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

[Ranb]

Back when I was trying to get WA law changed to allow silencer use, I made a video to convince my legislators that silencers were legal to own in the USA and that they served a useful purpose. I made a ROUGH cut of a MN silencer education video that we might be able to use. It contains old silencer footage I shot in Vegas, but I intend to shoot much better footage later this month when silencers are legal to use at home in WA. I still need to gather MN silencer crime data, include a slide on comparative noise levels and generally clean up my voice-overs. I should have a much nicer version available in early August.

Here is the link to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13CS3ruuEHo

Please tell me what you think.

This is not intended to be an exciting video to show how awesome silencers are, but rather to show how effective and mundane they are. I will burn the final version to a DVD-R that will play on computers, DVD and Blu-Ray players. If anyone wants a DVD-R to copy and give to their legislators, PM me with your address.

Ranb

[White Horseradish]

The video content is OK, although I wouldn't necessarily illustrate criminal misuse with Hollywood images. Also, you talk a bit fast. All in all, a pretty good vid.

[Ranb]

Have any better criminal silencer images I can use? A good one is hard to find.

Ranb

[JeremiahMN]

If I was trying to make the case, I wouldn't show any images of criminals with silencers. Could certainly mention that most people wrongly associate them with criminals, but no reason to further cement that thought with images. Also I would try to find national crime statistics, or specifically statistics for those states that currently are in line with federal laws and don't ban them. If you show MN statistics that there is low silencer crime, I think that is probably more beneficial to the other side, as they can say "Look, our current laws are working, it's keeping crime down." I think it's probably more important to show that in states that allow them, their use by criminals hasn't went up.

These other states that allow them, were they banned at one point, and then they got the laws changed to allow them? Or were they never banned there in the first place?

[Ranb]

I did show national data in the video. I think that by showing criminals in MN are rarely breaking the law, we can make the case that nice people like us who jump through all the hoops are even less likely to break the law.

I only have good data for WA; ten silencer related incidents as far back as the state keeps records. As far as I know, the only states that changed their laws to allow silencer possession are Kansas and Missouri. All of the other never banned them as far as I know. I can try to find out though.

Ranb

[White Horseradish]

If I was trying to make the case, I wouldn't show any images of criminals with silencers.

Exactly. Maybe a nice pie-chart showing criminal vs legal use or something, but not an actual image.

[Ranb]

How often are silencers used legally and how many are legally owned is something I do not have. If anyone knows where to get the number of legally owned silencers in the USA, that would be a great help. It is not as simple as writing a letter to the ATF I hear.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Here is what I want to pitch to any MN legislator that will listen. Striked out sections are to be deleted from the statute, underlined words are new. What do you guys think? Thanks.

Proposed Changes to Minnesota Statutes 609.66 and 97B.031

Currently firearm suppressor possession in Minnesota is prohibited except by the police for tactical emergency response operations. The statutes do not permit suppressor use by the police for training or other reasons. Suppressor use by hunters is prohibited. Wildlife managers were previously permitted to use suppressors for wildlife control operations, but this exception expired on July 1, 2011.

The below proposed bill would bring state law in line with federal law. Minnesota statutes do not require suppressor registration but merely restrict their use. Federal law requires registration, a tax and provides for enhanced penalties for suppressor misuse that are far more harsh then state penalties.

Amending 609.66 and 97b.031 as below will allow the police to use suppressors for any purpose they deem necessary including training. It will allow wildlife managers to use them for operations requiring stealth. Finally it allow civilians to possess and use registered suppressors to protect their hearing and lower sound levels near shooting areas like thirty-seven of the states currently allow. Unregistered suppressors will remain illegal to possess. Hunting game animals with suppressors will also remain illegal.

609.66 DANGEROUS WEAPONS.

Subdivision 1.Misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):

Subd. 1a.Felony crimes; silencers prohibited; reckless discharge.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 1h, whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):
(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm, unless it is legally owned and registered in accordance with federal law;

Subd. 1h.Silencers; authorized for law enforcement andwildlife control purposes.
(a) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), licensed peace officers may use devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for tactical emergency response operations. Tactical emergency response operations include execution of high risk search and arrest warrants, incidents of terrorism, hostage rescue, and any other tactical deployments involving high risk circumstances. The chief law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency that has the need to use silencing devices must establish and enforce a written policy governing the use of the devices.

(b) (a)Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), until July 1, 2011, anAn 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 resourcesmay 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.

97B.031 USE AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

Subd. 4.Silencers prohibited.
Except as provided in section 609.66, subdivision 1h, a person may not own or possess use a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached. to take a protected game animal.

Ranb

[White Horseradish]

(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm, unless it is legally owned and registered in accordance with federal law;

I would take out "registered". I know that fed registration going away is a long shot, but should it happen, this might create a problem.

How about simply this:

(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm, unless it is legally owned in accordance with federal law;

[Ranb]

I can do that. Some states require registration, so I thought I would include it in the MN bill. We will see what the Senator likes when I meet with her.

Ranb

[Ranb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEXQqngxt8

Here is another rough cut of my silencer education video. On Sunday I will shoot video of hunting rifles to show how loud they still are when suppressed. Hopefully I can find a nice female model to videotape. The target audience is the MN legislature, so the video is intended to be mundane and informative, not exciting. Suggestions? Thanks.

Ranb

[1911fan]

In the proposed bill replace hunting with poaching being illegal. In many places it would make getting permission to hunt varmints easier if one could assure the land owner that farm animals would be less disturbed.

Legal hunting with a can is one of the goals!

[Rem700]

In the proposed bill replace hunting with poaching being illegal. In many places it would make getting permission to hunt varmints easier if one could assure the land owner that farm animals would be less disturbed.

Legal hunting with a can is one of the goals!

+1

[Ranb]

I understand. I was told by others that the DNR would never support a silencer bill that allowed hunting. Is a bill that allows silencer use while hunting less likely to pass than one that only allows the DNR to use them on animals? Or should the bill only prohibit their use on game animals?

This is the input I need guys, thanks.

Randy

[Rev. Dead Corpse]

I understand. I was told by others that the DNR would never support a silencer bill that allowed hunting. Is a bill that allows silencer use while hunting less likely to pass than one that only allows the DNR to use them on animals? Or should the bill only prohibit their use on game animals?

This is the input I need guys, thanks.

Randy

Insert language like "and for other lawful firearms uses" somewhere in the purposed text changes. It'd open a legal loophole without having to actually mention "hunting" per se.