themselves, regardless of where they happen to be. It's probably not enough to change Dayton's mind, but it does debunk the argument that we don't need SYG because the government will protect us. The people must be allowed to defend themselves.

[BBeckwith]

If you all want to know what GOCRA and MNGOPAC are thinking I encourage you to go to Mitch Berg's "Shot in the Dark" podcast and find 11-22-14 hour 2 audio. They talked about the upcoming legislative sessions and the election results and what it all means for an hour.

[BigBlue]

I never said base it on a constitutional issue. There are clear health benefits to using them to protect your hearing and most other states have either recognized that or just given in and went with the flow. It could be argued from the standpoint that it is damaging the heath of Minnesotans and that other states have recognized that and legalized them.

Careful what you ask for... MN is a huge nanny state so if you succeed in the argument that suppressors are needed to prevent hearing damage from firearms then they will want to make them mandatory for all use. Instantly every gun will need a $300 add-on...

BB

[LarryFlew]

Do make shift suppressors work like the potato or pop bottle ones, legality?

Kind of and not legal. intent to silence a firearm pretty much means nothing you could make or use would be legal. IE having the steel wool filled pop bottle is fine until you attach it to your gun.

[crbutler]

I never said base it on a constitutional issue. There are clear health benefits to using them to protect your hearing and most other states have either recognized that or just given in and went with the flow. It could be argued from the standpoint that it is damaging the heath of Minnesotans and that other states have recognized that and legalized them.

Careful what you ask for... MN is a huge nanny state so if you succeed in the argument that suppressors are needed to prevent hearing damage from firearms then they will want to make them mandatory for all use. Instantly every gun will need a $300 add-on...

BB

This is exactly my concern with all the suppressor activism. $300+ fee, serious government checking, registration, unusual delays..all what we have been fighting for some time.

I have hunted a little bit with a suppressed gun. The thing was accurate from a rest or bipod, but balanced like a sack of potatoes and added substantial weight. Think putting a full bottle of soda on the end of your hunting rifle. While there are good points to them, and I don't oppose making them legal, I personally feel that there are a lot of things that are more worthwhile to use our limited political capital on than forcing the issue and making them legal to hunt with- I would rather make the DNR and culling contractors give up theirs than make this fight.

[jshuberg]

Honestly, I doubt that will be an issue. Despite the fact that they are a safety device, many see them as somehow "evil". Making them legal for those who want to jump through the necessary hoops is one thing. Making everyone jump through those hoops, and requiring a suppressor for every firearm in MN will simply never happen. If anyone introduces the idea of requiring suppressors, they would be shot down faster than someone suggesting a repeal of income tax.

Please don't be hesitant to support this effort based on the idea of government mandating suppressors. Its not a realistic concern, but if it is brought up the folks at GOCRA will be able to deal with it without problem. We need as many people as possible engaged on this, please don't let fears of impossible scenarios keep you from helping. Note that of all the states that allow for suppressor use, none have required their usage. I believe I'm safe in believing that there was never any serious discussion about requiring their usage in any state in which they are legal. It's a somewhat common, but entirely unsubstantiated concern.

I still find it completely ass-backwards that some people perceive a piece of safety equipment as "evil", but refuse to use that same label on those few individuals who would actually use that safety device in an unlawful way. Some people just have this almost supernatural ability to see every issue completely and absolutely wrong. Gun control isn't a political ideology, it's a cult.

Suppressors might not be your #1 issue to address, but please help us out with it. We need to stand together. If we as gun owners become divided on which issues we feel strongly about verses those we don't, we appear weaker as a group. I'll stand up for the issues you consider most important if you do the same for me. We're all in this together, and need to demonstrate ourselves as a large, united, passionate constituency to the legislature to be successful at anything.

The folks at GOCRA and MNGOPAC have taken the temperature of those in the legislature. Bills will be introduced to the legislature based on both what gun owners collectively think is more important based on polling, and based on what is possible and politically advantageous to our cause at the time. Quite simply, we need to back their play and let them do this work for us. They know what they're doing over there in St. Paul!

[crbutler]

I don't find a suppressor evil, but to term it as a piece of safety equipment is at best, disingenuous.

A supersonic loading of a bullet still gives most of the noise even with the thing on. It makes it somewhat less annoying to bystanders, but they still know a gun was fired, and I was told to wear the hearing protection when I was hunting with one anyhow.

[jshuberg]

Try shooting a pistol in a bedroom without one and without hearing protection, you might just come around

And I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned that some people see them as evil. You don't give that impression at all. That was just a mental drift on how backward gun control cultists are....