|
Post by tenring on Jan 7, 2012 22:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 7, 2012 22:42:51 GMT -5
Sounds like a good subject.
Who wants to take the lead?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2012 22:52:43 GMT -5
To possess a suppressor, you have to pay a Federal tax of $200 for each one, and the device is not cheap in itself. Not sure enough people would even be interested un this to hold a debate on it.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jan 8, 2012 8:20:06 GMT -5
I don't see a problem with them. People invest a lot of money in guns and if that is what they want and it does not harrm, why not legalize them? It is not like very hunter will run out and buy one or more..
How do we send in our comments to the appropriate people?
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 8, 2012 9:43:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oneshot on Jan 8, 2012 9:44:56 GMT -5
Hearing loss is a big issue. The $200.00 tax stamp for a supressor ought to be supressed. I doubt that would happen though.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 8, 2012 10:44:04 GMT -5
The bill says "SILENCERS"....
Synopsis: Silencers when hunting. Repeals the law that prohibits the possession or use of a silencer while in the act of hunting. Provides that a person who takes or possesses a deer or wild turkey: (1) unlawfully; (2) by illegal methods; or (3) with illegal devices; while using or possessing a silencer commits a Class C misdemeanor.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 8, 2012 10:48:44 GMT -5
Hearing loss is a big issue. The $200.00 tax stamp for a supressor ought to be supressed. I doubt that would happen though. [/quote If you don't want to hear gun shots, why don't you just use earplugs? You don't even have to have a tax stamp for them. I have hard time believing there is..... "Absolutely zero advantage to the hunter other than the lack of hearing damage".....If so lets Deer & Turkey hunt with them also !!!! And YES I have heard and seen them in use at range
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 8, 2012 11:54:06 GMT -5
I read somewhere about some shotguns with extra-long barrels being used in some areas now to make the sounds of the shooting less objectionable to the nearby residents. I suppose even a $200 stamp would seem more reasonable if a guy had a good place to shoot inside his home, say a basement range, and a family and next door neighbors who didn't want to wear hearing protection or turn up their TV volumes to extreme levels every time he wanted to get in some practice. Probably several other completely reasonable and legitimate reasons for their use, if we gave it some thought. I sometimes wish they were mandatory when the folks using the informal range over in the next hollow get going with their full-auto stuff during the summer evenings. Pretty silly to have laws against them anyway. I never was particularly interested in owning one, and don't have many friends that are, but I know of three guys who made their own for fun, and that was before we were on the internet and the instructions were on utube. I even shot one former friend's full-auto converted AR .22 with the homemade suppressor. Was kind of a kick to zip through a clip or two real quick in his backyard without much noise. We could easily hear the impact of the bullets hitting the target. Not completely silent, but very well suppressed. Quieter than the sound of the quietest well muffled gas powered lawmower I've ever heard. And I don't know the guy's recent whereabouts or anything of his activities in many years, or of anything he might have done illegally, except goofing around with his own gun on his own property, doing some stuff that shouldn't have been anyone else's business.
|
|
|
Post by joen on Jan 8, 2012 14:46:16 GMT -5
i thought you needed to be sub sonic to be silent.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 8, 2012 14:52:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 8, 2012 20:22:59 GMT -5
tenring, that is curious, isn't it?
I'm puzzled as to what was meant by #9. Seems like anything that reduces the sound of the shot would benefit the poacher in being less noticed, and if the silencer did nothing in reducing the sound of the shot, what was the rest of the report saying?
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 8, 2012 23:24:53 GMT -5
The more I find out about the subject, the more confused as to whether or not that a purchase is in the future. On that "other site", there is a 16 page thread with a bunch of information that was unknown to me until the last day or so. It was worth the time to glean all the information, except for Dave and his rambling. Suggest those pages for reading, as it might be highly educational at the least for those of us who are firearm enthusiasts. It has as of the moment, dispelled quite a bit of what I thought was actual, but was only perceived.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 9, 2012 8:21:09 GMT -5
The more I find out about the subject, the more confused as to whether or not that a purchase is in the future. On that "other site", there is a 16 page thread with a bunch of information that was unknown to me until the last day or so. It was worth the time to glean all the information, except for Dave and his rambling. Suggest those pages for reading, as it might be highly educational at the least for those of us who are firearm enthusiasts. It has as of the moment, dispelled quite a bit of what I thought was actual, but was only perceived. Interesting reading for sure. One poster has been shut down completely as a videos surfaced of him shooting a suppressed gun. The other poster wants to surrender to the anti-hunters and non-hunters right now. He even tried the old misdirection tact of stating it would lead to further regulations on how close one could hunt to a dwelling. Not tied to together at all. I've come to the conclusion that allowing the suppressors (never should have been labeled 'silencers' in the bill) will go along way in removing the "Hollywierd" stigma of suppressed guns for ALL use. I just love it when truth wins out over hyperbole in these debates. Shinglemonkey, DTOM_308, and M4Madness are doing a great job presenting their side..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 8:58:18 GMT -5
The reason that the ATF is involved is the stigma of organized crime groups using so called silencers. The tax is to monitor use and track owners.. Unless an organization can legitimately claim that these devices have a sporting use, I don't see the stigma going away soon.
|
|
|
Post by Boilermaker on Jan 9, 2012 8:58:54 GMT -5
A round cannot be "Silenced" when fired, it can only be suppressed; the term silencer is mis-leading. And joen is correct; a suppressor can only "suppress" the sound of a sub-sonic round.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Jan 9, 2012 10:03:17 GMT -5
They will suppress the sound of a super sonic round as well, they are simply more effective on sub's.
There are a few states where suppressors are legal. I think South Carolina is one. The vast majority of Europe practically requires their use. For as anti-gun as much of Europe is, they allow suppressors for hunting as the norm- anyone not using them is an exception.
As for suppressed shotguns, they didn't exist until recently, and as far as I am aware are only available as Saiga's from Red Jacket Firearms (the subject of Discover's "Sons of Guns" TV show).
Yes, ear plugs are an option for hunting but they aren't nearly as practical as a suppressor. It takes movement to put them in the ear, and putting them in at the start of a hunt reduces the ability to use the sense of hearing. Yes, amplifying muffs exist (Walkers Game Ear type), but they can be uncomfortable- especially when it's warm, and depending on the person and the gun they can make shooting difficult at times.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 9, 2012 10:09:26 GMT -5
danf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 10:46:48 GMT -5
And the attraction for a hunter is what?
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 9, 2012 11:00:20 GMT -5
Hearing protection - however with the $200 stamp, plus the cost of threading a barrel, plus the suppressor I don't expect to see too many out there were it approved. It would be nice to have the option though.
|
|