Quoted:
I suggest using the term "suppressor" vs silencer.  The term "silencer" is inaccurate since we all know that the devices do not silence the report but mearly reduces it.

Quoted:

They way I see it we need to do several things.

2.  Prove that silencers are not a crime problem in MN.  I did this in WA by writing to every county sheriff to inquire about any silencer related crime.  In WA they were required by law to respond.

Quoted:
I have some national data, but it is very general in nature.  We need the MN police behind us or at least taking a neutral position.
I think silencers should be allowed for hunting.  High powered rifles are still readily heard when equipped with a silencer.  If the DNR wants to disallow silencers while hunting, so be it, but I think sentencing enhancements are the wrong way to go.  

Personally I would never support an additional fee on any firearm.  In fact, if a new MN silencer bill includes additional fees on silencer possession, I will not work to pass it.  The fact that it helps small business should be enough.

Ranb

Quoted:
I suggest using the term "suppressor" vs silencer.  The term "silencer" is inaccurate since we all know that the devices do not silence the report but mearly reduces it.

My .02

Your name, address, e-mail, phone

Date

Sheriff's Address

Sheriff XXXXXX,

I am discussing the merits of a bill to allow civilian ownership of firearm sound suppressors with several of my Representatives in the state legislature. One piece of information they desire are whether or not any crimes have been committed with firearm sound suppressors in the State.

Does the Sheriff’s Office have any experience with persons breaking the law (97B.031) banning silencer possession?  If there have been any arrests or convictions, can you provide me with a case number or other information?

Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Quoted:
He would probably be good to have.  Can you ask him to do a search on silencer crime in the State, or at least his county?  If he has data, it would be good to know some details like if the silencer was registered or it was used for poaching.

Ranb

Quoted:
Representative Tony Cornish sounds like a good person to approach for a silencer bill.  http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?id=10757  
He is co-author of HF1467 (self defense) and is a police chief.  If he is supportive of silencer use, then he would be a good guy to have on our side.  We need a forum member from district 24B to write him a letter.  http://www.gis.leg.mn/l2002/pdf/24B.pdf

Ranb

Quoted:


I know where you are coming from, but I use silencer on gun forums because then everyone knows I am speaking of a gun muffler, and besides, it is the legal term for a gun muffler in the USA.  I use the word suppressor in my video and when discussing it with government officials.  

A silencer only reduces muzzle blast noise just as a car muffler only reduces exhaust noise and does nothing for any other kind of noise.  A typical silencer can reduce noise by 30 decibels; this is a 1000 times lowering of intensity and an 8 times lowering of loudness.  I think the words "merely reduces" is a gross understatement.  :)

Randy

1) The DNR is staunchly against suppressors because they think it will increase poaching. If we could get decent states on poaching in MN vs similar states with legal suppresors, it would help to sway public opinion, but not the DNR.

CGA of 1968, Title 18, Chapter 44, 921; definitions (24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm,…..

Quoted:
IMO the only method that will work will be to introduce language with regards to silencers saying that they are illegal to own or possess unless you are a LE agency, manufacturer, or are licensed by the BATFE...or something to that effect.  In the best case that will fly over people's heads as legislative gobbledygook and if it doesn't it will remind everyone how restrictive the federal law (which obviously will still apply) already is.

I'm an attorney and will assist with drafting legislation if we can find someone in the legislature to run with this.

Subd. 4.Silencers prohibited.
Except as provided in section 609.66, subdivision 1h, a person may not own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached unless it is legally owned and registered in accordance with federal law.

Quoted:
In MN, it might be possible to make this a Public Health and Good Neighbor issue as well.

Suppressors reduction in the loudness of the report preserves hearing and offers those that are near a gun range a quieter report to deal with.

And, I'm willing to get involved in working on this issue.

Quoted: I assume it will be just like the other nfa items in MN––i assume a very small percentage of overall ownership.

Quoted:
With respect to the MN Chiefs of Police Association's opinions on suppressors, this is the not I received back today when I asked them:

To; BC98:

We do not take a stance on single issues.  We can only comply with the laws that the legislators pass.  

If new legislation is introduced, we may make an opinion on that new legislation.
Once the legislation is introduced to the legislators we would be willing to look at it.
Unfortunately it is too late for this year.  

Thank You;
Chief Ron Sager Isanti PD

Quoted:
Would a letter to the BATFE get us any useful crime statics as far as both legally and illegally possessed silencers used in crimes? They are a federally regulated item, so I would think they would keep track of this kind of thing. I would be willing to write the letter if anyone thinks it's worth the time.

Representative Hilty,  

I am writing to find out if you would be willing to sponsor or support a bill to allow civilian possession of firearm noise suppressors.   As you may know, suppressors are legal for civilians to own at the federal level and in most of the states.   Minnesota is one of only 13 states that do not allow most civilians to possess suppressors.  

Persons that own suppressors can only do so with the approval of the BATFE.  Anyone who buys a suppressor must submit an application along with their finger prints and photos as well as pay a $200 tax.  The person submitting the application must obtain their local sheriff’s signature on the form prior to sending it in for approval.   The BATFE only approves the application after performing a background check and verifying that suppressors are legal to own in the applicant’s state.  This process is the same as that required to own a machine gun or short barreled shotgun (relics only), both of which are legal in Minnesota.

Crimes associated with suppressors are rare in the United States.  This is because suppressors are not common and anyone who goes to the time and expense to legally purchase a suppressor is probably not the kind of person who will miss-use it.  The federal government also has severe penalties for criminal miss-use of suppressors or simply evading the tax when buying one.

Suppressors are very useful as noise reducers.  Hearing loss is one of the most common injuries associated with firearms use.  A typical suppressor will lower noise by about 30 decibels.  This is a 1000 times decrease in noise intensity and an eight fold reduction in loudness.  Even with this amount of noise reduction, firearms are still not silent when equipped with a suppressor.  A small 22 caliber rim fire rifle will still be about 110 decibels when used with a quality suppressor.   A suppressor also does nothing to reduce action and bullet flight noise.  Suppressors also protect the hearing of any bystanders that are not wearing hearing protection or wearing incorrectly.  They are also very effective at reducing sound level near rifle ranges.  With previously isolated rifle ranges being encroached upon by houses, the noise reduction benefits of firearm suppressors are readily apparent.

There are concerns by some, including myself, that suppressors can be used by poachers in an attempt to hide their illegal activities.  A suppressor can make it more difficult to catch a poacher, but allowing their possession by the law abiding people of Minnesota will not increase availability to those people who choose to break the law.  The great majority of suppressor owners in the United States obey the law.  Keeping suppressor possession illegal only punishes the law abiding residents of Minnesota.

The national trend has been to make firearm suppressors more available to civilians.  Kansas and Missouri both amended their laws a few years ago to allow suppressor possession.  Washington State recently amended the law to allow civilians and the police to use registered suppressors.

If you are willing, I would like to see a bill submitted in time for the 2012 legislative session.  

Statute 97B.031 currently says in part;

Subd. 4.Silencers prohibited.
Except as provided in section 609.66, subdivision 1h, a person may not own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached.

I think it would be beneficial if the law was amended to read;

Subd. 4.Silencers prohibited.
Except as provided in section 609.66, subdivision 1h, a A person may not own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached unless it is registered and legally owned in accordance with federal law.

609.66 subdivision 1h contains requirements that would be unnecessary if State law is brought in line with federal law.  The DNR is exempt from the prohibition on suppressor possession to a limited extent so that they can use them for wildlife control operations.  609.99 subsection 1h which allows the DNR to use suppressors expires on July 2011.  Easing restrictions on suppressor possession will also benefit the DNR.

If you have any questions or need to know more about the legalities of suppressors, please let me know.  I am willing to answer any questions you may have.

Respectfully,

Ranb

 (3) persons possessing machine guns or short-barreled shotguns which, although designed as weapons, have been determined by the superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension or the superintendent's delegate by reason of the date of manufacture, value, design or other characteristics to be primarily collector's items, relics, museum pieces or objects of curiosity, ornaments or keepsakes, and are not likely to be used as weapons;

Quoted:
guys whoanelly is RIGHT!

IMO the only method that will work will be to introduce language with regards to silencers saying that they are illegal to own or possess unless you are a LE agency, manufacturer, or are licensed by the BATFE...or something to that effect. In the best case that will fly over people's heads as legislative gobbledygook and if it doesn't it will remind everyone how restrictive the federal law (which obviously will still apply) already is.

the only way to get this thru the legislature is to change the law like whoanelly says above, only people with federal paperwork/permission, aka form 3/4/5 can own suppressors.  it won't work ANY other way!!!

go read some of the committee transcripts for this years DNR suppressor bill.  the bill allowed the DNR to own the suppressors and keep possession of them.  this is the MN DNR wanting to own the suppressors themselves for dispatching animals and you could tell from the questions from legislators that they weren't too keen on it.  the ONLY way you are going to get suppressors legal in MN is the above way.

Quoted:
The DNR brings in "sharpshooters" every year to thin out deer herds and other animals.   These "sharpshooters" bring suppressed rifles.

I have asked the DNR many times, without an answer how these people are allowed to bring a suppressor into the state since the shooters are not LE.

The ATF will not allow someone to bring in a suppressor, I asked the NFA and they would not allow it if you filled out the forms to bring one into the state because it is against state law. The DNR cannot make a request of the NFA to allow it either..

The best way to start is to get a law more like the Missouri law that lets those who are Federally licensed to have them first.  

The way the state government is right now we would never get them to let individuals have them.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), until July 1, 2011, an enforcement officer, as defined in section 97A.015, subdivision 18, a wildlife area manager, an employee designated under section 84.0835, or a person acting under contract with the commissioner of natural resources, at specific times and locations that are authorized by the commissioner of natural resources may use devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for wildlife control operations that require stealth. If the commissioner determines that the use of silencing devices is necessary under this paragraph, the commissioner must:

(1) establish and enforce a written policy governing the use, possession, and transportation of the devices;

(2) limit the number of the silencing devices maintained by the Department of Natural Resources to no more than ten; and

(3) keep direct custody and control of the devices when the devices are not specifically authorized for use.

Quoted:
In regards to those who say having a license may ease concerns on owning suppressors in MN the BATFE registration is a form of life-time license since the devices are registered to the approved owner.  I see no need in having a state license since that could be denied (before applying to the BATFE, or revoked at a later date), have a limited time period (like the carry permit) or have another high added cost (on top of the BATFE tax stamp of $200) for the state who really likes to tax the hell out of its citizens.

My .02