Suppressor Bill Signed!

[Randygmn]

So when does this take effect allowing us to own one

July 1st they are legal in Minnesota. Of course, unless you legally own them in Wisconsin or North Dakota, you'll have to begin the process of getting the tax stamp. That takes a few months. I'm not sure if the paperwork (filing) can be done before July 1st. If someone knows, please chime in (Bryan)

[SparkyJeff]

I think it is great that our rights are less limited but honestly never really understood the need for a suppressor.

What is the attraction?

[2in2out]

Rad

I think it is great that our rights are less limited but honestly never really understood the need for a suppressor.

What is the attraction?

So we don't destroy our hearing by age 50. My ears ring badly enough as it is at age 30 from years of playing trumpet in school and all the other loud music, earbuds, and miscellaneous idiocy over the years.

Even with hearing protection, guns are not fully hearing safe. Suppressed guns (22s and subsonics aside) are not fully hearing safe either, but they do reduce the sound quite a bit more and further delay that early deafness.

Also they're cool as hell.

+1

For those whose ears don't ring from years of abuse, I can tell you that every single day I regret not protecting my hearing better (and I never thought I was abusing it). You can't turn tinnitus off and there's no cure once you have it.

Suppressors ftw.

[goalie]

I think it is great that our rights are less limited but honestly never really understood the need for a suppressor.

What is the attraction?

You obviously don't have military service acquired tinnitus.

If you did, and you deer hunt, you would realize how ridiculous that question is

[340PD]

I'm absolutely floored. I have been out of the loop for a while and didn't know the status of pretty much anything going on gun related until I just got an email from someone telling me a bill legalizing suppressors in MN has become law!! Wow. Much like the Carry bill, I never thought this day would come in MN. I would like to join in and thank those involved in getting this done. Kudos!

Does anyone know the specifics off hand? Will it require a tax stamp and CLEO signature and all that? Will they HAVE to sign off unless there is a legal reason not to or will we end up with a suppressor law that is much like the "original carry law" in MN where the permits were never issued in the metro area unless you "knew" someone, etc and where some people just would flat out NEVER issue a permit, period?

[Randygmn]

I'm absolutely floored. I have been out of the loop for a while and didn't know the status of pretty much anything going on gun related until I just got an email from someone telling me a bill legalizing suppressors in MN has become law!! Wow. Much like the Carry bill, I never thought this day would come in MN. I would like to join in and thank those involved in getting this done. Kudos!

Does anyone know the specifics off hand? Will it require a tax stamp and CLEO signature and all that? Will they HAVE to sign off unless there is a legal reason not to or will we end up with a suppressor law that is much like the "original carry law" in MN where the permits were never issued in the metro area unless you "knew" someone, etc and where some people just would flat out NEVER issue a permit, period?

Federal law supersedes, of course. They are still an NFA item. It will require a $200 tax stamp and Cleo signature, unless a trust is used. Suppressors aren't shall issue, so yes, Cleo abuse is still a possibility.

[Hmac]

Federal law supersedes, of course. They are still an NFA item. It will require a $200 tax stamp and Cleo signature, unless a trust is used. Suppressors aren't shall issue, so yes, Cleo abuse is still a possibility.

There are CLEOs out there that will sign off on an SBR, but won't sign off on a suppressor.

[george]

Federal law supersedes, of course. They are still an NFA item. It will require a $200 tax stamp and Cleo signature, unless a trust is used. Suppressors aren't shall issue, so yes, Cleo abuse is still a possibility.

There are CLEOs out there that will sign off on an SBR, but won't sign off on a suppressor.

Ive talked to my sheriff office and got no answer on a sign off, also talked to a local lawyer that was in my opinion uninterested,
so I did the on line trust and jest got the papers back this morning.
I would suggest reading about it, I'm on the move without he cleo.
http://www.199trust.com/#oid=1215_1

[LePetomane]

Hats off to GOCRA and the good work they do in our state. However I will not be sending the governor a note of thanks for signing the bill as the email suggested. I feel feeding into his monumental ego is counterproductive. Our basic rights do not come from Governor Dayton. I'm not about to give him a false impression. He seems to have forgotten that he works for us. He feels that being a "public servant" means that the public should serve him and give him his way. His temper tantrum over the pre-K issue is proof of that.

GOCRA deserves the credit for this. They have been very effective in Minnesota. I continue to be amazed at what they have done despite the number of the loonies in the legislature and their anti gun fans. Not only have they brought the anti gun nuts to a standstill but they were instrumental in the suppressor issue.

[Hmac]

GOCRA has once again demonstrated itself to be an extremely effective organization. We're very fortunate in Minnesota to have this group working for our interests.

[gun_fan111v2]

Kudos to GOCRA and everybody that helped!

[LarryP]

Is there any protection for gun owners in the bill if a CLEO won't sign off?
With the cost of a silencer, barell & tax stamp. I wonder how many will actually buy one?

[bstrawse]

Is there any protection for gun owners in the bill if a CLEO won't sign off?
With the cost of a silencer, barell & tax stamp. I wonder how many will actually buy one?

In the bill? No.

However, it's an issue that we'll all be monitoring closely - and we'll be back in the 2016 session to add CLEO signoff if we hear of abuses.

One can always go the trust route if you have a hostile CLEO.
b

[Hmac]

Is there any protection for gun owners in the bill if a CLEO won't sign off?
With the cost of a silencer, barell & tax stamp. I wonder how many will actually buy one?

The statement on the Form 4 that the CLEO is being asked to attest to says:

I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law

As benign as that is, it's all some of them need to subvert the intention of the NFA. They're not supposed to have veto power. Their input is only to attest that they aren't aware of any exclusionary factors. It doesn't even ask them to run a background check.

[crbutler]

Since everyone keeps bringing up that these are so important for hunting...

Did this bill do anything to allow their use for hunting? There have been some here that say it will allow them to shoot multiple animals out of a herd because the suppressed shot doesn't cause them to run... To me, that is unsporting. Fine if you are shooting varmints, but not game animals.

As to hearing protection, I get that. I have REALLY bad hearing, and bad tinnitus, and have it since 5-6. That said, depending on your suppressor to protect your hearing is BS. You still need to worry about the other guy. Plugs, that protects you from everyone. Just saying.

While I would like one for some things, and will be getting a couple, I personally got by just fine without them, it was the principle of the ban that annoyed me.