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

[1911fan]

FWIW, If taking of game animals was excluded I would have zero interest in this. I want to be able to coyote hunt at night in some areas that do have a reasonable amount of housing close. Just having one for a range toy would be pointless to me.

This +100


One of the places I deer hunt has a small subdivision beside it. Being able to shoot a deer without having the sheriff show up everytime would be nice. (in season and all legal). It's also a nice thing for farmers etc to dispatch varmints and predators without disturbing the herd is very nice.

I truly believe most if not all of the DNR and legislators information on this issue(and all gun and knife issues) comes from Hollywood. My experience has been that my former and current legislator had no idea machine guns were legal anywhere or that MN had a C&R list. Neither had any idea that west side story was the driving force behind banning automatic knives.

We do need to educate our legislators. For almost all of them, gun issues are tenth or more on the list in importance. Taxes, economy, drugs, schools, and others are all higher on their list. The FUDDs support this notion too, and in some ways they are correct. We do have one of the better carry laws. We do have pretty good protections of ranges and hunting, our purchase system and our lack of registration or Leo approval (other than NICS) is far less onerous than say Michigan or NY or Mass. Expending political Capitol at a time when it might be dear on an issue like cans or machine guns or switchblades or other points of interest might not be the wisest.

From a legal standpoint and IANAL, I would say THE issue to push at this time is a RKBA amendment to the state constitution. That's the key that opens all the doors if it's written correctly.

[Ranb]

We were able to turn a Senator in WA that claimed silencers were illegal into one that urged passage of a the silencer bill. That was a very dramatic 180. It is possible that no responsible gun owner has ever sat down face to face with some of the anti-gun MN politicians and spoke to them about the benefits of silencer use? I am not claiming that what happened in WA is likely with all MN anti-gun politicians, but it is worth a try.

One question regarding said senator....

What was his/her stance on private ownership of firearms in general prior to your efforts?

That would be Senator Adam Kline. He was the most visible of the anti-gun Senators in WA. He supported an assault weapons ban, 50 cal ban and regulating sales at gun shows. When asked he was not able to come up with any evidence of 50 cal crime, illegal sales at gun shows in WA or that assault weapons were a bigger threat than other types of firearms. He stated publicly in a committee hearing that these bills were a good idea because they "worked" in California. He told me in writing that allowing the silencer bill to pass would result in them being sold "no questions asked" at gun shows and being passed along to the criminal underworld.

I cannot take credit for turning him around. Although I wrote several letters to Kline trying to tell him more about silencer ownership, I doubt I made much of an impression. I give that credit to one of the people I brought into the fight. He called the senator's aide to request a meeting. Kline himself answered the phone and they talked for about 20 minutes. My friend was able to give him a quick education on the law regarding silencers including requirements for transfer and the extreme sentencing enhancements for criminal misuse. Additional credit goes to the bill's prime sponsor (Blake) who managed to convince Kline that it would not affect the crime rate at all if registered silencers were allowed to be used in the state. It was Blake’s efforts that were the most significant, he was the first silencer bill sponsor to really push the bill.

I also wrote letters and had phone conversations with Cease Fire Washington, a gun control group. They claimed to have Kline’s ear and they took a neutral position on the silencer bill as a result of my efforts. I suspect that when Kline realized silencers were not a threat to public safety, he jumped on the bandwagon and urged passage of the bill. I do not know how much this has helped his credibility with WA gun owners, but I have had fewer unkind words to say about him since then.

Ranb

[Ranb]

If I want to get one for my .22 to teach my kids to shoot.... Just guessing, but I would imagine that between the purchase price and the stamp I have at least 400 bucks into it, to use on a 200 gun... And I can't use that same can on a large caliber rifle. Right?

Yes, a silencer is a large initial investment, but they do last for years. You can put a 22lr silencer on any 22lr firearm with 1/2-28 threads. Most barrels are easy to thread. You can not use a small 22lr can on a 5.56 rifle, it will be blown apart. It is also not a good idea to use a sealed 22 caliber can made for the 5.56 with the 22lr as it will fil up with gunk. Many 22lr rimfire cans come part for cleaning.

Ranb

[plblark]

I've been present when silencers were shot before. They're illegal for the public to own in MN but with the right FFL are legal to produce though the customer base in MN is limited.

There's something really giggle inducing about an open bolt 10-22 with a can on it

I can see the benefits of having an entire firing line of suppressor equipped guns going. But when the first non suppressed gun shows up the muffs would come out anyway.

I also like the idea of one for hunting but would have to buy a new gun as I'm dubious about loading my .270 down to be sub sonic. That and the weight / length are questions for me.

If you look at MN gun laws, a LOT of them are "People will poach if we don't control them" in nature. Seriously. The DNR CO's approach is backwards. If we allow this, some small percentage will now break the law and it will be harder for us to catch them. That's the definition of prior restraint and it's WRONG!

[Ranb]

I've been present when silencers were shot before. They're illegal for the public to own in MN but with the right FFL are legal to produce though the customer base in MN is limited.

There's something really giggle inducing about an open bolt 10-22 with a can on it

I can see the benefits of having an entire firing line of suppressor equipped guns going. But when the first non suppressed gun shows up the muffs would come out anyway.

I also like the idea of one for hunting but would have to buy a new gun as I'm dubious about loading my .270 down to be sub sonic. That and the weight / length are questions for me.

I have heard that there is a way to supply the state with silencers, but I do not know how it is done by a MN FFL without being in violation of 609.66. How is it done in MN? Can you point me to the statute that allows it? I need to have my facts straight when I talk to people.

I agree about the suppressed 10/22 machinegun. I had the chance to use one at the July 23 silencer shoot in WA. Subsonic ammo and a long integral can.

No need to use subsonic ammo for hunting suppressed. Your 270 will be tamed a lot with a .308 can on it. When I say tame, I mean it should not hurt your ears. Everyone within a mile will still hear it though. This is something the DNR needs to know when they take a position on allowing silencers for hunting. If you want something subsonic and compact, a short barrel with a permenantly attached can will get around the SBR problem and be less noisy. You will want a 338 and larger for use on deer I think. Shots past 200 yards can be difficult also.

Ranb

[tman]

If you look at MN gun laws, a LOT of them are "People will poach if we don't control them" in nature. Seriously. The DNR CO's approach is backwards. If we allow this, some small percentage will now break the law and it will be harder for us to catch them. That's the definition of prior restraint and it's WRONG!

A lot of the poachers bowhunt.

There's a reason for that, and silencers won't change it.

[Dick Unger]

Regardless of whether suppressors are something I want, or are effective, it is irrational to have possession of a suppressor a felony in Minnesota. We should all want to get rid or irratioanl gun laws, that limit our choices and don't cut crime. (These laws INCREASE crime really, because poeple will occasionaly get arrested for breaking the dumb suppressor law!)

[nyffman]

Regardless of whether suppressors are something I want, or are effective, it is irrational to have possession of a suppressor a felony in Minnesota. We should all want to get rid or irratioanl gun laws, that limit our choices and don't cut crime. (These laws INCREASE crime really, because poeple will occasionaly get arrested for breaking the dumb suppressor law!)

Dick's a Rand fan. Who would of thought that? Way to go Dick!

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand -- Atlas Shrugged

[Ranb]

Are any Senators other than Wolf interested in sponsoring a civilian possession silencer bill? Have any of them expressed an opinion on the subject recently? Thanks.

Ranb

[RobD]

[SBR1]

I've been present when silencers were shot before. They're illegal for the public to own in MN but with the right FFL are legal to produce though the customer base in MN is limited.

There's something really giggle inducing about an open bolt 10-22 with a can on it

I can see the benefits of having an entire firing line of suppressor equipped guns going. But when the first non suppressed gun shows up the muffs would come out anyway.

I also like the idea of one for hunting but would have to buy a new gun as I'm dubious about loading my .270 down to be sub sonic. That and the weight / length are questions for me.

I have heard that there is a way to supply the state with silencers, but I do not know how it is done by a MN FFL without being in violation of 609.66. How is it done in MN? Can you point me to the statute that allows it? I need to have my facts straight when I talk to people.
I agree about the suppressed 10/22 machinegun. I had the chance to use one at the July 23 silencer shoot in WA. Subsonic ammo and a long integral can.

No need to use subsonic ammo for hunting suppressed. Your 270 will be tamed a lot with a .308 can on it. When I say tame, I mean it should not hurt your ears. Everyone within a mile will still hear it though. This is something the DNR needs to know when they take a position on allowing silencers for hunting. If you want something subsonic and compact, a short barrel with a permenantly attached can will get around the SBR problem and be less noisy. You will want a 338 and larger for use on deer I think. Shots past 200 yards can be difficult also.

Ranb

Even a Minnesota Class III Dealer is not allowed to buy and sell supresors to LE Depts or Fed Govt etc, in MN or anywhere. You can NOT possess one, thus you can not buy one. We really need to fix this goofy old law and make it right!

[ricks8251]

Anyone know about transporting them through the state, maybe with a letter from BTAF? Or would I have to drive around the state, or maybe ship them to WI?

[Ranb]

If you read 609.66 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66 it clearly shows that the police are the only ones in Mn allowed to possess a silencer. Not even the military is exempt from the ban. If you are a police officer and you can get a letter form a CLEO authorizing you to possess a silencer for emergency tactical use, then it might fly. I have no idea how someone from WA is going to get that though.

I plan on shipping mine to WI next summer for a shoot if I can arrange one.

Ranb

[JJ]

Even a Minnesota Class III Dealer is not allowed to buy and sell supresors to LE Depts or Fed Govt etc, in MN or anywhere. You can NOT possess one, thus you can not buy one. We really need to fix this goofy old law and make it right!

Suppose it all depends on what kind of manufacturing you are doing. I can guarantee there are some in the hands of manufacturers of other shooting related products. They are owned by the Federal Government, but used for testing.

[BC98]

Even a Minnesota Class III Dealer is not allowed to buy and sell supresors to LE Depts or Fed Govt etc, in MN or anywhere. You can NOT possess one, thus you can not buy one. We really need to fix this goofy old law and make it right!

Suppose it all depends on what kind of manufacturing you are doing. I can guarantee there are some in the hands of manufacturers of other shooting related products. They are owned by the Federal Government, but used for testing.

I have inquired about this and was told that it was allowed as a wartime excemption for testing purposes. No specific law could be cited at the time of the discussion, though. And I'm not sure what happens when we are no longer fighting wars...