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

[jgalt]

The DNR is currently opposed, I tihink, but it is in their interest to maintain interest in the shooting sports, and this would probably open up some more areas to shoot.

Unlikely. The casual shooting enthusiast isn't going to spend the money for a silencer -- At least not enough to support new shooting facilities specifically geared towards them.

Personally, I can't think of one good reason that I would ever consider getting one.

Does that translate into an objection to others having them, from either an LEO or personal perspective? Just curious...

[Paul]

The DNR is currently opposed, I tihink, but it is in their interest to maintain interest in the shooting sports, and this would probably open up some more areas to shoot.

Unlikely. The casual shooting enthusiast isn't going to spend the money for a silencer -- At least not enough to support new shooting facilities specifically geared towards them.

Personally, I can't think of one good reason that I would ever consider getting one.

Does that translate into an objection to others having them, from either an LEO or personal perspective? Just curious...

Not at all... More power to those folks that want them --- My comment was geared towards the potential market for said product. I don't think that you would see a huge rush by a majority of hunters/shooting enthusiasts to go buy them... Especially if fees are present above and beyond the purchase price.

When I originally read Dick's post, I took it as new clubs would open up because of the ability to use silencers... After reading it again, I think he meant that folks be able to get away with shooting in more populated areas without complaints.

[Paul]

And from an LEO perspective (since you asked)... I guess I don't really care either way. I don't think you'll see an increase in gun violence due to the ability to be discreet. If someone is going to shoot someone, they will do it regardless.

[Ranb]

Paul,

Which MN police organizations would be the most likely to support a civilian silencer bill or the least likely to oppose one?

Ranb

[Paul]

Paul,

Which MN police organizations would be the most likely to support a civilian silencer bill or the least likely to oppose one?

Ranb

Off the top of my head I can't think of any formal organization that would support a bill allowing the general public to obtain silencers. You would get some individual officers, maybe even some chiefs that are ok with it, but that's about it.

I could be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

[ricks8251]

I followed Randys efforts in washington state, while stationed there with the Navy. Once the law allowing the private use in state was passed I purchased 6. I shoot 2-3 times a month and have 3 young boys(10,6,5) chomping at the bit to begin shooting as well. One of the main selling points for me was being able to have them hear me and me them while we learn the joys of shooting in a safer inviorment. If you have not been to a range and been able to carry on a normal convorsation while shooting without pulling your ears/foamies everytime someone talks you really do not know what your missing. The 200$ stamp per can is not much when you look at it as a life long purchace. I would imagine most on the board if they wanted to find a "extra" 200$ could in a semi or yearly budget.

[Paul]

Whatever works for you. I can justify the cost for pretty much every stupid thing I want to buy... This just doesn't interest me much.

If it is a cost issue for some, I could understand that. Especially into have to buy multiple silencers for various weapon types.

If I want to get one for my .22 to teach my kids to shoot.... Just guessing, but I would imagine that between the purchase price and the stamp I have at least 400 bucks into it, to use on a 200 gun... And I can't use that same can on a large caliber rifle. Right?

[Dick Unger]

Don't make decisions on the basis of the $200 stamp. If we get folks to start using silencers, we'll eventually get rid of that stupid federal law too. It's irrational, threatre security. A murderer is hardly going to be detered by such a law. And for that he could just tape something on his gun.

Just because we've grown up with stupid laws does not mean we can't recognise and change this stuff.

[Paul]

Agreed.... But to find a politician that can be convinced to align their opinion with ours, the stand your ground bill was a much easier sell and we couldn't get that done. I don't see a ton of hope for this in the near future. I'm not suggesting that we should discourage folks from working towards it though.

[RobD]

Agreed.... But to find a politician that can be convinced to align their opinion with ours, the stand your ground bill was a much easier sell and we couldn't get that done. I don't see a ton of hope for this in the near future. I'm not suggesting that we should discourage folks from working towards it though.

To be fair, we had the support for the SYG bill, and were dang near to override territory. It was senate leadership that killed it... Due to egos, and timidity to take on another "social issue" with the criticism of the marriage amendment in the last days.

This only illustrates how important it is to have a plan, and not just a sponsored bill.

[ex-LT]

We were able to turn a Senator in WA that claimed silencers were illegal into one that urged passage of a the silencer bill. That was a very dramatic 180. It is possible that no responsible gun owner has ever sat down face to face with some of the anti-gun MN politicians and spoke to them about the benefits of silencer use? I am not claiming that what happened in WA is likely with all MN anti-gun politicians, but it is worth a try.

One question regarding said senator....

What was his/her stance on private ownership of firearms in general prior to your efforts?

As has been stated here numerous times (by myself and others), when it comes to gun related issues, Michael Paymar and his ilk suffer from a terminal case of RCI (aka rectal-cranial inversion). Since the day he was elected to office, he has been an ironclad vote in opposition to furthering gun ownership rights in Minnesota.

Living in his district, I had the opportunity to meet the man when he was out campaigning. He was all smiles and willing to talk - until I casually mentioned that I was a hunter and a gun owner. Then he suddenly didn't have time to talk. Now maybe that was just a coincidence, but I have my doubts.

[1911fan]

We were able to turn a Senator in WA that claimed silencers were illegal into one that urged passage of a the silencer bill. That was a very dramatic 180. It is possible that no responsible gun owner has ever sat down face to face with some of the anti-gun MN politicians and spoke to them about the benefits of silencer use? I am not claiming that what happened in WA is likely with all MN anti-gun politicians, but it is worth a try.

One question regarding said senator....

What was his/her stance on private ownership of firearms in general prior to your efforts?

As has been stated here numerous times (by myself and others), when it comes to gun related issues, Michael Paymar and his ilk suffer from a terminal case of RCI (aka rectal-cranial inversion). Since the day he was elected to office, he has been an ironclad vote in opposition to furthering gun ownership rights in Minnesota.

Living in his district, I had the opportunity to meet the man when he was out campaigning. He was all smiles and willing to talk - until I casually mentioned that I was a hunter and a gun owner. Then he suddenly didn't have time to talk. Now maybe that was just a coincidence, but I have my doubts.

Nope. That's his MO. He gets money from the anti's, it's all astro turf money, but it funds his campaigns and he gets a lot if swag and trips out if making him feel like a big cheese but really he is just a slimeball.


If Mn gun owners want to improve their chances of winning any gun bill, getting Marty and Paymar out would be huge. They are the manipulators. Everyone else is just stupid sheep.

[R.E.T.]

I would like to know when you do a demonstration of a muffler, I would like to attend. It is very easy to be against something that you know nothing about. I have never been around when a muffler was used. Mainly as they are illegal in this state. Also never been around when or if they were used in the Army. I am curious.

[JJ]

FWIW, If taking of game animals was excluded I would have zero interest in this. I want to be able to coyote hunt at night in some areas that do have a reasonable amount of housing close. Just having one for a range toy would be pointless to me.

[1911fan]

FWIW, If taking of game animals was excluded I would have zero interest in this. I want to be able to coyote hunt at night in some areas that do have a reasonable amount of housing close. Just having one for a range toy would be pointless to me.

This +100


One of the places I deer hunt has a small subdivision beside it. Being able to shoot a deer without having the sheriff show up everytime would be nice. (in season and all legal). It's also a nice thing for farmers etc to dispatch varmints and predators without disturbing the herd is very nice.

I truly believe most if not all of the DNR and legislators information on this issue(and all gun and knife issues) comes from Hollywood. My experience has been that my former and current legislator had no idea machine guns were legal anywhere or that MN had a C&R list. Neither had any idea that west side story was the driving force behind banning automatic knives.

We do need to educate our legislators. For almost all of them, gun issues are tenth or more on the list in importance. Taxes, economy, drugs, schools, and others are all higher on their list. The FUDDs support this notion too, and in some ways they are correct. We do have one of the better carry laws. We do have pretty good protections of ranges and hunting, our purchase system and our lack of registration or Leo approval (other than NICS) is far less onerous than say Michigan or NY or Mass. Expending political Capitol at a time when it might be dear on an issue like cans or machine guns or switchblades or other points of interest might not be the wisest.

From a legal standpoint and IANAL, I would say THE issue to push at this time is a RKBA amendment to the state constitution. That's the key that opens all the doors if it's written correctly.