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

[BC98]

With supersonic ammo, most suppressed centerfire rifle gunshots are still well over 100 dB. I would think that is still very sufficient for a CO to hear from a distance.

[Ranb]

But unless we can get a statehouse with a lot of libertarians, I think it will be difficult to overcome DNR and police opposition, in addition to the Bradys' who would oppose anything we propose.

In Washington State it is the Democrats that are pushing the pro-gun bills now; the Republicans are a minority of the gun bill sponsors now. Educate those Democrats and they will come around to see things our way.

Any new word from Senator Wolf?

Ranb

[dsm2nr]

I think a rifle would be pretty loud no matter what.

This is an extreme case, but watch this. Obviously you're not getting the full effect from it being in person. But on video it amazes me.

Skip to 2:05 if you have ADHD.

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45#p/u/24/Q5ALp8-d3dQ


And he shoots supersonic ammo without a suppressor in this one for comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45#p/u/35/Sd_2tcj7P4s

[Scott Notaeh]

H.F. No. 1984, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Jan 26, 2012

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to public safety; firearms; authorizing federally licensed firearms
1.3manufacturers to possess federally registered firearm silencers for the purpose
1.4of testing firearms manufactured for police and military agencies;amending
1.5Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 609.66, subdivision 2.
1.6BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 609.66, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
1.8 Subd. 2. Exceptions. (a) Nothing in this section prohibits the possession of the
1.9articles mentioned by museums or collectors of art or for other lawful purposes of public
1.10exhibition.
1.11(b) Nothing in this section prohibits the ownership, possession, or use of firearm
1.12silencer or firearm muffler by a person or entity licensed as a firearms manufacturer under
1.13United States Code, title 18, section 923, provided that the silencer or muffler is used
1.14exclusively for the purpose of testing firearms manufactured for federal, state, and local
1.15law enforcement agencies or any branch or unit of the United States armed forces, and
1.16the manufacturer:
1.17(1) possesses a manufacturer's Type 7 Federal Firearms License issued in accordance
1.18with the Gun Control Act, United States Code, title 18, section 923, and the Internal
1.19Revenue Code, United States Code, title 26, chapter 53;
1.20(2) possesses proof of registration of the silencer in the National Firearm Registration
1.21and Transfer Record established in the National Firearms Act, United States Code, title
1.2226, section 5841, and Code of Federal Regulations, title 27, part 479, as enforced by the
1.23Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, indicating compliance with
1.24all applicable federal statutes, regulations, and standards; and
2.1(3) has provided written notification to the sheriff of the county or counties in which
2.2the firm is located and the testing will be done of the manufacturer's intent to possess and
2.3use the silencer for that purpose.
2.4EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.


House Authors Scott ; Quam ; Dean ; Fabian

[Scott Notaeh]

H.F. No. 1816, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Jan 13, 2012

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to public safety; firearms; authorizing federally licensed firearms
1.3importers, manufacturers, and dealers to possess and sell firearm silencers to
1.4authorized law enforcement and wildlife management agencies for certain
1.5authorized purposes;amending Minnesota Statutes 2011 Supplement, section
1.6609.66, subdivision 1h.
1.7BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2011 Supplement, section 609.66, subdivision 1h,
1.9is amended to read:
1.10 Subd. 1h. Silencers; authorized for law enforcement and wildlife control
1.11purposes. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), licensed peace
1.12officers may use devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for
1.13tactical emergency response operations. Tactical emergency response operations include
1.14execution of high risk search and arrest warrants, incidents of terrorism, hostage rescue,
1.15and any other tactical deployments involving high risk circumstances. The chief law
1.16enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency that has the need to use silencing devices
1.17must establish and enforce a written policy governing the use of the devices.
1.18(b) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), an enforcement
1.19officer, as defined in section 97A.015, subdivision 18, a wildlife area manager, an
1.20employee designated under section 84.0835, or a person acting under contract with the
1.21commissioner of natural resources, at specific times and locations that are authorized
1.22by the commissioner of natural resources may use devices designed to silence or
1.23muffle the discharge of a firearm for wildlife control operations that require stealth. If
1.24the commissioner determines that the use of silencing devices is necessary under this
2.1paragraph, the commissioner must establish and enforce a written policy governing the
2.2use, possession, and transportation of the devices.
2.3(c) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), a person who is
2.4licensed by the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
2.5Firearms and Explosives, under United States Code, title 18, section 923, as a firearms
2.6importer, manufacturer, or dealer, may possess devices designed to silence or muffle the
2.7discharge of a firearm, for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the devices
2.8in any lawful manner to the chief executive officer of any state or local governmental
2.9unit, or to the officer's designee as stated in writing, for the purposes and uses expressly
2.10authorized under paragraphs (a) and (b).
2.11(d) Nothing in this section is intended to allow for the personal usage of devices
2.12designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm by any person, except for the uses
2.13expressly authorized by law at any time.
2.14EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Guess special people can use them.

[dshortone]

Big tease. After trudging through the revised laws, we are still essentially back at square one. When we move back to MN I'll be more than willing to work with a few of you to get this turned around in our favor.

[bstrawse]

And here I thought randb had all this figured out

[Scott Notaeh]

Both of these bills work to fix things that would be better fixed by repealing the ban. I plan to let the authors know this. Others should do the same.

I would not buy a silencer even if they were allowed with no tax stamp but I am pro 2nd amendment and will stick by my fellow gun nuts.

[2in2out]

I'd sign any petition or write to any politician (which I plan to do asap) to help further the cause.

In the past, I considered a silencer/suppressor a cool accessory, but not something I needed (or could even get, so why worry about it).

I don't hunt and shoot exclusively at ranges. The more I think about it, the more I'd love to have one for target shooting and general plinking.

My next rifle will have a threaded barrel, because I'm confident the repeal will happen, sooner or later.

What can we do - who can we contact?

[jzzr83]

After reading HF 1816 and 1984 it does not look like that will help me/us too much. Am I missing something here? I had the understanding that we were to get a bill pushed that would allow all of us to enjoy the benefits of using a suppressor/muffler/silencer. It had been a long time since I had visited this forum so I read this thread today and was looking into meeting with my local reps. Then I read those two bills, that's not much to get excited about. What am I missing?

[jzzr83]

It's me again... After taking some time today to scan this 18 page discussion I noticed many people "getting perturbed" with Ranb over the fact that he was encouraging us Minnesotans so much to contact the antis to change there opinion. Now, I will agree with you that he may not understand the political situation over here, (and I am sure Ranb will be the first to agree with you), what he says is still true. We all have to take some time and get out there to let the elected officials know where we stand. And for those of you with the tried and true antis for elected officials, try not to get annoyed that he is telling people to talk to the officials, there are many of us that have officials that could be on the fence and just need to hear from their constituents that suppressors/mufflers/silencers should be legal.

Before I ramble on too much here, I want to make it known that I am not trying to rag on anyone in here, I appreciate the hard work of those that have pushed and pushed hard for getting bills passed that allow me to have a carry license. I also appreciate the hard work Ranb has done in WA and the time he has taken here to push for a repeal of silencer/muffler/suppressor ban. Thanks to all of you!

I am a newly elected precinct chair at the caucus a few weeks ago for our precinct (I have my wife to thank for nominating me, and I was the only one who was nominated. I also have no clue as to what I am going to have to do, supposedly I will get either a letter or a call informing me) I hope to meet some officials at some meetings and will surly bring this topic up and any other pro-gun topic that anyone has.

Hopefully this rambling on I have been doing makes sense, thank you all out there who have been working hard trying to get things flowing on this issue!

[FJ540]

When I contact my idiot, I tell her to stop wasting time and energy on the vikings and instead offer up that they should repeal this ban because it would create jobs, income for my business (making suppressors) as well as my suppliers and the dealers who'd sell them, and "free" tax revenue via the stamp required for ownership. It's a money maker, and people want them! I'm "selling it" as a win-win for everyone (less disturbance of tranquility, and safer for hearing of the shooters). I mention they're legal in numerous other states, and those states are proof that having them available has not made things worse in hunting or crime rates.

Of course the wench didn't reply. She was hell bent on free health care for everyone last time we were face to face, but some of those points show up in the proposed change allowing military and law enforcement sales (it's a leak in the dam - which is better than the impenetrable wall we currently face).

I truly believe the way we need to sway the tide is by making it sound like a huge benefit to the anti's - if we can make them think all guns should be silenced like they do in Europe (they love legislating solutions to problems, right?), we're golden! After all, it's the polite thing to do...

[justaguy]

I'm not holding my breath on this one, Gents.

[plblark]

jzzr: look at the bills now proposed: silencers allowed for tac teams. How did that approach work out and where do you think the legislators got that idea.

Yeah, convincing the special people that they can't have them so they should let all of us have them when they change the law didn't work out too well. they just went and wrote in an exemption.

[Scott Notaeh]

I had a discussion with my rep a couple days ago since she is the chief author of HF 1984. I asked her to change the bill to repeal the MN ban on silencers. She said she would love for that to happen but there was not enough support at this time. She said that someone had tried to carry such a bill a few years back and the backlash was too great. She would rather just keep nibbling away at it.

I guess some firearms manufacturer in Hugo asked for HF 1984 so they could test the firearms they make. She is getting heat for even this bill. She said she got questions on HF 1984 in committee that were just silly. "What if someone breaks into the firearms manufacturer and steals the silencers..."