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

[White Horseradish]

So, would saying something like "bring MN laws in line with Federal regulations" be a good idea? We don't have to say that Fedds have no problem with suppressors...


MN suppressor ban is ancient. I don't know that anybody is alive who knows why it appeared in the first place.

[Ranb]

Both my reps are 2a haters. I want a suppressor! If somebody does something I would help...

You may be surprised at what a face to face meeting can accomplish. Educate yourself about silencers in general and the process by which a person obtains them. Then make an appointment to see them and discuss it. I was able to turn all three of my Reps/Senator from non-supporters to bill sponsors after talking to them. A meeting or phone call beats 100 letters or 1000 e-mails; I really believe this.

You need to do something, not wait for others and then help. If everyone on this forum actually talks to their Representative and Senator about this issue, it will work.

Who here knows a pro-gun legislator that will sponsor a silencer bill? This is where it needs to start.

I am also discussing this topic an AR-15.com here; http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b ... 665&page=1

Randy

[Ranb]

So, would saying something like "bring MN laws in line with Federal regulations" be a good idea? We don't have to say that Fedds have no problem with suppressors...
MN suppressor ban is ancient. I don't know that anybody is alive who knows why it appeared in the first place.

As much as I hate paying a $200 tax and having to prove that I own a silencer legally, it is federal law right now and not likely to change anytime soon. I believe that bringing state law in line with federal law is the best way to convince anti-gun legislators that allowing silencer ownership will not result in gun owners running amok in the street silently mowing down their neighbors.

We need to show them that allowing the use of strictly regulated mufflers on guns is a greater benefit than a risk. Misuse of a silencer can result in fines of $10,000 to $250,000 and jail time of ten years to life. No one in the USA legally owns a a silencer without ATF permission. Can't get much more regulated than that.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Here is the letter I am going to send to the lelgislators in district 8 / 8A. Feel free to use this letter for ideas, but do not copy/paste.

Representative Hilty,

I am writing to find out if you would be willing to sponsor or support a bill to allow civilian possession of firearm noise suppressors. As you may know, suppressors are legal for civilians to own at the federal level and in most of the states. Minnesota is one of only 13 states that do not allow civilians to possess suppressors.

Persons that own suppressors can only do so with the approval of the BATFE. Anyone who buys a suppressor must submit an application along with their finger prints and photos as well as pay a $200 tax. The person submitting the application must obtain their local sheriff’s signature on the form prior to sending it in for approval. The BATFE only approves the application after performing a background check and verifying that suppressors are legal to own in the applicant’s state. This process is the same as that required to own a machine gun or short barreled shotgun (relics only), both of which are legal in Minnesota.

Crimes associated with suppressors are rare in the United States. This is because suppressors are not common and anyone who goes to the time and expense to legally purchase a suppressor is probably not the kind of person who will misuse it. The federal government also has severe penalties for criminal misuse of suppressors or simply evading the tax when buying one.

Suppressors are very useful as noise reducers. Hearing loss is one of the most common injuries associated with firearms use. A typical suppressor will lower noise by about 30 decibels. This is a 1000 times decrease in noise intensity and an eight fold reduction in loudness. Even with this amount of noise reduction, firearms are still not silent when equipped with a suppressor. A small 22 caliber rim fire rifle will still be about 110 decibels when used with a quality suppressor. A suppressor also does nothing to reduce action and bullet flight noise. Suppressors also protect the hearing of any bystanders that are not wearing hearing protection or wearing incorrectly. They are also very effective at reducing sound level near rifle ranges. With previously isolated rifle ranges being encroached upon by houses, the noise reduction benefits of firearm suppressors are readily apparent.

There are concerns by some, including myself, that suppressors can be used by poachers in an attempt to hide their illegal activities. A suppressor can make it more difficult to catch a poacher, but allowing their possession by the law abiding people of Minnesota will not increase availability to those people who choose to break the law. The great majority of suppressor owners in the United States obey the law. Keeping suppressor possession illegal only punishes the law abiding residents of Minnesota.

The national trend has been to make firearm suppressors more available to civilians. Kansas and Missouri both amended their laws a few years ago to allow suppressor possession. Washington State recently amended the law to allow civilians and the police to use registered suppressors.

If you are willing, I would like to see a bill submitted in time for the 2012 legislative session.

Statute 97B.031 currently says in part;

Subd. 4.Silencers prohibited.
Except as provided in section 609.66, subdivision 1h, a person may not own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached.
I think it would be beneficial if the law was amended to read;

Subd. 4.Silencers prohibited.
A person may not own or possess a silencer for a firearm unless it is registered and legally owned in accordance with federal law.

609.66 subdivision 1h contains requirements that would be unnecessary if State law is brought in line with federal law.

If you have any questions or need to know more about the legalities of suppressors, please let me know. I am willing to answer any questions you may have.

Respectfully,

Ranb

If we can get lot of people to write letters seeking sponsors, there is a good chance we can actually get a bill submitted.

Ranb

[Ranb]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=97B.031
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), until July 1, 2011, an enforcement officer, as defined in section 97A.015, subdivision 18, a wildlife area manager, an employee designated under section 84.0835, or a person acting under contract with the commissioner of natural resources, at specific times and locations that are authorized by the commissioner of natural resources may use devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for wildlife control operations that require stealth. If the commissioner determines that the use of silencing devices is necessary under this paragraph, the commissioner must:

(1) establish and enforce a written policy governing the use, possession, and transportation of the devices;

(2) limit the number of the silencing devices maintained by the Department of Natural Resources to no more than ten; and

(3) keep direct custody and control of the devices when the devices are not specifically authorized for use.

In less than a month the DNR is going to treated just like the rest of us little people. This is a good time for us to attempt to ease restrictions, it will help the state also.

Ranb

[BC98]

I posted this on the AR15.com thread but thought I would post here also. I heard from one of reps today.

Mr. BC98,

Thank you for your email. I am a 2nd amendment supporter and voted for all the pro-2nd bills this year. I will run this up the flag poll and see if anyone has any thoughts. I will also keep this in mind and will see what we can do with it next year. Thank you again and keep in touch!

Tim



Rep. Tim Sanders
449 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
651-296-4226

I am following up with him and providing some specific talking points that would allow him to educate his fellow legislators on the issue and offered up a face to face meet with him or any of the other legislators he meets with. I also specifically asked him his feelings on sponsoring a bill.


Please continue to contact your representatives. The more people who let them know that this is a pertinent issue with no real downside to them, the more likely we will find legislators who will step up and sponsor/support a bill.

[Cadet]

That's awesome!! Were getting closer!

[BC98]

That's awesome!! Were getting closer!

I don't want to pee in anyone's Cheerios, but I would caution against optimism at this point. We will still need to find someone who will be willing to sponsor a bill, push it into committee, AND stand behind it (with our help, of course). I would imagine that, between the DNR and LE agencies who are not familiar with NFA laws and statistics, there will initially be a lot of opposition to this. We have to be willing to give our time to help out the legislators who are willing to help us.

I urge everyone to continue contacting your local Senators/Representatives about this issue and ask them if they would be willing to sponsor a bill for changing our suppressor laws.

BC

[Ranb]

It would be a good idea to assume that it will take several years and a few dead bills to actually get the law changed. When I was working on this in WA, It took three years, and all we were doing was trying to make silencers legal to use, they were already legal to own.

The biggest obstacle will be convincing gun owners that silencers are proper to own and then convincing the legislature. So far I have run into more MN gun owners who are opposed to making silencers legal than legislators. Believe it or not, the anti-gun gun owner is going to be our biggest obstacle.

Ranb

[mrokern]

A suggestion?

This may be one of the rare times to look at some of Europe's gun laws. Suppressors are often required for hunting there as they provide an additional measure of hearing protection.

If you want to pass this one, I'm guessing it'll have to be heavy on the health benefits.

-Mark

[dismal]

The biggest obstacle will be convincing gun owners that silencers are proper to own and then convincing the legislature.

A first step might be to always call them suppressors instead of silencers. People hear the word silencer and they think of the mythical things that they see in the movies.

[Ranb]

I call them silencers on gun forums, suppressors when speaking to legislators and non gun owners. I have found that legislators commonly call them silencers and this word is used interchangeably by those at committee hearings. The country is slowly coming around to the benefits of silencer use and they are not quite the bogy man they were twenty years ago.

The main issues acknowledged by the WA legislature (when passing the silencer bill) were bringing state law in line with federal law and noise reduction. The noise issue was mainly a nuisance reduction thing. The health concerns were barely acknowledged as they all know a person can simply wear ear plugs or just not shoot.

I personally do not like talking about gun control laws in other countries. We have it very good here compared to most other countries, even those that do not control silencers as a firearm and tax them. Get rid of the NFA and we will really have it good.

Ranb

[Q_Continuum]

I'm very interested in seeing suppressors made legal in MN - the sound health benefits are good, they're legal for us at the Federal level.

I'm mandated to have a muffler on my car, and bike - but forbidden to put one on my firearm. I'm supposed to risk permanent hearing loss if I defend myself at home, or take the time to put on earmuffs and then not be able to hear someone approaching my room at 3AM...

Not a choice I want to have to make :-/ But its already been made for me - I can't reduce them to a OSHA-approved sound level without earmuffs/plugs.

[BC98]

Has anyone else received responses from their local legislators about the issue?

[Ranb]

I have not and I think they will never answer a letter from a WA resident like myself. I am trying to get a guy I know in MN to put me in touch with a few people who are interested in making an appointment to speak to their representatives. Hoping for the best.

Ranb