Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 12/16/2005 6:45:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:57:37 AM EDT
I would contribute, although it wouldn't be much I would love to have supressors!
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:01:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:41:59 AM EDT
You be I would! Sign me up for "Not Much" Too.....
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:48:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:02:10 PM EDT
Add me to the "Not Much" list!
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:05:34 PM EDT
+1 to the not much list.
Umm... is not much a double or a triple digit number?
(Tis the season for giving and I am fairly well tapped out. I am sure I can scrounge up 50.00 or so)
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:21:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 1:22:38 PM EDT by jcg5740]
I would be in for at least $100, Ill keep an eye out for any new posts if you can get this started.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:29:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
+1 to the not much list.
Umm... is not much a double or a triple digit number?
(Tis the season for giving and I am fairly well tapped out. I am sure I can scrounge up 50.00 or so)


+2
I'm tired of having to fly 1000 miles just to visit my silencers
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:21:48 PM EDT
+1 for the "Not Much" club
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:36:36 PM EDT
Yarr hopefully.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:39:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 5:42:38 PM EDT by v188]
I would think that a contribution equal to a tax stamp would be great. If we could get suppressors here in MO, the cost of one little tax stamp should be doable, but only if you are planning to buy a can. Otherwise, I think a small contribution of any size would be greatly appreciated by all gun enthusiasts here in MO.

Jeff, you know I'm in! Keep us up on how things progress.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:07:15 PM EDT
I think this is a very worthy cause and I'd be happy to contribute.
Please keep us informed.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:37:24 PM EDT
I would definitely be interested. Funds are a little tight now due to NFA toys and life in general but willing to contribute. I spoke with you briefly about the initiative at a gunshow in Farmington back in October.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:56:26 PM EDT
You may want to work with the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance. They were a major player in helping push the concealed carry legislation through.

http://gclastl.org/
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:16:06 PM EDT
I can help a Little now, and more later.


BTW

I hear you(Jeff) ran into my little brother at the Movie Theater.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 12:03:59 PM EDT
Count me in.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 1:32:33 PM EDT
Good going guys...I'm glad you were able to get this rolling. Count me in.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:21:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:16:54 AM EDT
Cool!
I'd be interested in chipping in.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:50:21 AM EDT
Count me in for some funds.......

scottMO
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 12:07:41 PM EDT
I can pitch in a bill.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 1:22:32 PM EDT
I'l give what I can!
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 7:13:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CMMG:
I've been speaking with another member of the MO board here about the possibility of hiring a lobbyist to push legalizing suppressors here in MO . . .




OK, dumb question here . . .

I realize suppressors are cool and all but what argument in favor of suppressors is going to get lawmakers on board? I only ask because I live in Jefferson City and have occasional contact with legislators and lobbyists (but not in any sort of influential way) and find the lobbying/lawmaking process, well, "interesting."

I could easily articulate the reasons for CCW but I'm at a loss for a way to justify suppressors that non-gunners would understand. Clearly, I'm just not up to speed on this issue. Can someone provide some talking points?



Link Posted: 12/18/2005 7:31:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By CMMG:
I've been speaking with another member of the MO board here about the possibility of hiring a lobbyist to push legalizing suppressors here in MO . . .




OK, dumb question here . . .

I realize suppressors are cool and all but what argument in favor of suppressors is going to get lawmakers on board? I only ask because I live in Jefferson City and have occasional contact with legislators and lobbyists (but not in any sort of influential way) and find the lobbying/lawmaking process, well, "interesting."

I could easily articulate the reasons for CCW but I'm at a loss for a way to justify suppressors that non-gunners would understand. Clearly, I'm just not up to speed on this issue. Can someone provide some talking points?






Noise Polution
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 7:35:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Noise Polution



You're kidding, right?
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:07:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Noise Polution



You're kidding, right?



Well, it's the reason the hoplophobic brit lawmakers used to mandate the use of suppressors in the U.K.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:10:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Noise Polution



You're kidding, right?



Although I cannot speak for him, I think he is serious. For those that live in areas where discharge is a go, think of all the money the state could save by not having to go to calls where someone thinks their neighbor is going psyco shooting up the place. I believe belfed had some problems with this. People cant complain if they dont hear it. Also, think of protecting your hearing. Say your elderly, live in a questionable neighborhood, and own a gun. If they have to use it in their home, thats the last thing they are gonna hear. I almost lost my hearing in 9th grade cause a 'friend' shot a 9mm in a bathroom showing me the night sights. I was lucky cause I started to walk out of the door frame when the idiot pulled the trigget cause he though it was unloaded. Never really spoke to him again. I also taught myself firearm safety because of it. Differnt story though. A handgun being fired indoors without hearing protection is not something I would like to go through. Think of the kids too. Sure, you saved your kids from the intruder, but now they are deaf. All because they are seen as the tool of the assassin. what a load.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:42:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew10_28:

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Noise Polution



You're kidding, right?



Although I cannot speak for him, I think he is serious. For those that live in areas where discharge is a go, think of all the money the state could save by not having to go to calls where someone thinks their neighbor is going psyco shooting up the place. I believe belfed had some problems with this. People cant complain if they dont hear it. Also, think of protecting your hearing. Say your elderly, live in a questionable neighborhood, and own a gun. If they have to use it in their home, thats the last thing they are gonna hear. I almost lost my hearing in 9th grade cause a 'friend' shot a 9mm in a bathroom showing me the night sights. I was lucky cause I started to walk out of the door frame when the idiot pulled the trigget cause he though it was unloaded. Never really spoke to him again. I also taught myself firearm safety because of it. Differnt story though. A handgun being fired indoors without hearing protection is not something I would like to go through. Think of the kids too. Sure, you saved your kids from the intruder, but now they are deaf. All because they are seen as the tool of the assassin. what a load.



Suppressors are considered a safety device to protect the shooters hearing in some countries. [Switchblades, also - handy for those times when you only have one hand available for operating a knife while holding on for your life with the other. I have been in one sailing incident where this would have been handy.]

In the US, Teddy Roosevelt kept a suppressed rifle on his estate for varmint control so it wouldn't disturb the neighbors.

In the end, the use of suppressors are dependent on the character of their users, to paraphrase Cooper.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:47:33 PM EDT
I'm in for in a little. I'd love to add a can to my M4 for the home.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:09:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Suppressors are considered a safety device to protect the shooters hearing in some countries. [Switchblades, also - handy for those times when you only have one hand available for operating a knife while holding on for your life with the other. I have been in one sailing incident where this would have been handy.]

In the US, Teddy Roosevelt kept a suppressed rifle on his estate for varmint control so it wouldn't disturb the neighbors.

In the end, the use of suppressors are dependent on the character of their users, to paraphrase Cooper.




Well, I can certainly relate to the switchblade argument since I'm a collector. But I have a hard time imagining the suppressor debate in the Missouri General Assembly and keeping a straight face. You know how those city folks are. They'll be arguing that this is the "Assassin protection bill" and the St. Louis PD and KC Star will go right along with that logic on their editorial pages. More power to you, I say, but I think your chances of getting it passed are just slightly less than nil.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:01:01 AM EDT
Count me in.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:15:27 PM EDT
It would require the addition of just two words to subdivision (5) of subsection 2 of section 571.020:

(5) Was incident to dealing with the weapon solely as a curio, ornament, or keepsake, or to using it in a manner reasonably related to a lawful dramatic performance; but if the weapon is a type described in subdivision (1), (4) or (6) of subsection 1 of this section it must be in such a nonfunctioning condition that it cannot readily be made operable. No firearm silencer, short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, or machine gun may be possessed, manufactured, transported, repaired or sold as a curio, ornament, or keepsake, unless such person is an importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968, U.S.C., Title 18, or unless such firearm is an "antique firearm" as defined in subsection 3 of section 571.080, or unless such firearm has been designated a "collectors item" by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the U.S.C., Title 26, Section 5845(a)

We need to restrict these evil firearm silencers just like machine guns!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:21:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brother Kane:
It would require the addition of just two words to subdivision (5) of subsection 2 of section 571.020:

(5) Was incident to dealing with the weapon solely as a curio, ornament, or keepsake, or to using it in a manner reasonably related to a lawful dramatic performance; but if the weapon is a type described in subdivision (1), (4) or (6) of subsection 1 of this section it must be in such a nonfunctioning condition that it cannot readily be made operable. No firearm silencer, short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, or machine gun may be possessed, manufactured, transported, repaired or sold as a curio, ornament, or keepsake, unless such person is an importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968, U.S.C., Title 18, or unless such firearm is an "antique firearm" as defined in subsection 3 of section 571.080, or unless such firearm has been designated a "collectors item" by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the U.S.C., Title 26, Section 5845(a)

We need to restrict these evil firearm silencers just like machine guns! hr


Now that you put it that way, it might be possible to slip this in under the radar. You just need to find a popular bill to tack it onto as an amendment. Stuff like this happens all the time. Just a technical correction. Nothing to see here. Keep moving folks . . .
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:48:41 PM EDT
i'm in of course

would like to hear some more information from someone in the know about how difficult it will be to actually pull off though.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:58:37 PM EDT
Its for the CHILDREN



Really, how much easier would it be for instructing new shooters without the need for ear muffs/plugs not to mention the hearing loss that can occur over years of shooting. Talk about making it a lot easier to hear the range officer/instructor. My son (age 6) currently has a hearing problem in his left ear (hearing loss till 80-90db) and I am almost afraid to let him be around when shooting for the chance of damaging the hearing on his good side. I would be very interested in this possibility.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:20:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 8:03:39 AM EDT
There's still a possibility I might move to MO. If I do, I will contribute. If I don't, I might kick in a little anyway.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:30:38 PM EDT
The following thread over at MOCarry.com provides a little insight into the history of why cans are currently ilegal here in Missouri. Pay attention to the post by Mr. Oliver.

http://www.missouricarry.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5177&highlight=suppressors


And a big plus one on having a sit down meeting with GCLU, WMSA and also MSSA as they are very experienced with dealing with the Missouri legislature. Things like this take planning and cordination. In the past loose cannons have caused more trouble than good in dealing with the legislature. Please don't misunderstand.... I think it's a great idea and fully support the idea, but if your going to hire a lobbist... be sure the rest of pro Second Amendment crowd in Jeff city is on the same page as you are.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:09:33 PM EDT
The major reasons that I have posted on before are the following. Hope this helps.

1. Silencers can provide hearing protection for hunting, target practice, etc. They will reduce the sound DB of gun fire below the hearing damage level and meet OSHA guidelines. If you have ever talked to hunters, shooters, military folks that grew up around guns before hearing protection was used you have probably noticed how many of them have permanent hearing damage. They are very helpful for indoor gun ranges where hearing damage can be much higher than outdoors.

2. Silences prevent noise pollutions. The sound of gun fire at gun ranges or your favorite shooting spot can be heard for miles. The anti-gun types will call the PD and they will have to come visit you just because they hear gun fire. They also try to close down gun ranges or make them stop shooting certain times/days to prevent hearing the gun fire. This happens to many gun ranges where they build high dollar homes on the edge of cities near gun ranges and then have their high dollar lawyers (no, not you Duke) close them down.

3. Comfort/improve shooting. I use slim type of electronic hearing protection that works well but after several hours it still gets uncomfortable. They also get in the way when you are shooting shotguns/rifles and keep you from getting a good cheek weld which may interfere with you sight alignment on your scope.

I have a few other but they are more suited for LE applications. Anyone else have any suggestions?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 7:59:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By S_O_Laban:
The following thread over at MOCarry.com provides a little insight into the history of why cans are currently ilegal here in Missouri. Pay attention to the post by Mr. Oliver.

http://www.missouricarry.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5177&highlight=suppressors



Can somebody post the text here? I hate joining forums just to look at one thread.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:22:59 AM EDT
Post subject: Suppressed Weapons Repeal?
Can any of you folks active in the legislature in Jefferson City give me some idea how hard it would be to repealed the prohibition against suppressed weapons in Missouri?

I was looking at some Uzi sites last night and although Missouri allows ownership of full automatic weapons, it prohibits suppressors. This doesn't make good sense to me.

Have any of you politically active folk ever discussed it with a legislator? I'd like to see this prohibition go away. Any thoughts?
_________________
Randall

Semper Fi!
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Jim M



Joined: Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 807

Location: Waynesville, Mo
Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:15 pm

Post subject:
Just read the Shee/Wolf/Sheepdog article. Everyone should be reminded that sheepdogs are not always in a uniform. Some are, many are not. Many on this forum are sheepdogs I suspect. Excellent article and analogy.

loose cannon



Joined: Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 1546

Location: conway mo
Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:36 pm

Post subject:
wishful thinking so far.id not mind owning at least 3 suppressors.
22lr 9mm 762x39 should cover it.
oh well i was 40 when we got ccw maybe ill be 45 b4 we get to own suppressors.

be nice to get ocaisional practice in without hearing protection.
_________________
powered by jesus christ
becase he lives i can face tomorrow

Jim M



Joined: Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 807

Location: Waynesville, Mo
Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:01 pm

Post subject:
If they do legalize, then what about ATF rules? I would love to have one for my CZ52 also.

Terminal Velocity
Silver Member - Site Donor



Joined: Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 830

Location: Clay County, MO
Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:31 pm

Post subject:
Jim M wrote:
If they do legalize, then what about ATF rules? I would love to have one for my CZ52 also.


Already covered by ATF rules --- a suppressor is a NFA item. File paperwork and pay a $200 tax (if and when they become legal in Missouri, of course!).

Tim Oliver
RKBA Leadership and Site Donor



Joined: Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 577

Location: Mid-Missouri
Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:20 pm

Post subject:
A Little History

Prior to 1978-79 (approx), suppressors were legal in Mo, and full auto was illegal. There was legislation passed in that time period that legalized full auto with the appropriate federal papers. When that law was passed, a clerical error occurred, and a (), was left out. The result was, when machine guns became legal, suppressors became illegal.

Be Safe,
Tim Oliver

LawRand
Gold Member - Site Donor



Joined: Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 58

Location: Southeast Missouri
Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:30 pm

Post subject:
That's interesting Tim. I didn't know they had been legal as recently as 78-79. Do you have any feel for the liklihood of correcting the clerical error through legislation?

Jim M: I agree about the article. Wish I had written it!!!
_________________
Randall

Semper Fi!
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Tim Oliver
RKBA Leadership and Site Donor



Joined: Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 577

Location: Mid-Missouri
Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:42 pm

Post subject:
On behalf of JR and all people in favor of audio reducers, we tried to slip it back in the LTC Law a number of times over the years. Every time, someone figured out what (9), (put in a certain place) meant, and it was removed.

Be Safe,
Tim Oliver

LawRand
Gold Member - Site Donor



Joined: Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 58

Location: Southeast Missouri
Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:49 pm

Post subject:
Tim Oliver wrote:
On behalf of JR and all people in favor of audio reducers, we tried to slip it back in the LTC Law a number of times over the years. Every time, someone figured out what (9), (put in a certain place) meant, and it was removed.

Be Safe,
Tim Oliver


"Audio Reducers"...I like that. Maybe we could make it a health issue and do it "...for the children... ."
_________________
Randall

Semper Fi!
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Terminal Velocity
Silver Member - Site Donor



Joined: Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 830

Location: Clay County, MO
Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:51 pm

Post subject:
LawRand wrote:
"Audio Reducers"...I like that. Maybe we could make it a health issue and do it "...for the children... ."


Heh, heh!! If only that would work!
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 11:13:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 11:31:02 AM EDT by KCMojo]

Originally Posted By kpel308:
Hearing safety devices should be made MANDATORY!!!!

(It's for the CHILDREN!!!)



+2 one for each of my 1 year old's ears.

I would donate my paltry sum.

Keep up the good work guys and I hope to see you at the KCI Expo gun show Jan 14/15Th? Huh Huh?



Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Noise Polution



You're kidding, right?



No, the ability to shoot near my own house without disturbing it's occupants (Parrot, Baby, Cat, WIFE, etc) would be of great help. To them it is disturbing sometimes. Frees me to shoot more times of the day without disturbing them. What else is the definition of noise polution reduction?


Originally Posted By Brother Kane:
It would require the addition of just two words to subdivision (5) of subsection 2 of section 571.020:

(5) Was incident to dealing with the weapon solely as a curio, ornament, or keepsake, or to using it in a manner reasonably related to a lawful dramatic performance; but if the weapon is a type described in subdivision (1), (4) or (6) of subsection 1 of this section it must be in such a nonfunctioning condition that it cannot readily be made operable. No firearm silencer, short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, or machine gun may be possessed, manufactured, transported, repaired or sold as a curio, ornament, or keepsake, unless such person is an importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968, U.S.C., Title 18, or unless such firearm is an "antique firearm" as defined in subsection 3 of section 571.080, or unless such firearm has been designated a "collectors item" by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the U.S.C., Title 26, Section 5845(a)

We need to restrict these evil firearm silencers just like machine guns!



I did not realise SBR's were restricted in Mo also? As I read it it is even illeagle to even repair them? Silly.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:11:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 5:38:46 PM EDT by METALMAN]
Truly I am all for the silencers being legalized, but it'll never happen. Try and explain to any non-gun owner why you need one and they go blank, then after your justification they say stupid shit like " Who are you trying to hide from?"
I've had this conversation with a few people. All sheep, all concerned about what others think and do, not themselves. Brainless sheep.
Oh, and on top of that, if you try to further educate them, all of a sudden you are a militia type!!!
I have almost given up entirely trying to show these types what makes sense and what doesn't but logic has nothing to do with it.

What it comes down to is that there are people in the world that know what guns are and how to apply them in a lawful manner, and there are those who fear the gun so vehemently that any one (even police and the military) with a gun is seen as a violent person with the potential to hurt them.

Remenber folks, guns kill people, people dont kill guns, er.....gun the people killers, er...uh....people in guns kill.....



Frickin sheep
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 3:00:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KCMojo:
I did not realise SBR's were restricted in Mo also? As I read it it is even illeagle to even repair them? Silly.

They are, but like MGs, you can own them if you have some type of FFL. The C&R FFL works for SBRs just like it does for MGs.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:55:06 AM EDT
I'd be in for some amount, but i'm not sure on an exact dollar amount currently.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 10:33:54 PM EDT
Illegal due to a clerical error...you've got to be fucking me....

Twain said it best when he said, "Suppose I am an idiot, and suppose I am a member of Congress, but I repeat myself."

I'd be in for some $$, I'd love to be able to pay for the privelige of getting a C&R, and paying a tax to own something I should just be able to walk in to Denny's and buy. I'm bitter. I would contribute though.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:50:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 7:52:36 AM EDT by PolyTechKID]

Originally Posted By METALMAN:
Truly I am all for the silencers being legalized, but it'll never happen. Try and explain to any non-gun owner why you need one and they go blank, then after your justification they say stupid shit like " Who are you trying to hide from?"
I've had this conversation with a few people. All sheep, all concerned about what others think and do, not themselves. Brainless sheep.
Oh, and on top of that, if you try to further educate them, all of a sudden you are a militia type!!!
I have almost given up entirely trying to show these types what makes sense and what doesn't but logic has nothing to do with it.

What it comes down to is that there are people in the world that know what guns are and how to apply them in a lawful manner, and there are those who fear the gun so vehemently that any one (even police and the military) with a gun is seen as a violent person with the potential to hurt them.

Remenber folks, guns kill people, people dont kill guns, er.....gun the people killers, er...uh....people in guns kill.....



Frickin sheep



that's the attitude that will keep this from happening, gun owners sitting back saying "it'll never happen" "I'm just one person what can I do?" "they'll never ban my type of guns" "it won't happen here" ............
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 5:35:47 AM EDT
"It will never happen" is the most proven wrong statement I have ever heard. CCW in MO. "It will never happen" some said. But we now have CCW.

Count me in for donating some lettuce.

I agree with a few others, it wont happen if you defeat it in your own mind before we really get started.
Top Top