Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: 41magsnub on March 22, 2011, 01:59:19 AM
-
HB 174 - allows the use of suppressors in the field (hunting) - tabled in the Senate Judiciary committee after passing the house =|
HB 384 - allows concealed carry in previously prohibited places (banks, bars, etc) - tabled in the Senate Judiciary committee after passing the house =|
HB 271 - a convoluted way to say permit-less carry - is moving forward in the Senate. It is not wide open, a person still needs to meet the background and training requirements (hunter's safety or DD214 with pistol qualification or certified training course) and be able to pass a background check. As I read it a person could still get arrested for CCW'ing without a permit inside city limits even if they meet the requirements, but charges would be dropped once investigated if proof of the training requirement is not present. When my permit expires and if this bill is passed meaning what I think it means.. I should be able to get a laminated copy of my hunter's safety card for my wallet instead of renewing my CCW.
-
which is the bad news?
-
HB's 174 and 384 are effectively dead this year. Tabled is bad.
-
So... HB 384 died because of amendments some wanted to add protecting the property rights of the business owners of the banks and bars. Not sure who was for and who was opposed to these.
I'm having a really awkward email conversation with Jim Shockley who chairs the Senate Judiciary committee. The one liner responses where I have to probe for more detail are getting annoying. I'm going to quit bugging him, the audio from all these hearings should be up tomorrow so I can get my own info.
-
I can't imagine why anyone would need to carry a gun into a bank, when you're possibly carrying large amounts of cash ;/
-
I can't imagine why anyone would need to carry a gun into a bank, when you're possibly carrying large amounts of cash ;/
Really! It's not like criminals frequent those sorts of places, honest people don't need to fear for their safety and have scary guns with them. Besides, there's that pretty sign on the door with the scary gun safely crossed out, that will be sure to stop the bad people!
-
Listening to the 3/21 executive session Senate Committee meeting right now
HB 271 as amended tightens the requirements for concealed carry if the person does not have a permit. Currently hunter's safety is a valid training (admittedly this is a joke as a training for CCW). Going forward, this would no longer be valid and the new requirements:
(b) completion of a firearms safety or training course approved or conducted by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks, a similar agency of another state, a national firearms association, a law enforcement agency, an institution of higher education, or an organization that uses instructors certified by a national firearms association;
(c) completion of a law enforcement firearms safety or training course offered to or required of public or private law enforcement personnel and conducted or approved by a law enforcement agency
This would require me to go take a handgun course. I'm kind of ok with this though would I prefer Vermont style carry.
It is moving on to a floor vote.
FYI - Senator Anders Blewett (D) is a smug little bastard that works for daddy's law firm as an ambulance chaser who I know because I grew up next door to his grandparents. I've always greatly disliked him if you can't tell... I have great respect for his Grandfather who I used to do chores for (because the younger Blewett who lived all of a mile away was too busy). Alexander Blewett was a Republican state representative and ran against Mike Mansfield for the US Senate.
HB 384 - will allow concealed carry in previously denied places
Amendments proposed to let business owners post no gun signs. The committee then goes off on a massive tangent about allowing guns at all in those places, not just concealed and the impact of those signs on that which confused the hell out of everybody (myself included). Basically everybody was confused and it failed 6/6 because nobody understood the current statutes.
HB 174 - suppressors when hunting.
Sen Hinkle brings up an ethics of huntin' argument and he is a bow hunting instructor. Then he brings up spot lighting and he says that combined with a silencer makes it too easy to poach. There is so much BS around this bill, ignorant testimony, and misinformation it is insane. In the previous committee meeting on this the FWP Chief of Law Enforcement brought in a bunch of pictures of poached animals and presented them as the carnage that will ensue.. except they were all spotlight kills. Then one idiot is comparing a .22 suppressor used for plinking which is very quiet and used for boy scout training to a suppressor on a .30-06. This frustrates the hell out of me. None of these idiots knew the meat of what they were voting on.
Most of the committee members (all of them that voted no) declined a range trip a few weeks ago to see how suppressors worked.
The thing that brought a R to vote no is land owner objections to suppressors when hunting. It died 3/9. God damnit so much.
I guess I'm done buying NFA stuff.
-
41MagSnub: They excluded military training as a CCW qualifier from that piece of legislation?
-
41MagSnub: They excluded military training as a CCW qualifier from that piece of legislation?
For the "permit-less carry" - correct, it no longer is enough if this goes through as ammended. For the actual CCW permit it is still valid. It must be a DD-214 that specifically states "pistol". Does any of this make sense? No.
The audio was frustrating to listen to. Many of the people on the committee did not understand how the current CCW process works and were shocked that it was so easy to get right now. Way to do research on the legislation in front of you guys! :mad:
-
Then he brings up spot lighting and he says that combined with a silencer makes it too easy to poach.
So just make it illegal to poach with a silencer ... ;/
For the "permit-less carry" - correct, it no longer is enough if this goes through as ammended. For the actual CCW permit it is still valid. It must be a DD-214 that specifically states "pistol". Does any of this make sense? No.
The audio was frustrating to listen to. Many of the people on the committee did not understand how the current CCW process works and were shocked that it was so easy to get right now. Way to do research on the legislation in front of you guys!
I may just continue to open carry :P
-
I may have to propose a simple videotaped demonstration of silencers for these people, along with a simple flowchart to explain the current CCW laws.
For all anyone can tell me, you can open carry in "prohibited" places. ONLY concealed carry is spelled out as illegal. Sure not something I'll be trying though!
-
PTK - that would be great if you had the time. The best way to get that to the committee is to work through a gentleman named Gary Marbut (http://www.marbut.com/expert/)
He is the leading gun rights activist in the area and worked closely with the sponsor of all these bills.
-
The latest email from Gary that sums things up nicely:
Dear MSSA Friends,
We've had three bills pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, HB 174 (Suppressors), HB 271 (Permitless Carry) and HB 384 (Prohibited Places). The committee took executive action (discussion, amendments, votes) on all three yesterday.
HB 174. There is still a LOT of misinformation about what suppressors are, how they work and what they do and don't do. The Hollywood version continues to prevail. Misinformation is rampant. One Republican senator voted against HB 174 because of calls stirred up among ranchers by the Montana Stockgrowers Association. These people claim that if HB 174 passes they will have a huge surge in trespass and poaching, problems ranchers would not be able to interdict because they would occur "silently." A Democrat senator asserted that suppressors are perfectly legal to use right now and HB 174 is unneeded, notwithstanding that 87-3-123 makes it a crime to take a suppressor "into the field or forest." Another Democrat who says he is a bowhunter education instructor claimed that it is "unethical" to kill animals "silently" with a suppressor (even after being told that a suppressed hunting rifle still makes a sonic boom of 105 decibels, twice the OSHA safe sound limit. I say again, misinformation is rampant. The Committee tabled HB 174.
HB 271. The Committee passed HB 271 with what I consider a minor amendment. HB 271 would allow a person to carry a concealed weapon (put on a coat - it's about "coat control") inside city limits without a permit if the person is eligible to apply for a permit (non-criminal adult resident with training). The amendment would require the carrier to have proof of training on their person while carrying permitlessly. HB 271 now goes to the Senate floor for Second Reading. Contact your senator and tell him or her you want HB 271 to pass.
HB 384. The Montana "prohibited places" statute, 45-8-328, is a nonsensical, unreasonable law. Although it prohibits concealed carry in a bar (including restaurant with liquor license), bank or public building, it does not affect open carry. So, a person can now legally carry openly in a bar, but may not carry concealed. Also, there is no exemption for cops in 45-8-328, so a detective with a jacket over his gun entering city hall commits a crime if he doesn't remove his coat. HB 384 would exclude from the effect of 45-8-328 anyone with an active CWP, and police officers. However, the Committee tabled HB 384.
We are working on possibilities to resurrect HB 174 and HB 384. I'll paste below my comments about opposition to HB 174.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
=========================
Suppressor bill, HB 174
There are an unfortunate number of Montanans who have bought into the disingenuous arguments of opponents of HB 174. Let me explain.
Current law and history. Suppressors (incorrectly called "silencers" by those who only know them from the movies) were demonized during the Prohibition Era as being the tools of rum-running gangsters. That's when laws were enacted in Montana to make possession of suppressors illegal. Those laws included making it a felony to even be in the same room with a suppressor, even if it was legally registered with the federal government.
In 1997, MSSA ran a bill to clean up these nonsensical suppressor laws. We left two relevant laws on the books, one to make it a crime to commit a crime with a suppressor (no robbing banks with suppressors), and another to make it a state crime to possess a suppressor NOT registered under federal law.
Still illegal. We missed one. We missed a law in the fish and game section of the Montana law books that makes it a crime in Montana to "take into the field or forest" a suppressor. What does this mean? Who knows, but it's probably imprudent to take a suppressor outside city limits - into a "field or forest." You could be charged with a crime. Not only is it a crime, it is also a "gun crime" for which the FBI could take away your right to possess firearms forever under the federal Brady Law.
HB 174. HB 174 would simply repeal this archaic law that makes it a criminal offense to be "in the field or forest" with a suppressor.
Arguments against HB 174. The arguments against HB 174 are ever so disingenuous. Here are the primary arguments against.
Using suppressors is legal in Montana now - no fix is needed. Wrong. Read the law.
87-3-123. Use of silencers or mufflers on firearms forbidden. A person may not take into a field or forest or have in the person's possession while out hunting any device or mechanism devised to silence, muffle, or minimize the report of any firearms, whether the device or mechanism is operated from or attached to any firearm.
Suppressors are illegal anyway. Wrong. It is perfectly legal to own suppressors under federal law. Yes, a buyer must jump through a LOT of hoops. First you must pay the business selling the suppressor - the full price (most of $1,000), but you cannot take possession of the suppressor yet. Second, you must get a letter of permission from the local sheriff. This includes getting fingerprinted, a mug shot and a criminal records background check. Third, with this material in hand, you can then fill out the application to the BATFE. You send in the application with a check for $200. The BATFE will take about nine months to process the application. Once approved, the BATFE will send you the tax stamp. Only then can you go to the seller and pick your already-paid-for suppressor.
Nobody has suppressors. Wrong. There are LOTS of legally-owned suppressors in Montana. There are probably more than 2,000 people in Montana who have jumped through all the hoops described above to legally own a suppressor.
Suppressors "silence" a hunting rifle just like in the movies. Excuse me? Come back to reality. There are two components to the sound a rifle makes, the muzzle blast and the sonic boom of the bullet flying through the air faster than the speed of sound. Suppressors reduce (NOT "silence") the muzzle blast. Suppressors do absolutely nothing to the sonic boom. At the rifle, the muzzle blast may be louder than the sonic boom for a very high-powered, unsuppressed rifle. However, for anything more than about one hundred yards downrange, the sonic boom is the loudest part of the gunshot sound. The sonic boom is constant throughout the supersonic flight of a bullet, about 1,000 yards for a .308 Winchester. The level of sound from a bullet sonic boom is 150 decibels, twice the amount of sound deemed unsafe by OSHA for a person without hearing protection. This volume of sound emanates from the bullet throughout its supersonic travel and is most of what a person hears from a distant rifle shot.
Hunting with a suppressed rifle is not "ethical." This is an argument made for irrational people. First, will the people making this argument also insist that archery hunting is unethical because it's so quiet? Probably not because such people find no need to be consistent. Okay, the opponents admit, but what about an animal being hit by a silent bullet at a longer distance than an archer can shoot? Isn't that unethical? For the mushy-headed, it's back to Physics 101. Remember that hunting rifle bullets are supersonic, right? That means they go faster than the speed of sound, right? That means that the bullet from EVERY hunting rifle hits the animal before the sound gets to the animal, right? The animal is silently shot before the sound gets there from either a suppressed OR unsuppressed hunting rifle. Okay, the dogmatic opponent admits, but if you miss your shot at the animal, for ethical hunting the animal should hear the sound so it can run away. Back to Physics 101. Remember the sonic boom - 150 decibels - twice that allowed by OSHA without hearing protection? Suppose your shot flies a foot above the elk you shoot at. Are you really arguing that an elk can't hear a 150-decibel sound originating a foot away. Anyone who would make the "ethical" argument about suppressors is certainly challenged, but not by "unethical" suppressors.
Legalizing suppressors will only cause more poaching. Let's get one thing straight for starters. Criminals break the law. That's just what they've chosen to do. Poachers will poach. Okay, say the opponents, but if people are allowed to legally use suppressors they will use them to poach, increasing poaching. Let me see if I get this argument right. A person who is so law abiding that he will wade through a ream of local and federal paperwork, get fingerprinted and photographed, get a letter of permission from his sheriff, pay up to $1,000 for his suppressor, and pay another $200 to the BATFE will then use this precious device to commit a crime that puts his hard-won suppressor AND his ability to possess any firearm at risk. Right.
A rancher won't know if somebody is trespassing and hunting with a suppressor. Back to physics 101. Except near the muzzle of a hunting rifle, most of the noticeable sound from a rifle shot comes from the sonic boom, 150 decibels, unsafe for unprotected hearing according to OSHA. Suppressors only reduce the muzzle blast at the rifle, but do nothing to decrease the sonic boom downrange. There is a zone of about 100 yards surrounding the shooter where the muzzle blast is louder than the sonic boom. Beyond that distance, most of what a rancher hears from a gunshot now is the sonic boom. That would not change with suppressor use. What would change is that if the rancher is within 100 yards of a suppressed rifle upon discharge, the rancher would still be less than 100 yards from a 150-decibel sonic boom. The "rancher won't hear" argument will only make sense to a person totally inexperienced with suppressors (movies only), and who slept through Physics 101 in high school.
-
The amendment would require the carrier to have proof of training on their person while carrying permitlessly.
I suppose this is less onerous than paying the local sheriff for permission, but what is it about concealed carry that is so much more dangerous than open carry ???
After open carrying daily for most of the last ten years or so, and not having hurt anything other than porcupines and rattlesnakes, the whole training thing makes little sense. I could probably teach the class. ;/
-
I agree. All of the bills have an extra helping of confusion added in.
I consider it an improvement but certainly not the best bill it could be.
-
Take what you can get and go back for more next session. Once you have a foot in the door it's a lot easier to make 'clean-up and consistency' amendments.
-
PTK - that would be great if you had the time. The best way to get that to the committee is to work through a gentleman named Gary Marbut (http://www.marbut.com/expert/)
He is the leading gun rights activist in the area and worked closely with the sponsor of all these bills.
That'll work. kgbsquirrel will be heading up here sometime to help me make some instructional videos - I'm envisioning something along the lines of .22lr silenced and not, versus a 30-06 silenced and not, summing up with "which would you rather have being fired in the wilderness - a rifle with or without hearing protection? It's not a poacher's tool, it's safety equipment."
-
How about a new law that hunters' vehicle's are not allowed to have mufflers? :P
-
That'll work. kgbsquirrel will be heading up here sometime to help me make some instructional videos - I'm envisioning something along the lines of .22lr silenced and not, versus a 30-06 silenced and not, summing up with "which would you rather have being fired in the wilderness - a rifle with or without hearing protection? It's not a poacher's tool, it's safety equipment."
I like it
-
Upon further thinking about...
If the new CCW law passes - which it looks like it wlll - I guess that when I have time that I will haul my wife and I down to town and take the class and get the card.
I don't like it - but I suppose it's better than getting fingerprinted and paying a fee to ask the sheriff for permission - plus taking the class anyway.
Only problem now is finding the time to do it now that I'm working out of state more than half the time - and I'm guessing the classes will be stacked full for quite a while :(
-
That'll work. kgbsquirrel will be heading up here sometime to help me make some instructional videos - I'm envisioning something along the lines of .22lr silenced and not, versus a 30-06 silenced and not, summing up with "which would you rather have being fired in the wilderness - a rifle with or without hearing protection? It's not a poacher's tool, it's safety equipment."
You might, if safety permits, throw in a demo from the muzzle(ish) end from 100+ yards away. The "rancher's perspective" of the bullet crack so to speak. Put a stake in that argument at the same time.
Hell, do it from beyond the berm, show that you can hear the round even when the suppressed weapon and shooter aren't visible.
-
Now THAT is a good idea, and something I'd be able to set up, too! 100 yards away, 30 yards to either side of the target, showing the shooter. Good idea, very good indeed. Show it at 200, 400, etc., too.
Thanks. :)
-
Now THAT is a good idea, and something I'd be able to set up, too! 100 yards away, 30 yards to either side of the target, showing the shooter. Good idea, very good indeed. Show it at 200, 400, etc., too.
Thanks. :)
I'll do the shooting.
You can stand downrange and record the sound of the bullet as it goes by ;)
-
Or, you know, just set up my little Olympus on the tripod I bought just for these occasions... ;)
Some day, we DO need to have a MT get together/shoot. It would be enjoyable to put more faces to the names. :)
-
Upon further thinking about...
If the new CCW law passes - which it looks like it wlll - I guess that when I have time that I will haul my wife and I down to town and take the class and get the card.
I don't like it - but I suppose it's better than getting fingerprinted and paying a fee to ask the sheriff for permission - plus taking the class anyway.
Only problem now is finding the time to do it now that I'm working out of state more than half the time - and I'm guessing the classes will be stacked full for quite a while :(
I already have a permit but signed up for a Saturday class at the end of next month. I should probably learn a few things.
-
I already have a permit but signed up for a Saturday class at the end of next month. I should probably learn a few things.
I just never bothered with jumping through their hoops.
When I really needed to CCW, getting a permit might have been a problem for the very reason that I needed one (small town politics being what they are :mad: ).
I carried anyway ;)
-
MT HB 271 - the kinda sorta permit-less CWP bill - made it past the Senate with the amendments mentioned earlier. It is going back to the house where it is expected to pass again.
-
I was under the impression Montana was cooler then NV, so you can't ccw in a bank?? weird! Can you open carry?
-
We have some oddities in our firearm laws around suppressors and concealed carry... that is for sure.
We nearly cleared them up this year and would have mostly done so had there not been a disinformation campaign by FWP and overall confusion in the Senate Judiciary committee, the recording of which is one of the more painful things I've ever listened to.
If you are bored and can deal with having to use RealPlayer (curse my backwards state!) here is the audio from that meeting:
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Committees/Session/Minutes/AudioMinutes.asp?MeetingID=12910
-
oookay... the House did not like the amendments on HB 271 done by the Senate and it is going to a conference committee. It is still probably going to go through.
the audio on this is not yet available.
Also, now HB174 (suppressors when hunting) may not be all the way dead. The MT Stockgrowers Association which along with the police officers association and the FWP opposed it is softening its stance now that they are in posession of better information. Everyone is riding the members of the Senate Judiciary to reconsider. Nobody is holding their breath but it is possible.
-
I can't imagine why anyone would need to carry a gun into a bank, when you're possibly carrying large amounts of cash ;/
I don't go into the bank with large amounts of cash; in the drive-through, I can keep my gun under my leg the whole time. Inside the bank, it would have to be holstered and concealed for much slower access. Besides, I leave the Blazer in gear, so I have a really heavy V6 bullet ready to clear a path and take me away just by moving my right foot.
-
Never bring a V6 to a V8 fight :P
-
HB 271 is moving on to full floor votes in the house and senate as amended.
They left it open for municipalities to allow or disallow CCW via this bill as they see fit but if you have a permit, these are not going away, then nothing changes for you. At least this is what they said in the audio...
I fully expect my hippie town Missoula to try to block this at the city level if it becomes law. My Senator was the most vocal opponent to changing the law, he actually went off on why CCW is not needed anyway and how people should not have to live in fear that the person next them is "packing". He of course pretensed that by talking up his gun chops how he carries on his ranch and shoots coyotes.
When Vermont carry was brought up one guy brought up that sure it's worked for them for a couple hundred years, but MT is bigger. More land.. sure. population density though we are at 10% of what Vermont's is with only fewer in Wyoming (barely) and of course Alaska.
-
If I recall correctly the first version of AK shall-issue had municipal opt-out, if we did it only lasted a year or so til it was fixed in the Legislature. There's no reason MT can't do the same on the opt-out and the training requirement.
I was trying to confirm AK's carry history and found a thread at highroad.org from 2003 when "Vermont Carry (with permit available)" was still just a bill in the Legislature.
Amazingly there was some half-hearted support for what we will now probably call a "Montana Carry" amendment ("Permitless CC, with permit available, but with training required") if it was necessary to pass our law.
I forgot that was ever a fear. =|
So, "Montana Carry" will be "permit available for reciprocity but not required for concealed carry in state, but proof of a training class is required to be possessed while CC-ing without the permit".
At least the training isn't recorded by the state anywhere so it can't be used as backdoor registration.
"Montana Carry" will be a "third way" between standard "Shall-Issue" and "AK/AZ/WY Carry" (no permit or training required for carry but available for reciprocity) and "Vermont Carry" (no training required and no permit available at all). It might be more attractive or realistic for some states that can't seem to muster the votes for true AK/AZ/WY Carry.
If it can be provided free or cheap, there's worse burdens in the world than requiring people to get training they should be getting voluntarily anyway, if it increases the number of states going permitless.
Here's the link from back when having five (six if NH passes) permitless of any kind states was just a fantasy.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=22408&page=2&highlight=alaska+carry+history
-
HB 271 is past the house and is heading to the senate floor for a vote.
HB 174 (the suppressor hunting one) may come back to life. The organizations that opposed it were the stockgrowers association, law enforcement, and the fish and game. The stockgrowers association has dropped their opposition to the bill and we are pushing on the senate judiciary committee to reconsider it. I'm still not holding my breath but it is possible!
-
As far as the local "opt out" goes, get it passed first, so you have something and the anti's are stuck, then bring the following from SAF's suit against NYC higher permit fees in the city versus upstate to the attention of the powers that be in Missoula and the Legislature.
73. State laws that unequally burden the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights
for citizens who live in a particular municipality can only be upheld where the disparate burden
is itself narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. See Illinois State Bd. of
Elections, 440 U.S. at 186 (“appellant has advance no reason, much less a compelling one, why
the State needs a more stringent requirement for Chicago”).
Can Missoula claim any interest that similar sized cities that won't opt out also have yet decide isn't "compelling"?
-
I may have missed where anyone explained the rationale of hunting with a suppressor. If I missed it please point the way, if not humor me and tell me why anyone needs a suppressor on a hunting rifle. You can buy noise suppressor head phones, so why the suppressor?
-
Let me answer back with my own questions: Why not? What does need have to do with it?
-
I may have missed where anyone explained the rationale of hunting with a suppressor. If I missed it please point the way, if not humor me and tell me why anyone needs a suppressor on a hunting rifle. You can buy noise suppressor head phones, so why the suppressor?
If not for the Federal regulations, a suppressor's cost would be more in line with what it actually is, and as such, it would be cheaper than a good set of earmuffs.
Besides, we require mufflers on cars rather than just telling everybody to wear earmuffs.
-
On a practical note. Say you shoot and get your whatever, now the rest run to the next county. You may have ruined the hunting (temporarily anyway) for everyone within earshot.
Or say it's a multi-use area, or within (just inside , one assumes) earshot of residences, why bother everyone else with the noise?
On Kodiak and Afognak the big bears know that when they hear a shot it means there's a free deer dinner over-that-away. So now you have to let the bear take your deer (there's no lawful defense of life or property for game) and risk a confrontation.
Being quiet in the woods, hunting or not, is just polite and good sense.
-
On a practical note. Say you shoot and get your whatever, now the rest run to the next county. You may have ruined the hunting (temporarily anyway) for everyone within earshot.
Or say it's a multi-use area, or within (just inside , one assumes) earshot of residences, why bother everyone else with the noise?
On Kodiak and Afognak the big bears know that when they hear a shot it means there's a free deer dinner over-that-away. So now you have to let the bear take your deer (there's no lawful defense of life or property for game) and risk a confrontation.
Being quiet in the woods, hunting or not, is just polite and good sense.
Thank you. Your answer makes sense.
-
Thank you. Your answer makes sense.
It was a good question. =)
-
GS - I apologize if my answer came off as snotty. I am getting really tired of the snide "what do you need that for?" responses from the locals and it spilled over into here. My questions still stand though.
The only opposition to allowing suppressors outside of a range beyond what amounts to "they are icky gun things and I don't like them" have been the fair chase folks and the FWP game wardens who have admittedly never heard a firearm with a suppressor on it fire and turned down multiple opportunities to do so. The FWP guys went into the meetings with disinformation and falsehoods. The rep for the police officers association could only say he opposed it, he could not articulate any reason why when prompted.
When using supersonic bullets in any caliber the suppressor only suppresses the muzzle blast and not even all of that. The supersonic crack of the bullet is still there. As far as fair chase goes, if I shoot at a critter and miss they are still going to hear that crack as the bullet goes right over their back. People a long distance away are still going to hear that crack as well as as what is left of the muzzle blast. What it mainly accomplishes is to reduce the immediate noise right in front of the shooter down to safe or almost safe noise levels without hearing protection.
With subsonic ammo it is much quieter. Of course with said subsonic ammo it has a very rainbow trajectory cutting down the range it can be used at and the sorts of game it is used for.
Here is a video of a suppressed .30-06. You can clearly hear the supersonic crack.. not very quiet is it? Following it is the same guy on the same day shooting the same rifle unsuppressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nahIkVpcFQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nahIkVpcFQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftT6QgwEBhU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftT6QgwEBhU&feature=related)
-
No offense taken 41. I asked only because I had never heard of anyone who hunts wanting a suppressor. Having grown up in the big heavily treed Northern NY before it became a socialist playground for the downstaters, and now living in the great open of Arizona, I would not have thought to put a suppressor on a hunting rifle.
I don't have any real opinion or opposition to it, just wanted to know why. :lol:
-
It passed the Senate Second Reading today!!!!
http://montanahuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2011/03/28/permitless-carry-hb-271-passes-senate-second-reading/
From what I understand that means it now goes to the Governor.
"Montana Carry" - Permitless carry with proof of training
-
Correct, Governor "Branding Veto Iron" Schweitzer is next. Hopefully he signs it. He has an A NRA rating but he is a (D). I can't speak for the last round in the Senate since I don't know the stats, but the gun bills including this one have been going more or less down the party line thus far (R-yea, D-nay). It ain't over yet.
-
Not very coincidentally I am taking a CCW class from Gary Marbut this Saturday. I'm going to ask him if he is going to make us little laminated wallet cards when we pass :) I already have a permit but it just seems like the thing to do.
-
Not very coincidentally I am taking a CCW class from Gary Marbut this Saturday. I'm going to ask him if he is going to make us little laminated wallet cards when we pass :) I already have a permit but it just seems like the thing to do.
He ought to give you a ccw badge, too =D
I guess I gotta find a somewhat painless way to take a "class" - what's the fewest hours of bullshit that you have to sit through ...?
-
He ought to give you a ccw badge, too =D
I guess I gotta find a somewhat painless way to take a "class" - what's the fewest hours of bullshit that you have to sit through ...?
Oh you! /limp wrist
-
[barf]
I just looked through some course info online - looks like you have to sit through being explained the difference between revolvers and semi-autos, and how to clean a gun .... ;/
All this to put on a coat :mad:
-
I'm doing the "cheapest possible class I can find" search right now for myself and a buddy who's driving from Michigan to Washington then through Canadia back home this June.
Seems like since permits aren't required anymore up here there's less demand and so less competition and the trainers are "adding value" by covering tactics and draws and crap I don't need.
I just want the minimum hours of classroom, shoot my 20 rounds at the cyclic rate without waiting on a class of newbs and take my photos and fingerprints straight to DPS.
Come to think of it, maybe I should become an instructor and hang out a shingle. After all, I'm a former Marine, I'm qualified. ;/
But my classes would be bare bones, I'd call my company "Just get the damn thing over with already we've all got better *expletive deleted*it to do" Training.