UPDATE 3/30/2012: Movement to repeal silencer ban

[Cadet]

there are companys that make subsonic rounds from .22 LR to .50 BMG.
just saw an add for one in american handgunner this month, ill find it and post the company

[miked]

Okay, at the risk of getting flamed I have to ask. What is the need/use of a silencer?

Al

Well there are a lot. First hearing safety for everyone (from kids just learning to hunters to competitors to cops and tactical operators), second they increase the enjoyment of shooting greatly, third it opens a much wider area where you can target practice without annoying the neighbors, fourth they can increase accuracy for really anal shooters.

That is only the start


mike

[goalie]

Some of us already have hearing loss from using un-suppressed firearms.

I would like to keep the hearing I have, and a "silencer" would make that easier to do.

[mnmike59]

Incidentally, MN Code requires offroad motorcycles to have silencers for the same reason.

I can see it already. A new bill brought forward requiring all hunting rifles and pistols to be suppressed.

[tman]

I'm sure Governor Dayton will happily sign all pro gun related bills that appear on his desk this session, and the next three sessions, as well...

[JJ]

I'm sure Governor Dayton will happily sign all pro gun related bills that appear on his desk this session, and the next three sessions, as well...

The trick is to get it attached to an omnibus bill. To get the new light law passed, we had to get it attached to the Fish and Game bill that year. That's where Cornish was able to remove the centerfire provision. We were assured that it would be killed as a stand-alone, but my taking the restriction to shotshell and RF, he attached it to the F&G, then it slid right thru.

[Cadet]

SSK industries was the company I was talking about above, bullets from .22 to .50, including .338 lapua, .308, and .416 cheytac that wont break the sound barrier. http://sskindustries.com/index.htm

[miked]

SSK industries was the company I was talking about above, bullets from .22 to .50, including .338 lapua, .308, and .416 cheytac that wont break the sound barrier. http://sskindustries.com/index.htm

I run http://www.ebr-inc.net/ with a can and the stuff is great (at least the 5.56).

[Pinnacle]

Let me know how that all works out for you. There is no way that they will ever lift that ban in MN. I hope that they do so a certain someone that I know can make some $$$$$ otherwise, nice to dream.

[LarryP]

My thought to. I think it's a bad idea. All we need is gangs/badguys with silencers.
I understand the reasoning for hunting etc, but don't agree with it. I think poaching would increase big time

Okay, at the risk of getting flamed I have to ask. What is the need/use of a silencer?

Al

[Norsesmithy]

My thought to. I think it's a bad idea. All we need is gangs/badguys with silencers.
I understand the reasoning for hunting etc, but don't agree with it. I think poaching would increase big time

An incredibly ignorant fear.

On par with being afraid of sailing off the end of world.

That's how ignorant that fear is.

Any chucklehead with a bit of plumbing hardware and some steel wool or dish scrubbies can make a suppressor. Anyone who can do 9th grade metal shop level metal working and has seen the inside of a car muffler can make a better suppressor.

In states where suppressor ownership was de-criminalized in the last decade there was no increase in poaching (and statistics show that NFA weapon owners are the single most law abiding demographic of people in the United States). To legally own a suppressor in a state that doesn't bar their ownership, one must pay a 200 dollar poll tax tax stamp and submit to an extensive background check and fingerprinting. This background check can take up to 6 months to complete.

This isn't something Greg the Poacher is going to do. And if Lou the gangster wanted a suppressor, he could have the boys down at the chop shop make him one in about an hour, not even needing to steal one from it's legal owner or register his name and fingerprints with a federal agency.

Quite frankly, there is no evidence that the NFA itself did anything to curtail crime or the criminal use of the weapons it regulates, never mind more restrictive local regulations on the matter. And that's putting aside the constitutional issue, an interesting fact that most people don't know is that in US v Miller, the case that upheld the 1934 NFA, there was no defendant or defending council present? That there was just a federal attorney and no one to argue against him? Wouldn't every lawyer wish all his cases were such, trials in absentia of people neither represented by counsel nor able to speak in their own defense? Didn't our constitution have something to say about trials in absentia, namely the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments?

[plblark]

So, you fellas are into prior restraint, eh. You know, the device makes you guilty of the crime even absent any out of season / no license animal and will turn us all into gangsters?

In several places in Europe, it's considered impolite NOT to use a muffler for precisely the same reason you HAVE to have one on your car.

Let's flip this on its head. How about we figure people are innocent until proven guilty and the intent and actions make you guilty rather than some mechanical device.

[LarryFlew]

My thought to. I think it's a bad idea. All we need is gangs/badguys with silencers.
I understand the reasoning for hunting etc, but don't agree with it. I think poaching would increase big time.

Al

[/quote]

kidding or stirring the pot ?? How are your thoughts different from reasoning used by gun control advocates? If they allow us to have guns then the gangs will have guns.

[1911fan]

Getting a can would still cost a buyer a $200 tax stamp, and misuse gets the Feds involved immediately, nah it's not going to get misused at the rate some cry about.

Pinnacle. In 2002 &3 people were saying the same thing about MPPA. done right, it has a good chance.

[afossum]

My thought to. I think it's a bad idea. All we need is gangs/badguys with silencers.
I understand the reasoning for hunting etc, but don't agree with it. I think poaching would increase big time.

Al

kidding or stirring the pot ?? How are your thoughts different from reasoning used by gun control advocates? If they allow us to have guns then the gangs will have guns.[/quote]

Please understand I don't care if you have a silencer, I don't care if you have a 30round magazine,I don't care how many guns you have. Just seems to me there are other more important battles to be fought. If you ask most gun owners to list important issues to them, silencers would not be on the radar.
The reasons for silencers just doesn't work for me Hearing loose, wear ear protection. Hunting? again just don't see the need. I'm guessing most people living in rural areas are not bothered by the occasional gun shot. In most cases its there friends or family members out hunting.
I'm new to this forum and just pickup a glock 19 last month. Been to the range 3 times and looking for many more enjoyable sessions. Thought it would be a fun way to spend some time during our long winters.
Just because I just acquired my glock doesn't mean I'm new to gun ownership. Got my first rifle a Winchester model 94 in about 1963. My Dad purchased it at Dayton's in downtown Mpls.

Happy Shooting, Al