crbutler wrote:As I recall, that happened a couple of years ago. The DNR has allowance for a set number of silencers for use in conducting cull shoots. The DNR is rarely on "our" side. They are a bureaucratic organization that looks out principally for the organization.
(1)establish and enforce a written policy governing the use, possession, and
transportation of the devices;.
(2) limit the number of the silencing devices maintained by the Department of
Natural Resources to no more than ten; and
(3) keep direct custody and control of the devices when the devices are not
specifically authorized for use.
Ranb wrote:609.66 has been amended to allow DNR possession of silencers. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66 Not sure how this happpened, but this link says it was done during the special session. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?doctyp ... ype=1&id=2
So much for getting the DNR on our side.
Ranb
bstrawse wrote:If you understood Minnesota firearms politics, this should not be a surprise to you.
Ready to work with GOCRA yet?
b
crbutler wrote:As I recall, that happened a couple of years ago. The DNR has allowance for a set number of silencers for use in conducting cull shoots.
Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), until July 1, 2011, an enforcement officer, as defined in section 97A.015, subdivision 18, a wildlife area manager, an employee designated under section 84.0835, or a person acting under contract with the commissioner of natural resources, at specific times and locations that are authorized by the commissioner of natural resources may use devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for wildlife control operations that require stealth.
plblark wrote:so now everyone would be rewuired to go the CLEO signature and tax stamp route to use BESA ...
Unintended Consequences R.E.T.
Dick Unger wrote:I think a rifle would be pretty loud no matter what.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests