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

[XDM45]

I admit that I haven't read all 19 pages of this thread, but I have recently thought about how loud my .45 is. It's loud in general, I know that. the other day I was outside and I wear both ear plugs AND muffs, so I have both internal and external ear protection going on.... I took off my muffs and only had earplugs in, the sharp crack of a single shot was loud, but muffled. Not as muffled as before, but muffled. I dare not take a single shot without any protection in at all, but I'd love to hear just how loud a .45 is.

Based on my meek experiment with hearing protection outside, I can imagine how much louder it is indoors at a range, and even louder still inside a home with even closer quarters in the unfortunate situation one must use it for self-defense and there's no time to protect your ears since you are protecting your family instead.

I did some research online and the .45 is 150db. Now considering a jetliner takes off at 1450db, that's EXTREMELY LOUD. I can't image a DE, S&W .500 or a .454, my word......

I've always protected my hearing and fully believe that having mufflers, silencers, little fluffy foo foo bears with bows, I don't care what you want to call them as long as they muffle the noise, are needed. I wouldn't even want to bang away on my little .22LR for a few rounds either.

Criminals don't care about PTP, PTC, or Silencers because they're going to do it regardless of the law since they are already breaking the law(s) anyway, what's one more? ALL these laws do is hurt the law abiding citizens.

I've passed the NCIS Background Check for my PTP.
I've passed my company background check for security, credit, drugs, etc.
I've passed a federal background check for my work.
I've passed a background check for a certain federal agency.
I've continually be checked, re-checked, verified and re-verified for my work at a job most people can't get.

I WILL pass my PTC and get that.

I'm a big boy and can handle a Silencer, full auto, etc. I only had one momma and she died. I don't need another one called the government.

[Paul]

I've passed the NCIS Background Check for my PTP.
I've passed my company background check for security, credit, drugs, etc.
I've passed a federal background check for my work.
I've passed a background check for a certain federal agency.
I've continually be checked, re-checked, verified and re-verified for my work at a job most people can't get.

I WILL pass my PTC and get that.

And?

What does that mean for other folks? Should an average Joe not be able to get a suppressor, because they haven't had to go through the background BS you have? What standard do you think should need to be met in order for folks to be considered 'qualified' to have a suppressor. If your criteria is what you feels make you qualified, please share why. If not, what does that list mean?

I'm not trying to be critical. But too many folks try to justify things because they feel that they are qualified. Either you meet that minimum standard, or you don't. None of other fluff matters.

[XDM45]

I've passed the NCIS Background Check for my PTP.
I've passed my company background check for security, credit, drugs, etc.
I've passed a federal background check for my work.
I've passed a background check for a certain federal agency.
I've continually be checked, re-checked, verified and re-verified for my work at a job most people can't get.

I WILL pass my PTC and get that.

And?

What does that mean for other folks? Should an average Joe not be able to get a suppressor, because they haven't had to go through the background BS you have? What standard do you think should need to be met in order for folks to be considered 'qualified' to have a suppressor. If your criteria is what you feels make you qualified, please share why. If not, what does that list mean?


Paul,

You missed my point.

Let me answer your very good questions....

And?
..and it means that if *I* can't get one what with all of my probing by the US Govt and whatnot, what chances the average joe have? Yeah, I don't have Yankee White clearance (security clearance to guard the US President), but I have a feeling that even if I did, in MN, I *STILL* couldn't have a silencer. That's bunk.

What does that mean for other folks?
See the above. I'm on the same side as everyone else is when it comes to this stuff.

Should an average Joe not be able to get a suppressor, because they haven't had to go through the background BS you have?
No. They should be able to get one. It's along the same lines as someone who is 18 can die for their country, but unless they are on-base, they can't buy a beer...which I also think is complete bunk.

What standard do you think should need to be met in order for folks to be considered 'qualified' to have a suppressor.
Fair enough. Here would be my standard. This is my opinion. Yours and others will vary.

1) Be able to pass a NCIS Background Check in order to get a PTP (Same criteria. No domestic assaults, not a Registered Sex Offender, Mental Hospitalization, etc.)

2) No Alcohol or Drug-Related Convictions for 5 years prior to meeting criteria 1 as well as at no time during possession and/or ownership of the suppressor.

I'm not for over-legislating this. I think a suppressor is a safety issue as far as hearing and noise pollution is concerned. All legal gun owners and those who can legally qualify for a gun and ownership of it should also be able to qualify for suppressor ownership and possession as well.

On that note, those who obtain guns and/or suppressors illegally for nefarious purposes should be heavily punished. It's bad enough that guns fall into the hands of criminals, but I don't think that a ton of them have suppressors. If they did, I things would be far worse in certain areas then they already are in MN; however, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have guns or suppressors if they can own them legally. It's a common tactic of the anti-gun crowd to use fear as a weapon, and I'm not about that. I'm simply saying that when a gun is silenced it's a lot easier to not be heard - regardless of the purpose be it good or bad. That's all.

I personally think and hope that the good pf legal owners having them far outweighs the bad and the risks involved in having such things. If I thought the bad outweighed the good, then I wouldn't have guns themselves, now would I? It's no different with legal gun owners owning suppressors, in my opinion.

If your criteria is what you feels make you qualified, please share why. If not, what does that list mean?
The list means that if I can go through all that and not get one legally, how can the average joe get one legally? (assuming they were legal in MN to own in the first place.) Yeah, I know... they are illegal. I get it. That's why no matter what anyone has, they can't get one... no matter what they've been through. It isn't right, fair, sane, but it's legal, sad to say.

I'm not trying to be critical. But too many folks try to justify things because they feel that they are qualified.
I understand that....and I'm not trying to appear "better" than anyone else or more qualified than anyone else. I also don't need to justify to anyone either. In fact, even with all I have been through, do I think that because federal agents were in my home and interviewed my co-workers, neighbors, wife, that I should automatically get a PTC and only have to qualify my shots on the range, thus skipping the classroom portion? No, of course not. Even if I COULD do that, I wouldn't. They are two entirely different things. Just because I pass heavy background checks doesn't mean I know the laws of MN relating to PTC...and if you carry, you should know such things, right?

I will say that I do find comfort in the knowledge that while they search for a reason to deny me in 30 days when I do go for my PTC. I know I'll pass the background part of it, that's all.

Either you meet that minimum standard, or you don't. None of other fluff matters.
I wouldn't call it "fluff", and yeah, it matters because if I don't pass, I lose my job. It matters GREATLY to me. Now as for it relating to guns, suppressors, etc, I think I set a pretty fair and loose standard. If you can legally own a gun, you should be able to own a suppressor.

One thought that came to mind while writing this is on hunting rifles, maybe make ones that aren't as quiet for those? Not sure what the best way to handle that one is since I don't hunt. I'm a pistol guy. I could see them on military rifles with a problem, unless used for hunting. I don't know.. again, I'm not a hunter, but I would think that if I'm out in the woods, I'd WANT to hear a BANG! nearby to know someone is around vs. pffft pffft pffft.

Food for thought and discussion at the very least.

[Paul]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

And as someone who also holds a Federal security clearance and has gone through the similar processes as you mentioned, I don't use the term 'fluff' to belittle your job. Simply stating that if its not a requirement to owning a suppressor, its irrelevant.

[xd ED]

After re-reading some of the plusses for Minnesotans to have suppressors, I now have a bit of a cynical/ tin-foil-hat take on it.
What if:
we had (suppressed)gun ranges near things like residential development, or livestock, or wildlife preserves. And what if you could hunt with a suppressor?

It would be a lot quieter...
What's the one, near universal complaint about firearms; one that is held by friendlies, and neutral types alike? Guns are NOISY, and DISRUPTIVE...
take away that objection, and suddenly the presence of firearms becomes a non-issue to a lot of folks... Not exactly what the sheep want...

[redaudi]

Not exactly what the sheep want...

they like having something to b*tch about.

take away that argument, and all of a sudden it's 'now we can't tell if people are shooting closer so we don't feel safe not knowing'. Make it loud again 'it's too loud'

You can't win. The endless whining and complaining of the righteous life police will never end.

[Hmac]

What do security clearances have to do with suppressors? NFA items are a level playing field - everyone in the US has to get a background check before the Feds will let you buy one. Minnesota can just accept the Federal background check, just as they do for other NFA items.

[bstrawse]

What do security clearances have to do with suppressors? NFA items are a level playing field - everyone in the US has to get a background check before the Feds will let you buy one. Minnesota can just accept the Federal background check, just as they do for other NFA items.

Nothing.
b

[Paul]

What do security clearances have to do with suppressors? NFA items are a level playing field - everyone in the US has to get a background check before the Feds will let you buy one. Minnesota can just accept the Federal background check, just as they do for other NFA items.

That was the point I was getting at.

[XDM45]

My point with all of the clearance stuff is (to use an analogy).... imagine having $100,000,000,000 and still not being able to buy a house. That's crazy.

Same thing with the clearance stuff. you go through all of that and you can't be trusted with a silencer? I'm trusted with things far greater of risk than that, believe me. Again, I get it's illegal to own one, which is why I can't. Of course if someone can be trusted to get a PTC and carry in public, they can't be trusted with a silencer? Also quite crazy, I think.

If you wanted to have it be a bit more stringent on who could own one, maybe make it so you have to have a PTC to get one?

If you wanted to have it be a even more stringent on who could own one, maybe make it so you have to have a PTC + pass a security clearance, but those can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to go through, depending on which one you are being investigated for.

[Hmac]

My point with all of the clearance stuff is (to use an analogy).... imagine having $100,000,000,000 and still not being able to buy a house. That's crazy.

Same thing with the clearance stuff. you go through all of that and you can't be trusted with a silencer? I'm trusted with things far greater of risk than that, believe me. Again, I get it's illegal to own one, which is why I can't. Of course if someone can be trusted to get a PTC and carry in public, they can't be trusted with a silencer? Also quite crazy, I think.

If you wanted to have it be a bit more stringent on who could own one, maybe make it so you have to have a PTC to get one?

If you wanted to have it be a even more stringent on who could own one, maybe make it so you have to have a PTC + pass a security clearance, but those can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to go through, depending on which one you are being investigated for.

I think you're missing the point as to why suppressors aren't legal in Minnesota. IMHO, it's not about anyone's trustworthiness, it's about politics.

[XDM45]

I think you're missing the point as to why suppressors aren't legal in Minnesota. IMHO, it's not about anyone's trustworthiness, it's about politics.

Isn't it always about that too? It's a given.

[Hmac]

I think you're missing the point as to why suppressors aren't legal in Minnesota. IMHO, it's not about anyone's trustworthiness, it's about politics.

Isn't it always about that too? It's a given.

My point is that even if every gun owner in the state had "Yankee White" clearance, silencers aren't going to be legalized here on that basis alone. You need to convince them that you won't use it for poaching deer, and that the majority of their constituents won't see suppressor legalization as an expansion of killing tools available to the Minnesota version of George Zimmerman.

[bstrawse]

The last thing we need is to require a security clearance to own a firearm accessory...

[XDM45]

My point is that even if every gun owner in the state had "Yankee White" clearance, silencers aren't going to be legalized here on that basis alone. You need to convince them that you won't use it for poaching deer, and that the majority of their constituents won't see suppressor legalization as an expansion of killing tools available to the Minnesota version of George Zimmerman.

That's dumb. I agree with you, but that reasoning on the part of people is just plain stupid - especially if they would think about it vs. react to it. If they thought about it, by that same "logic", no one should have a car because it could be used to kill and in fact, cars shouldn't have mufflers on them because people could sneak up on you and run you over with them. They could also strap a poached animal to the hood, top, toss in the trunk, etc, so they should also be illegal because you could haul poached animals in them.

...and the tinfoil hat logic goes on and on and on.

Heck, humans shouldn't be on Earth because they might commit a crime, so we better prevent births so we all go extinct. I mean how far down the illogical-rabbit-hole do people want to go?

People are going to do what they want to do regardless. If they want to poach, they will poach, silencer or not. They will just make one. This strawman argument and flawed logic of the opposition to silencers is completely flawed. ALL it does by making them illegal is keep them out of the hands of legal, law abiding people.

I also know that no matter what clearance one has, doesn't mean that they would be able to legally possess a silencer; my point was that with all of the hoop jumping, you'd think that someone who has passed such stringent requirements could be trusted. I know that having clearance does not equate to bypassing a law, but my point is the trust factor.