| Author |
Message |
|
chunkstyle
|
Post subject:  Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:49 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Uptown Minneapolis
|
|
Well, most other countries would RATHER you had a suppressor. It's only here in the US that the thought is that they are dangerous, in and of themselves. Elsewhere, they are safety equipment, as they would be on a lawnmower.
_________________
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
chunkstyle
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:51 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Uptown Minneapolis
|
tepin wrote: this one is legal because the threads should be on the inside  Indeed. But a coupling would be trivially easy for even an amateur machinist to make.
_________________
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:01 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
|
|
They passed a special law for the DNR to have silencers on guns they used to shoot cormorants, but limited the number of silencers even the DNR could have.
The legislators have seen too many movies, I think.
It would help to have a bill in the legislature next session, to at least get Minnesota talking about it. It would really be healthier and make it better for neighbors, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:24 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
|
Dick Unger wrote: It would help to have a bill in the legislature next session, to at least get Minnesota talking about it. It would really be healthier and make it better for neighbors, I think. So what is the next step to get on that train?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thePKOR
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:06 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:07 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Duluth
|
|
I'm new to the board, and to Minnesota, but not to politics (though I don't do it professionally anymore) - the key is framing the issue before someone else does.
Make it a safety issue (hearing damage is a problem in the shooting sports not to mention in a home defense situation).
Make it part of being Minnesota Nice (wanting to shoot in the backyard without bothering the folks next door who work swing shift).
Make it a common sense issue (the DNR uses them for reasons A, B, and C - we just want to be able to follow their good example).
Stats on how rarely they are used in the commission of crimes (despite what the movies show) would be helpful too. I don't think too many thugs are going to get the $200 tax stamp and then spend another $500+ on the actual hardware so that they can shoot each other in silence, and it is important to show why a normal person would want to own one.
Without any evidence to back this up, I'd guess that suppressors are probably less scarry to the general public than machine guns, but more scarry than Evil Black Rifles... its an uphill battle for sure.
_________________
"Duty is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:37 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
|
It seems that figures on supressor usage is pretty hard to come by.
Missouri just changed their law to allow supressors and it seems they worked the economic development issue with the help of local AR-15 manufacturer CMMG. They changed the law to allow anyone who goes through the nessecary federal process for a tax stamp to have a supressor.
Some figures I found on this site, ArmsAndTheLaw.com
Quote: Criminal Use of Friearm Supressors (PDF) Table 2. Federal Silencer Cases Reported
Lexis/Westlaw 1995-2005Convictions for silencer possession....................................136 Enhanced sentence for silencer possession.............................8 Silencer charge dropped on plea...........................................2 Evidence excluded to due to illegal search.............................7 Defendant acquitted...........................................................7 Allegation of silencer but no charge or enhancement..............7 Total............................................................................167
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackriv73
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:34 pm |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:13 am
Posts: 140
Location: North Minneapolis
|
SultanOfBrunei wrote: 1911fan wrote: For shot guns, the Metro barrel concept is proven and legal. Very quiet. The thought of adding an additional 24"+ to my shotgun almost makes me giggle. Oh, its not that bad - is it? If you start out with an 18.5" barrel...
_________________
<I>Ad utrumque paratus</I>
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
