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

Gun related chat that doesn't fit in another forum

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

Postby Grappler on Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:31 am

bstrawse wrote:
SleepingJake wrote:This thread needs a positive update :/


With this legislature? Not going to happen. We will be on defense in 2014 and then we need to be hitting the 2014 election HARD.

b


Hopefully this next go around will turn out better :roll:

One can only hope and then cast their vote
Grappler
 
Posts: 57 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:19 pm
Location: South St. Paul area

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

Postby bstrawse on Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:21 am

Grappler wrote:
bstrawse wrote:
SleepingJake wrote:This thread needs a positive update :/


With this legislature? Not going to happen. We will be on defense in 2014 and then we need to be hitting the 2014 election HARD.

b


Hopefully this next go around will turn out better :roll:

One can only hope and then cast their vote


We can do more than hope. We can recruit candidates, we can campaign for them, we can raise money through the MN Gun Owners PAC, we can support GOCRA and the NRA... there are a lot of things that we can do... rather than just hope ;)
B
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4162 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

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

Postby loose on Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:57 am

So what are the odds we could get something to pass that let us bypass the atf if made/sold/stayed in MN? Very wishful thinking I'm guessing.
loose
 
Posts: 179 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: MN

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

Postby Hmac on Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:20 am

loose wrote:So what are the odds we could get something to pass that let us bypass the atf if made/sold/stayed in MN? Very wishful thinking I'm guessing.


I would be more inclined to guess "impossible". The Federal govt appears to have little tolerance for states contravening Federal law.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

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

Postby loose on Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:59 am

Hmac wrote:
loose wrote:So what are the odds we could get something to pass that let us bypass the atf if made/sold/stayed in MN? Very wishful thinking I'm guessing.


I would be more inclined to guess "impossible". The Federal govt appears to have little tolerance for states contravening Federal law.



The feds haven't locked down California or Colorado over the herb yet. Utah was gonna do something like that but not sure how far it got, IF it was followed the 10th should protect them from that, but once again if it was followed the feds would be up MN ass for the banning of them in the first place.
loose
 
Posts: 179 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: MN

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

Postby Hmac on Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:01 pm

loose wrote:
The feds haven't locked down California or Colorado over the herb yet. Utah was gonna do something like that but not sure how far it got, IF it was followed the 10th should protect them from that, but once again if it was followed the feds would be up MN ass for the banning of them in the first place.


Never happen. Ask Jan Brewer.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

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

Postby xd ED on Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:05 pm

loose wrote:
Hmac wrote:
loose wrote:So what are the odds we could get something to pass that let us bypass the atf if made/sold/stayed in MN? Very wishful thinking I'm guessing.


I would be more inclined to guess "impossible". The Federal govt appears to have little tolerance for states contravening Federal law.



The feds haven't locked down California or Colorado over the herb yet. Utah was gonna do something like that but not sure how far it got, IF it was followed the 10th should protect them from that, but once again if it was followed the feds would be up MN ass for the banning of them in the first place.



You might wish to review recent interpretations, and applications of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
I suspect one day soon, if not already, it will be relevant to the ICC that the air one breaths was once in another state.
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9046 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

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

Postby Hmac on Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:23 pm

loose wrote:......... but once again if it was followed the feds would be up MN ass for the banning of them in the first place.


Why? Federal law doesn't require states to allow silencers.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

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

Postby loose on Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:55 pm

Hmac wrote:
loose wrote:......... but once again if it was followed the feds would be up MN ass for the banning of them in the first place.


Why? Federal law doesn't require states to allow silencers.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I would consider a suppressor to fall under the arms category.
loose
 
Posts: 179 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: MN

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

Postby FJ540 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:07 pm

So are machine guns, and no civilian without a SOT can manufacture those either.
User avatar
FJ540
 
Posts: 6834 [View]
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:44 pm
Location: Rock Ridge

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

Postby Mn01r6 on Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:35 pm

loose wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I would consider a suppressor to fall under the arms category.


You fight the good fight Mr. Freeman on The Land. The rest of us will work to change the unjust and misguided laws from within the system, rather than getting thrown in jail where we do our cause (and our families) no good.

Respecting the rule of law, and embracing that all laws should apply to all people equally is what sets "us" apart from "them" and gives us the moral high ground. Don't sink to their level.
User avatar
Mn01r6
 
Posts: 1233 [View]
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:01 pm
Location: Playing Devil's Advocate

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

Postby xd ED on Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:56 pm

THIS. Plus the practical aspects of suppressors will be related to by far more people. Afterall, who can legitimately argue against making something quieter? (Save the poacher arguments). And unless you beat someone with a supressor, they really can't harm anyone.
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9046 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

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

Postby loose on Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:20 pm

I understand and that is why I put the IF in there.
loose
 
Posts: 179 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: MN

Previous

Return to General Gun Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

cron