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

[FJ540]

When you talk to her again, you can let her know I'll be applying for a 07 FFL the day this legislation takes effect if it allows me to make the devices. It's a good start. Depending on what your plans are, if you meet with her again, I'd be willing to go sell my own case too.

Hugo is JP, then there's DPMS up in St Cloud (and china ), there's numerous other established manufacturers in MN who'd benefit from this, and it would open flood gates for others to follow.

[2in2out]

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..."

What can she tell you about who might be receptive to the idea?

Benefits to the public at large:
1 - tax stamp revenue
2 - jobs creation
3 - money flowing into MN economy
4 - quieter outdoor ranges
5 - ?

What else? I think FJ540 is right - this needs to be something that the anti's will support, which means they have to see benefits that they can relate to. "Because I can put one on my AR-15" isn't going to appeal to them, and gives them every reason to vote against it.

[Scott Notaeh]

My impression was that she was 100% for it. Problem is that the antigun side would fight it 100% and there would be some political price to pay. Cornish and other LEO spokespeople won't support and without that there is zero chance dayton will sign. Better to weaken the ban by allowing firearm mfg to have them.

If you want a list of the most pro silencer reps, just look at the authors of HF1984 and the senate companion.

[Ranb]

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.

1984 modifies 609.66 subsection 2 (the art collection part) for testing by licensed dealers.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87
1816 modifies 609.66 subsection 1h to allow sale by dealers to the government.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87

Neither bill changes how the police are allowed to use them; silencers are still only for tactical emergency response. The police are still not allowed to use them for training as far as I know.

Ranb

[Cadet]

Bump for Update

[illbits]

But what about Tray...

[MM1(SS)ELT]

I am an active duty military member from Minnesota. When I get out I want to be able to have a suppressor for my rifles. My hearing is very important to me, but hearing deer is just as important. I probably won't use my large caliber rifles to hunt in MN, unless it's moose, but when I go to states that allow suppressor usage it would be nice to have one. I think that WHEN this law is repealed we need to make sure that they will be allowed to be used for hunting. My current duty station is not near Minn, but if there is anything I can do to help please let me know.

[MM1(SS)ELT]

Thank you Cadet. Email sent.

[White Horseradish]

Some movement on the subject:


http://www.gem-tech.com/blog/?p=580

MINNESOTA SUPPRESSOR LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS

Another grassroots success story in advancing good-sense on suppressor laws in Minnesota: We had been keeping this on the down-low for the last couple months, as this one was a bit sensitive, but it’s good to go as of today!

Chris Stafford, a longtime GEMTECH client that saw a problem that needed to be addressed, asked his representative to start a bill, and this is the result.

Historically, Minnesota has been one of the worst offenders in restricting the access to firearm-mounted hearing protection. There have even been roadblocks making it hard to obtain sound suppressors for even their own law enforcement departments, whose employees are exposed to firearms noise as a condition of their employment, not just by recreational choice. There have been positive changes to allow very narrow categories of suppressor ownership (some wildlife agencies, law enforcement, etc.), but not even dealers could possess them to demonstrate them *to* these agencies. GEMTECH couldn’t even “import” our own silencers into the state, so have subcontracted under manufacturing variance for companies like DPMS to get our product into Minnesota.

Today’s law change now advances Minnesota dealers to possess and sell to authorized clients. Baby steps for certain, and nowhere near the freedoms we’d like to see in the Gopher State, but we believe that the more commonplace suppressors are, the myths and misperceptions about them will start to erode, leading to increased freedoms to everyone. Minnesota’s got a long way to go towards a “greener” approach to abating firearm noise, but this is a step in the right direction.

Mike Benson is the Representative that got things moving there on the House side, and Senator Bill Englebritson on the Senate.
Federally licensed firearm importers, manufacturers and dealers firearm silencers possession and sale to authorized law enforcement agencies, military and other licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers authorization

Video of Chris’ testimony is here, about twenty minutes in:

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/media ... w#monthnav


Bill Status 2125 and companion April 16, HB 1816 passed, and companion SB2125 passed – both went off to the governor and were signed today!

[FJ540]

Looks like I need to get some ducks in a row.

[GunBuilder]

Hi everybody, first post here. I'm excited to join everyone pushing to get more suppressor freedom in MN. Does anyone have any updates since April?

[RobD]

Hi everybody, first post here. I'm excited to join everyone pushing to get more suppressor freedom in MN. Does anyone have any updates since April?

Well, the session is over... so there really wouldn't be...

Nothing really to piss yourself over with the new law.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), a person who is
licensed by the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives under United States Code, title 18, section 923, as a firearms
importer, manufacturer, or dealer, who is acting in full compliance with all federal
requirements under that license, may possess devices designed to silence or muffle the
discharge of a firearm for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring in any lawful
manner the devices or firearms tested with the devices, to:
(1) the chief administrator of any federal, state, or local governmental agency;
(2) the commander or commander's designee of any unit of the United States Armed
Forces; or
(3) a person who is licensed by the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under United States Code, title 18, section
923, as a firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer, who is acting in full compliance with
all federal requirements under that license.

During the last session, Chris Rager from the NRA seemed to think this was a camel's nose... But history and experience say otherwise. Just because cops can have them, does not lead to us getting them.

[xd ED]

I haven't followed the recent advancement closely, but wasn't the impetus behind this change the ability of Minnesota firearms manufactures to use suppressors for product testing?

[RobD]

I haven't followed the recent advancement closely, but wasn't the impetus behind this change the ability of Minnesota firearms manufactures to use suppressors for product testing?

Correct:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87

[GunGoogler]

I am an active duty military member from Minnesota. When I get out I want to be able to have a suppressor for my rifles. My hearing is very important to me, but hearing deer is just as important. I probably won't use my large caliber rifles to hunt in MN, unless it's moose, but when I go to states that allow suppressor usage it would be nice to have one. I think that WHEN this law is repealed we need to make sure that they will be allowed to be used for hunting. My current duty station is not near Minn, but if there is anything I can do to help please let me know.

There may be an angle to take here, in addition to the benefits previously articulated. As shooters, we are often concerned about our own hearing, but we rarely discuss the hearing of others or the "noise pollution" effects of hunting. Does anyone know of any studies related to rifle/shotgun hunting and how it affects the surrounding wildlife? We've seen studies recently regarding sonar's affect on whales and other fish as well as fireworks on animals--including the disorientation of birds leading to their death. Perhaps there is some body of evidence to gather and support this kind of case?

One thing to note: this is a potentially delicate argument because it could result in more regulation of hunting instead of less; however, given hunting's wide support in the Midwestern culture, I think that it could withstand this type of argument. I think the best "camel's nose" is to take the suppressors for hunting angle.