I feel hopeless. I am going to e-mail my MN state Senators this Letter:
Dear Senator,
I am currently informed that under Statute: 609.66 Dangerous weapons, Subd. 1a. Sound suppressors for firearms are currently considered a felony charge to own, use, etc. The wording used exactly is silencer. I would like to speak to you about this topic, and getting this changed. Recently MN Sen. Pam Wolf was contacted and stated she stated that she would have no problem proposing a bill to change this to allow legal ownership of firearm sound suppressors as long as she was not alone in support. This is where I come to you. I would like you to support a bill in effort of allowing legal ownership of sound suppressors by civilians, LEO, and other departments after passing the NFA's requirements of ownership of a sound suppressor.
There are many misconceptions about firearm suppressors. The main misconception is that they are "silent" or "near silent". This is totally false as with regular ammunition fired the sound signature of a discharging firearm is dramatically reduced to safe decibel levels, yet never "silent". Hollywood has been portraying sound suppressors falsely for many years and this has adversely effected the view of common civilians, law enforcement officials, and even politicians alike. Sound suppressing devices have many benefits that many overlook, due to a negative stigma.
Sound suppressors are extremely beneficial to hunters and target shooters in that they allow the firing of firearms without ear protection. Earpro as we call in the Military is always required during machine gun shoots, rifle ranges, and other training events but rarely gets worn during actual missions. This is because Earpro blocks out ones ability to maintain optimum situational awareness, it hampers your hearing no matter what type you use (including "adaptive" or electronically controlled devices) The same goes for hunters and target shooters alike. If you cannot hear the noise of another hunter in the woods, or a range master's command of "CEASE FIRE" during an emergency this poses an extreme safety risk to yourself and others. Suppressors offer the ability to maintain true situational awareness while still preventing damage to ones hearing, from firing a firearm without ear protection. Think of a Sound Suppressor like a car muffler, It will keep sound reduced to safe levels, but not completely silent. Military records of damaged hearing, Top target shooters, and hunters alike will prove that hearing will be damaged with continual use of firearms without ear protection. Sound suppressors are ear protection.
Secondly, suppressors offer shooters reduced recoil. This is beneficial to all shooting groups, hunters, competitive target shooters, and recreational shooters. Reduced recoil will aid in reducing bad marksmanship habits associated with powerful recoil impulses rifles and handguns produce when discharged. Hunters will be more likely to produce a clean humane shot if they can focus on the shot alone and not flinching or tensing up before the shot breaks. Competitive shooters will benefit in that they can practice more without fatigue, and recreational shooters will be able to shoot without being intimidated by the firearms report, and recoil, encouraging a more enjoyable shooting environment. Without explaining more benefits and misconceptions in through detail I would like to point out some facts. 1. Suppressors are demanding to be able to receive and typically one must wait over 90 days for a NFA Form 4 to clear in legal states that allow ownership. 2. 38 states currently allow legal suppressor ownership. The most recent is MI.
I am a firm believer that America is a gun loving country. It was liberated by firearms, and is kept free with them. Its law abiding citizens should not be forced to follow strict unfair regulations because somebody doesn't agree with our second amendment right. Firearm development has always progressed and it is human nature to resist change. Change however is the future. Change from fossil fuel to alternative energy, change in how budgets are formed, change is everything, progressive. Does somebody need a sound suppressor? No, nobody needs a suppressor, however the same argument applies in does anybody need a Ferrari? If a law abiding citizen wants to protect his hearing, why should we prevent this? If a law abiding citizen wishes to exercise his second amendment right that "shall not be infringed" who is one to not allow this?
I am not the only one that feels this way about sound suppressor ownership in MN, but simply am one to stand up for what I believe in. If you need proof or demographics for #'s to be re-elected just go out and ask firearm ownership communities such as the NRA. I am trying to become involved due to the fact I care, something that is rare today. I wish to move back to MN after I leave the Marines. I wish to move to a state that allows one that fought for their country to exercise the rights they fought for. If not, I will simply move to Wisconsin, or any other state that understands and stands up for the second amendment. This would be a terrible loss in my heart, but I stand for principal. The Marines stand for what is right no matter what the odds. No matter what others opinions are. This is what I ask you to do. Please do not send me a canned typical political answer, this will only prove that individual's voices mean nothing to MN state Senators. For any more information relating to a fear of "crime increase" or any other disadvantage of allowing legal ownership of sound suppressors please contact me at [email protected] I do not have a phone out here in AFG.
Sincerely and with regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
hopeless probably, but damn do I care? YES. I can't call, or meet up as i'm in AFG. Any suggestions before I send this e-mail to be auto replied by a secretary? I'll prob just move to WI... sad day. I know it doesn't cover all points, and I should prob just ask to meet, but I don't have the ability to meet. Shittay...
Dear Senator,
I am currently informed that under Statute: 609.66 Dangerous weapons, Subd. 1a. Sound suppressors for firearms are currently considered a felony charge to own, use, etc. The wording used exactly is silencer. I would like to speak to you about this topic, and getting this changed. Recently MN Sen. Pam Wolf was contacted and stated she stated that she would have no problem proposing a bill to change this to allow legal ownership of firearm sound suppressors as long as she was not alone in support. This is where I come to you. I would like you to support a bill in effort of allowing legal ownership of sound suppressors by civilians, LEO, and other departments after passing the NFA's requirements of ownership of a sound suppressor.
There are many misconceptions about firearm suppressors. The main misconception is that they are "silent" or "near silent". This is totally false as with regular ammunition fired the sound signature of a discharging firearm is dramatically reduced to safe decibel levels, yet never "silent". Hollywood has been portraying sound suppressors falsely for many years and this has adversely effected the view of common civilians, law enforcement officials, and even politicians alike. Sound suppressing devices have many benefits that many overlook, due to a negative stigma.
Sound suppressors are extremely beneficial to hunters and target shooters in that they allow the firing of firearms without ear protection. Earpro as we call in the Military is always required during machine gun shoots, rifle ranges, and other training events but rarely gets worn during actual missions. This is because Earpro blocks out ones ability to maintain optimum situational awareness, it hampers your hearing no matter what type you use (including "adaptive" or electronically controlled devices) The same goes for hunters and target shooters alike. If you cannot hear the noise of another hunter in the woods, or a range master's command of "CEASE FIRE" during an emergency this poses an extreme safety risk to yourself and others. Suppressors offer the ability to maintain true situational awareness while still preventing damage to ones hearing, from firing a firearm without ear protection. Think of a Sound Suppressor like a car muffler, It will keep sound reduced to safe levels, but not completely silent. Military records of damaged hearing, Top target shooters, and hunters alike will prove that hearing will be damaged with continual use of firearms without ear protection. Sound suppressors are ear protection.
Secondly, suppressors offer shooters reduced recoil. This is beneficial to all shooting groups, hunters, competitive target shooters, and recreational shooters. Reduced recoil will aid in reducing bad marksmanship habits associated with powerful recoil impulses rifles and handguns produce when discharged. Hunters will be more likely to produce a clean humane shot if they can focus on the shot alone and not flinching or tensing up before the shot breaks. Competitive shooters will benefit in that they can practice more without fatigue, and recreational shooters will be able to shoot without being intimidated by the firearms report, and recoil, encouraging a more enjoyable shooting environment. Without explaining more benefits and misconceptions in through detail I would like to point out some facts. 1. Suppressors are demanding to be able to receive and typically one must wait over 90 days for a NFA Form 4 to clear in legal states that allow ownership. 2. 38 states currently allow legal suppressor ownership. The most recent is MI.
I am a firm believer that America is a gun loving country. It was liberated by firearms, and is kept free with them. Its law abiding citizens should not be forced to follow strict unfair regulations because somebody doesn't agree with our second amendment right. Firearm development has always progressed and it is human nature to resist change. Change however is the future. Change from fossil fuel to alternative energy, change in how budgets are formed, change is everything, progressive. Does somebody need a sound suppressor? No, nobody needs a suppressor, however the same argument applies in does anybody need a Ferrari? If a law abiding citizen wants to protect his hearing, why should we prevent this? If a law abiding citizen wishes to exercise his second amendment right that "shall not be infringed" who is one to not allow this?
I am not the only one that feels this way about sound suppressor ownership in MN, but simply am one to stand up for what I believe in. If you need proof or demographics for #'s to be re-elected just go out and ask firearm ownership communities such as the NRA. I am trying to become involved due to the fact I care, something that is rare today. I wish to move back to MN after I leave the Marines. I wish to move to a state that allows one that fought for their country to exercise the rights they fought for. If not, I will simply move to Wisconsin, or any other state that understands and stands up for the second amendment. This would be a terrible loss in my heart, but I stand for principal. The Marines stand for what is right no matter what the odds. No matter what others opinions are. This is what I ask you to do. Please do not send me a canned typical political answer, this will only prove that individual's voices mean nothing to MN state Senators. For any more information relating to a fear of "crime increase" or any other disadvantage of allowing legal ownership of sound suppressors please contact me at [email protected] I do not have a phone out here in AFG.
Sincerely and with regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
hopeless probably, but damn do I care? YES. I can't call, or meet up as i'm in AFG. Any suggestions before I send this e-mail to be auto replied by a secretary? I'll prob just move to WI... sad day. I know it doesn't cover all points, and I should prob just ask to meet, but I don't have the ability to meet. Shittay...
