Silencers Are Legal

[DanM]

New web site:

http://silencersarelegal.com/

Enjoy!

[Hammer99...]

This map makes me cry...

[PhilaBOR]

Join Minnesota's grassroots organization http://gocra-mn.org/. Get involved.

[JeremiahMN]

When the average person (even if they aren't really and ati-gun person) hears the term silencer, they think hit-men and gangsters. No matter how many logical reasons there may be to have one, pushing that as a political agenda, you're just doing the anti's work for them.

[BC98]

When the average person (even if they aren't really and ati-gun person) hears the term silencer, they think hit-men and gangsters. No matter how many logical reasons there may be to have one, pushing that as a political agenda, you're just doing the anti's work for them.

So does that mean we should do nothing? Those perceptions should be challenged and shown to be false.

Most of the states in the Midwest that do allow suppressors are pretty much the same as MN, demographically and politically.

[White Horseradish]

Are we going to take this one to 17 pages too?

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=19221

[JeremiahMN]

So does that mean we should do nothing? Those perceptions should be challenged and shown to be false.

Most of the states in the Midwest that do allow suppressors are pretty much the same as MN, demographically and politically.

Not at all, I think it's very important to move the pro gun rights agenda forward. I think MN has been moving in the right direction in terms of gun owner rights, and the perception of many citizens about carrying a firearm for defense etc... this isn't a natural step forward and doesn't help the cause.

Edit: Also, regarding those other states, how many of them never had a ban in place vs. have had a silencer bans overturned via legislation. Also how many have had those laws overturned by courts as not being constitutional or something? And if any of them have been overturned with either method was that within the last few decades?

[SleepingJake]

I seen the thread title and and spat whatever was in my mouth all over the keyboard.

You let me down

[BC98]

So does that mean we should do nothing? Those perceptions should be challenged and shown to be false.

Most of the states in the Midwest that do allow suppressors are pretty much the same as MN, demographically and politically.

Not at all, I think it's very important to move the pro gun rights agenda forward. I think MN has been moving in the right direction in terms of gun owner rights, and the perception of many citizens about carrying a firearm for defense etc... this isn't a natural step forward and doesn't help the cause.

Edit: Also, regarding those other states, how many of them never had a ban in place vs. have had a silencer bans overturned via legislation. Also how many have had those laws overturned by courts as not being constitutional or something? And if any of them have been overturned with either method was that within the last few decades?

To my knowledge:
Kansas: ownership changed by legislature (within last five years)
Missouri: ownership by C&R holders changed by legislature (roughly the same time as KS)
Missouri: C&R-only requirement removed completely (this year)
Michigan: current law interpreted by AG to allow civilian ownership, illegal since the '70s (this year)
Washington: not Midwest but still pertinent, ownership AND usage changed by legislature (this year)

As far as I know, the remaining states that allow suppressor ownership have never banned them previously (could be wrong). Despite public opinion, legally owned suppressor have never been reported to have been used in a crime and are more closely regulated than regular firearms.

I disagree with the statement that amending suppressor ownership in any state is not a natural step forward. Changing the fact that MN is one of only 11 states that does not allow civilian ownership of suppressors IS a natural step in the restoration of the rights of gun owners, whether they want to use a can or not.

[ricks8251]

So does that mean we should do nothing? Those perceptions should be challenged and shown to be false.

Most of the states in the Midwest that do allow suppressors are pretty much the same as MN, demographically and politically.

Not at all, I think it's very important to move the pro gun rights agenda forward. I think MN has been moving in the right direction in terms of gun owner rights, and the perception of many citizens about carrying a firearm for defense etc... this isn't a natural step forward and doesn't help the cause.

Edit: Also, regarding those other states, how many of them never had a ban in place vs. have had a silencer bans overturned via legislation. Also how many have had those laws overturned by courts as not being constitutional or something? And if any of them have been overturned with either method was that within the last few decades?

To my knowledge:
Kansas: ownership changed by legislature (within last five years)
Missouri: ownership by C&R holders changed by legislature (roughly the same time as KS)
Missouri: C&R-only requirement removed completely (this year)
Michigan: current law interpreted by AG to allow civilian ownership, illegal since the '70s (this year)
Washington: not Midwest but still pertinent, ownership AND usage changed by legislature (this year)

As far as I know, the remaining states that allow suppressor ownership have never banned them previously (could be wrong). Despite public opinion, legally owned suppressor have never been reported to have been used in a crime and are more closely regulated than regular firearms.

I disagree with the statement that amending suppressor ownership in any state is not a natural step forward. Changing the fact that MN is one of only 11 states that does not allow civilian ownership of suppressors IS a natural step in the restoration of the rights of gun owners, whether they want to use a can or not.

I was stationed out in WA when this was changed, one of the movers on this out there came on this sight and was active on the thread listed earlier. RANB was a big part of getting it done out there, I belive he is still working on it, just not as much on this welcoming forum. I think the advancement of any gun rights is the right step. The way I see it if you are trying to get something done, and it works good on you. This will in the long run help with my issue I would like to see changed. So while some may not be specificaly for suppresors, I think it falls in to the group of ANY advancement of guns rights will in general help all gun owners. The more people that get involved with the sport (with new or freshly leagalized products) the larger our constituancy becomes, that my friends is votes. Votes are political currency.