Suppressors and poaching

[Matthew Carberry]

With the talk about trying to treat suppressors like firearms instead of a tax stamp item, and the stated purpose of "reducing poaching" that was used as a major justification in '34, what percentage of current poaching incidents are estimated to be solved today? 

What is the professional estimate of amount of known poaching versus unknown?

Hell, how big of a problem is poaching considered to be, in terms of species survival versus simply breaking game laws?

[Boomhauer]

Most poachers (it's mainly jacklighting around here) I know use unsuppressed .22s.

[Monkeyleg]

It has as much to do with poaching as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has to do with protecting patients and making care affordable, or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has to do with recovery or reinvestment (except in unions and Democrat cronies).

[MicroBalrog]

What talk about trying to treat suppressors like firearms?  Has it gone beyond gun blogs now?

And what's the point? I mean, a suppressor is clearly not a firearm.

[Monkeyleg]

What talk about trying to treat suppressors like firearms?  Has it gone beyond gun blogs now?

And what's the point? I mean, a suppressor is clearly not a firearm.

Suppressors are linked in the American psyche with assassins, just as switchblades are linked with teenage gangs or Mafia killers.

Nobody looks at them and says, "gee, a device that makes guns less noisy" or "a knife you can open with one hand. How convenient."

[MicroBalrog]

Suppressors are linked in the American psyche with assassins, just as switchblades are linked with teenage gangs or Mafia killers.

Nobody looks at them and says, "gee, a device that makes guns less noisy" or "a knife you can open with one hand. How convenient."

What I mean to say is: a suppressor is completely useless without a firearm to go on.

If you purchase a suppressor, you either:

a) already own a firearm you passed an NICS check on
b) are already a felon

or

c) are buying an expensive cylindrical paperweight

If we are to deregulate suppressors we should do so properly.

[Monkeyleg]

Yes, it's understood that a firearm is needed, but the suppressor is more sinister than the gun.

[seeker_two]

What talk about trying to treat suppressors like firearms?  Has it gone beyond gun blogs now?

And what's the point? I mean, a suppressor is clearly not a firearm.

The point is that, instead of having to go through all the NFA'34 rigamaroll to buy a supressor, the NRA & other 2A groups should be pushing to put supressors under the same instant NICS check that a regular firearm goes through. There would be little political support in de-regulating supressors, but this course of action seems like the most successful option.

I'm for it (esp. if they include SBR's & SBS's in the same NICS check)....but I agree with your position....

[Tallpine]

Of course anyone breaking the law by poaching would never break the law by having an illegal suppressor 

What about bows and arrows - shouldn't they be NFA also 

Or even .357/.38 rifles.  Those are pretty quiet compared to bottle neck rifle cartridges.

Around here, an occasional shot out of season is no big deal: probably somebody shooting a coyote or porcupine.

[MicroBalrog]

The point is that, instead of having to go through all the NFA'34 rigamaroll to buy a supressor, the NRA & other 2A groups should be pushing to put supressors under the same instant NICS check that a regular firearm goes through.

Are they? Are there links to articles about this awesome developement?

[French G.]

At some point I want to buy a legal suppressor, one that can muffle .22 and .223. After that, I want a suppressed .45-70 falling block. If it has to be slow it might as well be really, really big. Imagine a 500gr hardcast cruising sub-sonic from 500 yards. Don't think you'd hear that. As far as poaching, not really necessary. Even if you must use a firearm, some are very quiet. I'm back on my 60gr Aguila SSS kick, found out my Marlin 925 shoots them without a barrel change. If it is louder than my .177 air rifle it is not by much, I can shoot a tree 100 yards away and the most distinct noise is the hit on the tree. Suppressed it ought to be awesome.

[Lee]

It's the same faulty logic that was /is applied to crossbows in many states. 

[Regolith]

Most poachers (it's mainly jacklighting around here) I know use unsuppressed .22s.

Out west the population density is so low they don't even bother trying to hide their shots, and will use whatever rifle they happen to own. After all, there's no need to be sneaky about it when there is no one within a 20 mile radius.

[Tallpine]

Out west the population density is so low they don't even bother trying to hide their shots, and will use whatever rifle they happen to own. After all, there's no need to be sneaky about it when there is no one within a 20 mile radius.

Well, that and people shoot coyotes and other varmits all year long.

[Hawkmoon]

The point is that, instead of having to go through all the NFA'34 rigamaroll to buy a supressor, the NRA & other 2A groups should be pushing to put supressors under the same instant NICS check that a regular firearm goes through. There would be little political support in de-regulating supressors, but this course of action seems like the most successful option.

I'm for it (esp. if they include SBR's & SBS's in the same NICS check)....but I agree with your position....

Why should I have to go through ANY sort of check to buy a suppressor? As already noted, it's an accessory to a firearm. If I already own the firearm legally, why should I need permission to add something to it? Would you advocate a NICS check to buy a spare magazine?

On the other hand, if I DON'T own the gun legally, I'm already a felon. How much MORE of a felon is a suppressor going to make me?

Of course, I don't think the 2nd Amendment supports background checks to buy firearms. Unfortunately (or not) the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me.