Legalization Effort for Alabama Suppressor Hunting: Success Confirmed! (page 7) - Page 2

Hometown » Alabama

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Legalization Effort for Alabama Suppressor Hunting: Success Confirmed! (page 7) (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 1/27/2014 2:58:55 PM EDT

[#1]

I'll definitely get the word out, and count me in to be there the 1st of March.

Posted: 1/27/2014 8:31:01 PM EDT

[#2]

I aim to have some slides / handouts put together prior to the meeting if someone can print them and bring them. Idea is to have some ready info on the following:

What are Suppressors (mechanically)?

What are the legal requirements and processes for obtaining them?

What are the benefits to the user and others?

What are the potential risks and mitigations?

What are the experiences of states who have legalized their use in hunting?

Posted: 2/24/2014 11:32:01 PM EDT

[#3]

Just saw this. Is this still an active effort? How many people are planning on attending?

Posted: 2/25/2014 10:37:41 AM EDT

[#4]

Email sent again.

I also posted this on another board.

Posted: 2/25/2014 9:22:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

Just saw this. Is this still an active effort? How many people are planning on attending?

View Quote

Well, it's one guy who doesn't hunt and doesn't own a suppressor but thinks removing superfluous restrictions is a good idea, plus anyone else who is sympathetic on any account willing to write in or show up at the coming dept. of conservation meeting (info in OP). I won't be able to attend but I will try to knock out some charts that anyone going can volunteer to bring and speak to, and a copy will be sent to the board either electronically or by post. I'm not presently aiming to start a sock puppet empire, so anyone who is on other boards that can cross post about the meeting with the board, or otherwise raise awareness/support would be most helpful to the general aim of removing a restriction of questionable utility.

Posted: 2/26/2014 12:19:16 AM EDT

[#6]

Looking for peer-review of potential charts for the conservation board meeting. Please review the draft slides under the spoiler and provide any feedback. Will roll in any good ideas in the final revision:
Click To View Spoiler

Posted: 2/26/2014 9:54:40 AM EDT

[#7]

Looms good. There seems to be one typo in slide 3. it says "Suppressors can noise level". Is it missing can lower noise level?

Posted: 2/26/2014 9:57:01 AM EDT

[#8]

Page 5, first bullet point.

"Suppressors can noise to levels less likely to cause hearing loss for hunters and bystanders"

The verbiage of that sentence, specifically the word "can" might not make sense to a person who is not firearm savvy.

Otherwise I think it looks good.

Posted: 2/26/2014 10:56:39 AM EDT

[#9]

Has anyone contacted American Silencer Association? They may already have the information you are looking for.

American Silencer Association

Posted: 2/26/2014 12:22:21 PM EDT

[#10]

Thanks for the resource tip, will look into that.

Posted: 2/26/2014 12:48:12 PM EDT

[#11]

A couple of thoughts--this probably won't be given much thought or effort by the board unless there are a fair amount of people who show up. It might help to put a google doc together for people to reply and coordinate further. Has anyone talked with the big gun stores in the state? Larry's in Huntsville, Hoover Tactical in Birmingham, etc? They should be willing and able to spread the word. After all, use of suppressors for hunting would only increase the potential buyers. There isn't much time left...unfortunately I'll be out of state and unable to attend

Posted: 2/26/2014 2:47:25 PM EDT

[#12]

Sadly I do not have the time to devote to building a statewide movement for this issue. That said, I felt it would be worth while to start getting some of the issue in front of the PTBs that can affect policy, and see just how much interest there is. Even if it's a handful of people this year, it's no loss if it becomes a larger number next year, and larger the year after, and so on. I 'd like to hope there are enough people interested to lend a hand spreading the word and building momentum, but it will need folks with more time on their hands than I have.

Posted: 2/26/2014 3:00:06 PM EDT

[#13]

Agreed. I wouldn't ask you to do it all on your own. I hope there are some other people who see this and can get involved. This would certainly be easier than doing it through the legislature.

Posted: 2/26/2014 11:52:54 PM EDT

[#14]

Well, on the one hand, if there aren't enough people interested enough to write in and hit the meeting, it's hard to blame the board if they don't support a rule change. The advisory board is the right place to lobby though, and only if they were completely impervious to increased reasoning, presence, and lobbying year after year would it be something to think about bringing to the legislature in my mind. Even in the legislature, this is a relatively small issue that isn't going to carry any significant voting block or campaign donation stream, so I'd wager the response would be "We have other things to work on". Then again, you never know.

The board will have charts sent to them shortly, and if anyone is able to hit the meeting and put in a few good words, so much the better. One of the mitigation for concerns I'm going to add to the Q&A section is that the board could always try it for a while, and if any unforeseen problems develop, they can always change it back. They admitted in an email earlier that they never had any problems with suppressors being misused anyway (which will be included in backup, and a reminder given in the Q&A).

My whole goal here was to stop merely wishing for change and start taking concrete action at making some.

Posted: 2/27/2014 10:55:57 PM EDT

[#15]

Final Charts Complete!

This is what will be sent to the Advisory Board barring any major feedback tonight:

Click To View Spoiler

Posted: 2/28/2014 7:39:43 AM EDT

[#16]

I plan to attend this meeting.

Posted: 2/28/2014 8:27:15 AM EDT

[#17]

Link to the study cited in the brief on conventional hearing protection vs suppressors:

http://www.qsmsilencers.com/Dr.%20Matt%20Branch%20AAOHNS%20Article.pdf
Good reading on any account, especially if you plan on attending.
Charts as delivered:

http://i61.tinypic.com/33keywg.png

http://i57.tinypic.com/esuq2x.png

http://i57.tinypic.com/ickysz.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/14vseht.png

http://i57.tinypic.com/hs4cc8.png

http://i61.tinypic.com/21kbdow.png

http://i58.tinypic.com/350830n.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/2vux7yc.png

http://i60.tinypic.com/15z1t9u.png

http://i61.tinypic.com/2100dqu.png

Posted: 2/28/2014 9:35:37 AM EDT

[#18]

I can't see the final charts--my computer is not pulling it up. I wanted to add that (in case it isn't there) that there is currently a lot of movement to legalize suppressors for hunting in several states that I think is relevant. Here is a quick breakdown:

Iowa: proposed law to allow suppressor ownership just passed the House by a vote of 83-16 YESTERDAY. If it passes, Iowa would become the 40th state to allow suppressor ownership.
There are currently 39 states where it is legal to own a suppressor

Of the 39 states, 28 allow suppressors for all game hunting and 2 allow it only for varmint hunting (leaving 9 that do not allow suppressors for hunting).
Of those 9 states, 4 currently have legislation pending that would allow hunting with suppressors:
-Georgia (Senate Bill 93): passed Senate by a vote of 43-10
-New Hampshire (House Bill 1495): pending in committee
-Ohio (House Bill 234): pending in committee
-Louisiana (currently varmint hunting only): not sure this bill number or status.

North Carolina just legalized suppressor hunting last year.

The point is, there is a huge positive trend of increasing suppressor ownership and suppressor hunting. I think this info could help sway people.

Posted: 2/28/2014 9:45:13 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
I can't see the final charts--my computer is not pulling it up. I wanted to add that (in case it isn't there) that there is currently a lot of movement to legalize suppressors for hunting in several states that I think is relevant. Here is a quick breakdown:

Iowa: proposed law to allow suppressor ownership just passed the House by a vote of 83-16 YESTERDAY. If it passes, Iowa would become the 40th state to allow suppressor ownership.
There are currently 39 states where it is legal to own a suppressor

Of the 39 states, 28 allow suppressors for all game hunting and 2 allow it only for varmint hunting (leaving 9 that do not allow suppressors for hunting).
Of those 9 states, 4 currently have legislation pending that would allow hunting with suppressors:
-Georgia (Senate Bill 93): passed Senate by a vote of 43-10
-New Hampshire (House Bill 1495): pending in committee
-Ohio (House Bill 234): pending in committee
-Louisiana (currently varmint hunting only): not sure this bill number or status.

North Carolina just legalized suppressor hunting last year.

The point is, there is a huge positive trend of increasing suppressor ownership and suppressor hunting. I think this info could help sway people.

View Quote

Here are links:

Georgia bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20132014/SB/93
Georgia new article: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/georgia-senate-approves-gun-suppressors-for-huntin/ndc2W/

NH bill: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB1495.pdf

Ohio bill: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_HB_234

Louisiana bill: http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=14RS&b=HB186&sbi=y
article: http://americansilencerassociation.com/louisiana-suppressor-hunting-bill-introduced/

Iowa bill (to legalize suppressor ownership) : http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/linc/85/external/HF384_Introduced.html

NC suppressor hunting--article on legalization last year: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/07/31/4201766/gun-suppressors-are-now-legal.html

edit: added hyperlinks

Posted: 2/28/2014 1:30:26 PM EDT

[#20]

Okay, so who is going to be there? Who is going to speak?

I will try to brush up on all the info, ie. pros, cons, Myths etc. of Suppressors and hunting.

Is someone planning to show the power point that crux has developed? have you sent this via email to anyone on the advisory board, crux?

I'm starting to feel that everyone is for this but there haven't been a lot of folks confirming that their actually going to be at this meeting and or speaking to support this.

Posted: 2/28/2014 1:42:04 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Okay, so who is going to be there? Who is going to speak?

I will try to brush up on all the info, ie. pros, cons, Myths etc. of Suppressors and hunting.

Is someone planning to show the power point that crux has developed? have you sent this via email to anyone on the advisory board, crux?

I'm starting to feel that everyone is for this but there haven't been a lot of folks confirming that their actually going to be at this meeting and or speaking to support this.

View Quote

Agreed. I'm currently out of state and thus can't make it.

Posted: 2/28/2014 2:09:21 PM EDT

[#22]

Don't everyone jump in at once......

Posted: 2/28/2014 2:16:18 PM EDT

[#23]

Could be one guy show up, could be 20... I've sent the data to Dan Moultrie via email and to the comissioner and deputy indicating I can't go but would appreciate the topic be discussed. In that I won't be there, what happens next depends on others. I stood up to put the info together, it would be best if someone will lay claim to bringing printouts and briefing the issue. I'll be happy to answer questions at the email in the pitch this later this evening and will post .png versions of the charts here for compatability.

I have no idea if they will have projectors etc, I'd count on having to work from hard copy.

I'm hoping the pitch is strong enough to stand on it's own, or delivered by anyone with a little familiarity in public speaking. I'm particularly interested in any substantive objections that are raised which need to be addressed by further discussion. It would be good to avoid confrontation at this event and maintain a tone of education and request to help bring allowance for important safety devices into the sport. I consider this the start of a dialog, hopefully a short one in favor of legalization, but I also have a roadmap for how to work the issue over the next three years if this particular event doesn't make the change.

As I said though, out of my hands as far as the meeting goes, best wishes and thanks to any who can pick up the flag for it.

Posted: 2/28/2014 2:38:47 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Could be one guy show up, could be 20... I've sent the data to Dan Moultrie via email and to the comissioner and deputy indicating I can't go but would appreciate the topic be discussed. In that I won't be there, what happens next depends on others. I stood up to put the info together, it would be best if someone will lay claim to bringing printouts and briefing the issue. I'll be happy to answer questions at the email in the pitch this later this evening and will post .png versions of the charts here for compatability.

I have no idea if they will have projectors etc, I'd count on having to work from hard copy.

I'm hoping the pitch is strong enough to stand on it's own, or delivered by anyone with a little familiarity in public speaking. I'm particularly interested in any substantive objections that are raised which need to be addressed by further discussion. It would be good to avoid confrontation at this event and maintain a tone of education and request to help bring allowance for important safety devices into the sport. I consider this the start of a dialog, hopefully a short one in favor of legalization, but I also have a roadmap for how to work the issue over the next three years if this particular event doesn't make the change.

As I said though, out of my hands as far as the meeting goes, best wishes and thanks to any who can pick up the flag for it.

View Quote

Crux, thank you for all the work that you've put into this.

I must admit I've never been to one of these meetings before. If anyone has can you give me an idea on how many copies to make so that the advisory board is covered?

If I was able to get a projector does anyone know if they would let me use it to present the power point at this meeting?

At the least I feel I could give a 5 minute presentation on the issue. With or without a visual aide.

I think what we could use is at least a hand full of people to register to speak briefly voicing their interest in allowing hunting with suppressors. Even if you just stand there and say "I can here today to tell you that I support hunting with suppressors in Alabama", etc. "I support this change" and sit back down that would be helpful.

Posted: 2/28/2014 3:36:53 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

Crux, thank you for all the work that you've put into this.

I must admit I've never been to one of these meetings before. If anyone has can you give me an idea on how many copies to make so that the advisory board is covered?

If I was able to get a projector does anyone know if they would let me use it to present the power point at this meeting?

At the least I feel I could give a 5 minute presentation on the issue. With or without a visual aide.

I think what we could use is at least a hand full of people to register to speak briefly voicing their interest in allowing hunting with suppressors. Even if you just stand there and say "I can here today to tell you that I support hunting with suppressors in Alabama", etc. "I support this change" and sit back down that would be helpful.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Could be one guy show up, could be 20... I've sent the data to Dan Moultrie via email and to the comissioner and deputy indicating I can't go but would appreciate the topic be discussed. In that I won't be there, what happens next depends on others. I stood up to put the info together, it would be best if someone will lay claim to bringing printouts and briefing the issue. I'll be happy to answer questions at the email in the pitch this later this evening and will post .png versions of the charts here for compatability.

I have no idea if they will have projectors etc, I'd count on having to work from hard copy.

I'm hoping the pitch is strong enough to stand on it's own, or delivered by anyone with a little familiarity in public speaking. I'm particularly interested in any substantive objections that are raised which need to be addressed by further discussion. It would be good to avoid confrontation at this event and maintain a tone of education and request to help bring allowance for important safety devices into the sport. I consider this the start of a dialog, hopefully a short one in favor of legalization, but I also have a roadmap for how to work the issue over the next three years if this particular event doesn't make the change.

As I said though, out of my hands as far as the meeting goes, best wishes and thanks to any who can pick up the flag for it.

Crux, thank you for all the work that you've put into this.

I must admit I've never been to one of these meetings before. If anyone has can you give me an idea on how many copies to make so that the advisory board is covered?

If I was able to get a projector does anyone know if they would let me use it to present the power point at this meeting?

At the least I feel I could give a 5 minute presentation on the issue. With or without a visual aide.

I think what we could use is at least a hand full of people to register to speak briefly voicing their interest in allowing hunting with suppressors. Even if you just stand there and say "I can here today to tell you that I support hunting with suppressors in Alabama", etc. "I support this change" and sit back down that would be helpful.

The board consists of 10 members:

http://www.outdooralabama.com/about/board/

Posted: 2/28/2014 5:48:13 PM EDT

[#26]

crux, did you get my email about sending the files direct to my email addresses?

I can't seem to get a clean copy of the file. It keeps putting a line of words vertically down the middle of a couple of pages. This is just the power point document.

Posted: 2/28/2014 6:33:26 PM EDT

[#27]

I'll have a remedy in about 2 hours

Posted: 2/28/2014 6:35:31 PM EDT

[#28]

would anyone be willing to assist with a laptop and running a power point if I bring a projector?

Posted: 2/28/2014 6:47:00 PM EDT

[#29]

I'd reccomend against bringing in a projector actually, they don't offer a lot of time for discussion and might view it as disruptive. I'd have all materials on CD if they have the means and interest, but plan on briefing to paper as a default. More to come

Posted: 2/28/2014 6:51:43 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'd reccomend against bringing in a projector actually, they don't offer a lot of time for discussion and might view it as disruptive. I'd have all materials on CD if they have the means and interest, but plan on briefing to paper as a default. More to come

View Quote

Good to know. Thx.

Crux, I feel comfortable calling you the "Ring Leader" of this show

. Also I may point the finger at you if this all goes terribly wrong

Posted: 2/28/2014 7:18:31 PM EDT

[#31]

I am ever a reluctant "leader", but where people look to me for direction I will give my opinion.

So here's my mind on the long and short game:

This is an expeditionary move. I have little intel on these guys and where they stand on the issue other than a general invitation to bring the issue forward by the commissioner. How the board reacts to this sets the stage for the next move.

The briefer should be well but comfortably dressed and groomed, calm and relaxed, and approach the briefing with the mindset that we are here for a friendly introduction of a topic that deserves attention to a board who diligently looks to balance the needs of the sportsman community with safety and conservation of Alabama resources. In other words, good guys who are serving the public's best interest.

Possibility 1: Board is sympathetic and just needed someone to point out the benefits and alay fears relating to the change. Even here expect them to be non-commital, just thank them for the opportunity to speak and for their consideration.

Possibility 2: Board is disinterested. Similar follow up with the above, thank them and move on. Confrontation and passion need to be avoided here for tis and the remaining options, we're just here to bring some good information to their attention, not scrap or have contention. Follow-up will occur later.

Possibility 3: Somewhat negative. There may be negative opinions or prejudices. Answer calmly, stick to the facts and data, direct and defer any discussion points or issues to the email in the brief in order to support further dialog. No argumentitiveness or passion. Thanks for allowing the issue to be presented. Any details of objections and reactions are important to collect here.

Possibility 4: Hostile. They may not want to talk about the issue or be extremely negative. Don't be offended. Brief if you can, but if they don't want to have anything to do with it or their minds are made up, no problem, move on. Sometimes vhange takes time.

Above all stay calm, friendly, and genuinely helpful in attitude.

Chart updates to follow in an hour

Posted: 2/28/2014 7:41:52 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
I am ever a reluctant "leader", but where people look to me for direction I will give my opinion.

So here's my mind on the long and short game:

This is an expeditionary move. I have little intel on these guys and where they stand on the issue other than a general invitation to bring the issue forward by the commissioner. How the board reacts to this sets the stage for the next move.

The briefer should be well but comfortably dressed and groomed, calm and relaxed, and approach the briefing with the mindset that we are here for a friendly introduction of a topic that deserves attention to a board who diligently looks to balance the needs of the sportsman community with safety and conservation of Alabama resources. In other words, good guys who are serving the public's best interest.

Possibility 1: Board is sympathetic and just needed someone to point out the benefits and alay fears relating to the change. Even here expect them to be non-commital, just thank them for the opportunity to speak and for their consideration.

Possibility 2: Board is disinterested. Similar follow up with the above, thank them and move on. Confrontation and passion need to be avoided here for tis and the remaining options, we're just here to bring some good information to their attention, not scrap or have contention. Follow-up will occur later.

Possibility 3: Somewhat negative. There may be negative opinions or prejudices. Answer calmly, stick to the facts and data, direct and defer any discussion points or issues to the email in the brief in order to support further dialog. No argumentitiveness or passion. Thanks for allowing the issue to be presented. Any details of objections and reactions are important to collect here.

Possibility 4: Hostile. They may not want to talk about the issue or be extremely negative. Don't be offended. Brief if you can, but if they don't want to have anything to do with it or their minds are made up, no problem, move on. Sometimes vhange takes time.

Above all stay calm, friendly, and genuinely helpful in attitude.

Chart updates to follow in an hour

View Quote

What? I just had my neckbeard perm'd.

Posted: 2/28/2014 7:48:29 PM EDT

[#33]

In all seriousness..... I'll plan to wear khaki's with a button up.

I'm on the same page with this being an expeditionary round. I believe that the research and visual aides that you've prepared will go a long way to being taken seriously. Having 100 people would go a long way to being taken seriously as well. Maybe next time.

Factual information and research are what is going to give the old school thought the reason to change the rule. I get that. Not going to push anything. We give them facts and research and we let them make the right decision.

Posted: 2/28/2014 8:19:10 PM EDT

[#34]

As a backup and for others who are interested, here's the links to the png versions of the charts.

http://i61.tinypic.com/33keywg.png

http://i57.tinypic.com/esuq2x.png

http://i57.tinypic.com/ickysz.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/14vseht.png

http://i57.tinypic.com/hs4cc8.png

http://i61.tinypic.com/21kbdow.png

http://i58.tinypic.com/350830n.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/2vux7yc.png

http://i60.tinypic.com/15z1t9u.png

http://i61.tinypic.com/2100dqu.png

Posted: 2/28/2014 9:36:29 PM EDT

[#35]

I will not be there. I've got to work tomorrow.

Posted: 2/28/2014 9:39:36 PM EDT

[#36]

I'd like to encourage everyone who can't make it, and who haven't done so already, to follow up with a letter or call to folks on the board and affirm your interest in the rule change.

Posted: 2/28/2014 10:28:18 PM EDT

[#37]

Got it. Printed copies of the ppt in color. Thx

Posted: 2/28/2014 10:40:54 PM EDT

[#38]

Thanks for picking up the flag. I wish you luck.

Posted: 2/28/2014 11:04:39 PM EDT

[#39]

Good luck! Let us know what happens! And thanks for organizing this crux

Posted: 3/1/2014 8:58:15 AM EDT

[#40]

FYI, I'm here. There are 14 board members, not 10, or so I was told when I handed out copies of the info to the assistant. (no one's fault, it says 10 where i read)I was also told I will get two minutes to speak. So this will be quick.

Tell me to break a leg!

Posted: 3/1/2014 9:57:35 AM EDT

[#41]

Good luck!

Posted: 3/1/2014 12:52:40 PM EDT

[#42]

Okay so 3 minutes is the limit. I finished up and stayed for 30 more minutes. Spoke with the gentleman next to me who has been to a few of these and represents a group in another area. The meetings can last until early afternoon. They do not typically revisit subjects. There are three minutes for me to speak and then 10 minutes of questions by the board at their discretion.

There were no questions by the board when my time ran out, so there was no discussion or debate. I got through the first six pages. Educating folks was most of what I was able to do. A few of the board members had quizzical looks at first but nodded their heads in understanding as I described the encompassing benefits of sound reduction, improved accuracy, lessened environmental impact, improved enjoyment, improved communication, and ease of introducing children or others who may be more hearing sensitive to the sport.

I think the biggest win was getting a chance to discuss how we're talking about only a 30 db reduction of a 140db concussion. I do not believe everyone understood this. The group was quiet for the most part, so I'm ready body language as to how things went.

I didn't get a chance to discuss the processes of getting a suppressor and basically from there on due to time restrictions.

Thoughts? Questions?

Crux, I emailed my phone number to you if you would like to call.

Posted: 3/1/2014 2:32:57 PM EDT

[#43]

Sounds like a great start for having only 3 minutes. It really takes longer to educate people about suppressors and all the misconceptions. It sounds like this was just a public comment meeting, and that they will discuss changes at a later date. A good next step may be to start an online petition to legalize suppressor hunting in AL. We could get a lot of signatures on that relatively quickly. It would also be easy to promote that at gun shops, etc. Then we can send the petition to the board, as well as have people send it to their state representative. If we show there is a lot of interest, it makes it more likely that they will do that. Also, it would be incredibly helpful to find game wardens who are in favor of this and willing to speak out. I seem to recall there was a proposal at some point and a few game wardens complained that suppressors would make it impossible to find people poaching. On this note, it is probably worth mentioning that most of the ammunition for hunting are supersonic calibers, so there will still be the sonic boom following the bullet. A suppressor just makes it hearing safe.

Posted: 3/1/2014 5:20:13 PM EDT

[#44]

I think we all need to hit the letters to let them know how many people are interested in this. The petitions would be a good addition.

We need to ask the question as to why suppressors are illegal. Once we know that we could work toward a goal. We might be able to add data in from other states ( if available) to show that with or without suppressors there is no difference in poaching.

I never got to explain what exactly is involved in taking possession of a suppressor to the board. So that would be a good topic.

I'm not sure if anyone else was there with us. I left at 10:15 or so. Several of the folks at the meeting (non-board members, non- game wardens) said they would support us.

Posted: 3/1/2014 9:56:26 PM EDT

[#45]

Great job brain. Thanks for that.

I suppose a "group" should be set up somewhere to help coordinate all the work necessary in finding an rallying supporters, ensuring information has been promulgated etc. I can probably do some infrastructure but I'm hardly a social butterfly. Glad to hear some people were supportive. To be honest the story and science are pretty straightforward in terms of benefits, so I think the two prongs in the path forward are making sure more people understand the truth about the benefits, and second, start trying to address or at least characterize the topics typically dominated by folklore and BS in terms of untraceable poachers and safety through loud noise. I took a stab at those latter two with the bows comments, but it might be good to get some folks with cans who wouldn't mind doing some recording in the presence of witnesses at various ranges away from .308 shots suppressed and unsuppressed to give a realistic mapping of how far one can be heard vs the other. Especially good if you could get wardens or advisory board members out for demonstrations.

And if people still believe rifles need to be loud for safety and anti-poaching, then it's clear each bow must be equipped pyrotechnic devices that emit 160db shockwaves every time they are fired just to ensure they aren't contributing to the problem either

All I can say is don't wait on me to keep things moving, I can guarantee I'm going to be distracted over the next two months. Will help where I can though. Cheers and thanks for the support everyone! I think this lays a good foundation.

Posted: 3/1/2014 11:28:28 PM EDT

[#46]

What other topics were discussed?

Posted: 3/2/2014 8:43:17 AM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
What other topics were discussed?

View Quote

A lot of fishing stuff, hunting with .30 caliber air rifles, box turtles, commercial saltwater fishing, hunting with crossbows, hunting turkey with bows, hunting hogs with dogs, bow hunters being interrupted by rifle hunters, etc, etc.. There were 50 something speakers. I was maybe #15 or 20 in the count. I left after 5 or so more people spoke. I believe there should be meeting minutes available some where because there was an assistant taking them and the approved the prior meeting minutes at the beginning of the meeting.

Posted: 3/2/2014 10:03:23 AM EDT

[#48]

There are a lot of folks out there that support this. The centralized site would be a great thing. There may be a forum board on outdoor alabama we should check out too. I got this impression. Someone told me about how some of the speakers or parties that show up to speak at these meetings got discouraged and got into some kind of negative discussion of the board members. From what I understand the board members found out about this and did not take kindly to it. So I believe we are on the right path and should continue getting the information to the people that make the decisions. Again we need to give the board some evidence of the interest in this by documenting the number of people interested and showing this to them. We are not protesting. We are providing the right information to the people that make the decisions.

I do think having a get together (demonstration of suppressors) with a member of the board and game wardens would be a good idea. I would suggest we do 2 or three of these (meetings in different regions of AL) because we have board members and game wardens across the state. At least if we have enough interest and people with suppressors to make that possible.

Posted: 3/2/2014 4:25:54 PM EDT

[#49]

Now... the only problem I'm having is coming up with a catchy name for a single issue focus site.

Hear Safe Alabama is the best I've got so far. Want to keep it narrowly focused on deregulating suppressors as a safety device while hunting. Suggestions?

Posted: 3/2/2014 9:32:55 PM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:
Now... the only problem I'm having is coming up with a catchy name for a single issue focus site.

Hear Safe Alabama is the best I've got so far. Want to keep it narrowly focused on deregulating suppressors as a safety device while hunting. Suggestions?

View Quote

Considering most don't know what a suppressor is. Alabama Silencers. Then the group mission is to legalize silencers for hunting and to promote the responsible use of suppressors !)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Legalization Effort for Alabama Suppressor Hunting: Success Confirmed! (page 7) (Page 2 of 4)

Hometown » Alabama

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us