Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 10/25/2006 5:38:02 AM EST
I have been a member here for a while, but have pretty much just been lurking. So here is my first post.

I am curious what it would take to make suppressors a tax stamp item in MO? I believe we are 1 in what I believe 16 states that do not allow the purchase & ownership of suppressors. At first I was thinking that maybe it was because it is a lost cause and most people with the know how just don't think it's possible. The following events make me believe it is due to lack of knowledge.

I contacted the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance (http://www.gclastl.org/) to ask this question and see what I could do to help. It is impossible to get someone on the phone, so I left my request in a voicemail. I then got a voicemail in return saying that they were outlawed at the federal level. I then left a return voicemail explaing that many states allow ownership of suppressors just as they do full auto weapons. I never got a return call. Perhaps this was all due to confusion of playing phone tag rather than actually having a conversation.

I emailed Freddy Thompson at Advanced Armament (http://www.advanced-armament.com/) thinking that a manufacturer of suppressors would know what it takes get these laws passed (removed) and would do anything they could to get people like me behind them. I gave the same speech that I was wanting to help the cause if one existed, and if not, I wanted to know what it would take to get one started. His response was:

"I truthfully have no real guidance to offer. I would recommend contacting the below referenced group who worked for the concealed carry legislation."
He is referring to the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance that I mentioned in my email to him.

In both cases, it seems that the parties are just not aware of the facts.

So, is this a lost cause, is it something that hasn't been contested, or am I just not aware of current work being done on this?

I would also like to apoligize in advance if this has been covered. I always have a hard time getting results from searching here at AR15 due to the 30-day history on searches.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 5:40:33 AM EST
I also wanted to post this. Map of suppressor ownership laws:

www.advanced-armament.com/owners.asp
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 8:18:44 AM EST
Things have ben set in motion to try and get suppresors available for us. You might try contacting CMMG via IM and see what the latest is. I cnt remember off the top of my head what was said last time it came up.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 9:19:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By sapper85:
Things have ben set in motion to try and get suppresors available for us. You might try contacting CMMG via IM and see what the latest is. I cnt remember off the top of my head what was said last time it came up.


I think robertl knows quite a bit about this too, doesn't he? Wasn't he the one who gave us the update at the last MODCC shoot?

I'd post more details, but I can't remember all of them. So, I'll leave that to those who know more about it than I do.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 9:49:10 AM EST


<­BR>


Originally Posted By BlueNoteExpress:

Originally Posted By sapper85:
Things have ben set in motion to try and get suppresors available for us. You might try contacting CMMG via IM and see what the latest is. I cnt remember off the top of my head what was said last time it came up.


I think robertl knows quite a bit about this too, doesn't he? Wasn't he the one who gave us the update at the last MODCC shoot?

I'd post more details, but I can't remember all of them. So, I'll leave that to those who know more about it than I do.

You are correct, i am sure Bob will be on sometime tonight and can fill some of the details that we cant remember, hell i barley remember the conversatioon lol but i remember him talking about it as well as Jeff to.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 10:30:38 AM EST
I guess I should start posting here more often. You sound like old friends.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 11:46:03 AM EST
As many folks know, I have been talking to a lobbyist about the possibility of getting suppressors legalized in Missouri. The lobbyist that I know is a lobbyist for the chiefs of police assoc. among others.

He has been talking to various parties in Jeff, at no cost to us, to test the waters before beginning any paid effort. His customers (the chiefs of police), the highway patrol and several others would not be apposed to this legislature as long as it is structured the same as machine gun ownership (FFL required).

He feels the next step is to feel out the Governor's' office to make sure that he would not oppose this. He told me a week ago that he would be meeting with someone in the governor's' office in the next ten days to two weeks.

After it is determined that we have a reasonable chance of success, we would need to begin fund raising and contract with someone to do the lobbying. We would have to form a Not-for-Profit and elect officers and a board. Whether we would contract with the lobbyist I know or someone else would be the decision of that board.

The lobbyist feels he has a well connected (major committee chairman) senate member that would sponsor and I may have a house sponsor. We would have to decide, based on the lobbyist recommendation, whether to pursue stand alone legislation or tack on an amendment. I personally think our best bet is to attach an amendment to an important finance bill.

The budget for an effort such as this could easily exceed $20,000. I haven't talked dollars with this lobbyist yet, but the one I have been involved with before cost about $1500 a month and this could easily take a year or more. My experience has been that a good lobbyist is the easiest way to get things done in Jeff city. We would still need a good grass roots effort to fund this and put the pressure on when asked, but a lobbyist can do things behind the scenes that we can't begin to do.

This is much the same info I gave those who were at the last MODCC shoot and I will update any new info I get. Anyone that wants to discuss this in more detail is welcome to IM or e-mail me and I'll get you a phone # to call me.

Bob
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:15:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By mbowler:
What would it take to legalize silencers/suppressors to citizens in Missouri?


Add two words in red to the following law:



Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 571
Weapons Offenses
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 short barreled rifle, firearm silencer, 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).


Firearm silencers in Missouri should be regulated like evil machine guns. Do it for the children.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:18:00 PM EST
[cough]Contingency fee[/cough]
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:20:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Brother Kane:

Originally Posted By mbowler:
What would it take to legalize silencers/suppressors to citizens in Missouri?


Add two words in red to the following law:



Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 571
Weapons Offenses
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 short barreled rifle, firearm silencer, 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).


Firearm silencers in Missouri should be regulated like evil machine guns. Do it for the children.


If you do it that way, you have to open up that chapter for change. We better think long and hard before that chapter is opened up.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:28:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 12:37:46 PM EST by Cavalry99]
You have to get rid of the stipulations posed in the previous sentence stipulating that silencer should be non-functioning. Or you could just get rid of the words "(6)firearm silencer" as listed in the definitions and then federal law would just apply.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:34:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 12:35:37 PM EST by Cavalry99]
(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 short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, firearm silencer 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).
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:42:39 PM EST
My feeling is a separate law worded much like the current Machine gun, SBR, AOW etc. law is the most doable. We DO NOT want to open the current MG law for revision or debate on the open floor.

If we are not willing to accept the restriction of allowing suppressors to be owned by FFL holders only, we will be ACTIVELY opposed by groups such as the chiefs of police, the Highway Patrol and the Sheriffs Assoc.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:47:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 12:49:11 PM EST by Cavalry99]
You do a seperate law, you will still be in violation of the Chap 571 and it will have to opened up to be cleaned up. Once it's open, it's open. And the amendment will have to be germane to the bill in question. That may or may not be done, I don't know.

I thought federal law was that you had to have an FFL to be in possession of a silencer? Am I wrong on this?
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:04:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 1:06:32 PM EST by v188]
Yes Cav on that point you are wrong. To possess a suppressor by federal law, there is NO ffl requirement. To possess by Fed Law you must be licensed with Fm 1, Fm 2, Fm 3, Fm 4, or Fm 5., depending on your status. I guess Fm 10 would work also.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:20:59 PM EST
I think you could ammend the law by simply adding a paragraph (6) similar to this,

(6)No functioning firearm suppresor 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.

I think the ammendment could be attached to most crime/LE legislation.

Hopefully, simply adding a paragraph would be safer than editing the existing paragraph (5) that we hold so dear. These kind of questions are why we need a committee or group that are much smarter than I.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:57:43 PM EST
I will get a legal opinion tomorrow on what the exact protocol is. However even if you added a subsection 6, you have still opened Chap. 571 and thus allowed the libtards to tack on amendments regarding anything dealt with in that chapter.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 10:28:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 6:05:35 AM EST
Ok, from what I found out this morning this is how this would work:

Let's say we have a "crime" bill. Let's use the example of say drug offenses. That bill would be titled in such a way that it would change the penalties or definitions fo drug crimes. An amendment could be offered on silencer's under the guise that the bill in question is addressing criminal offenses. At that point someone could (or maybe not) raise a point of order and it would be ruled on whether or not the amendment was in the scope of the bill. It would either be ruled in order and voted upon, or be ruled out of order and thrown out. Traditionally these bill titles are written in a very strict manner to keep things from being tacked on.

Now, let's say it's ruled in order and it goes on and is passed. Regardless of whether or not that subsection 5 is changed, or a new subsection 6 is created (see posts above), then Chapter 571.030 could be considered open and fair game for amendments as that section has been opened and ruled within the scope of the bill and it would be hard to argue that anything else would be out of order or out of the scope of the bill with that section opened.

It's a very tricky game to say the least. Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 9:40:11 AM EST
We need these groups on our side.

www.moccw.org/

www.missouricarry.com/

Maybe John Ross can step up again for us. If nothing else they would be a good source of info on how to go about getting rid of the noise polution from my barrel blast, it's for the children.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 10:33:55 AM EST
Perhaps Denny Foutch (I think that's how he spells it) of Denny's Guns in North KC would help sponsor the bill as he is a dealer of such toys and devices.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 11:59:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By mbowler:
I have been a member here for a while, but have pretty much just been lurking. So here is my first post.

I am curious what it would take to make suppressors a tax stamp item in MO? I believe we are 1 in what I believe 16 states that do not allow the purchase & ownership of suppressors. At first I was thinking that maybe it was because it is a lost cause and most people with the know how just don't think it's possible. The following events make me believe it is due to lack of knowledge.

I contacted the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance (http://www.gclastl.org/) to ask this question and see what I could do to help. It is impossible to get someone on the phone, so I left my request in a voicemail. I then got a voicemail in return saying that they were outlawed at the federal level. I then left a return voicemail explaing that many states allow ownership of suppressors just as they do full auto weapons. I never got a return call. Perhaps this was all due to confusion of playing phone tag rather than actually having a conversation.

I emailed Freddy Thompson at Advanced Armament (http://www.advanced-armament.com/) thinking that a manufacturer of suppressors would know what it takes get these laws passed (removed) and would do anything they could to get people like me behind them. I gave the same speech that I was wanting to help the cause if one existed, and if not, I wanted to know what it would take to get one started. His response was:

"I truthfully have no real guidance to offer. I would recommend contacting the below referenced group who worked for the concealed carry legislation."
He is referring to the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance that I mentioned in my email to him.

In both cases, it seems that the parties are just not aware of the facts.

So, is this a lost cause, is it something that hasn't been contested, or am I just not aware of current work being done on this?

I would also like to apoligize in advance if this has been covered. I always have a hard time getting results from searching here at AR15 due to the 30-day history on searches.


IM me, I will put you in touch with GCLA officers directly. I have to tell you, I'm skeptical that anyone from that organization told you silencers are illegal.

The whole business about opening the current statutes is probably the main obstacle to unified progress on suppressors. Some folks in Missouri simply believe the risk to the current law is too great to expose it to unwanted changes.

Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:06:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2006 12:07:18 PM EST by Cavalry99]
If you had someone you trusted to handle it on the floor and your lobbyist was good, the sponsor could always yank the bill. That's the advantage of doing this as a bill. You do it as an amendment, and then another anti-gun amendment goes on, your are at the mercy of the bill sponsor. He may not give two shits about firearm laws, he may just be worried about drug/sex/whatever crime laws and will take it with whatver is attached to it as long as it does'nt mess with his intentions of the original bill.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 1:18:56 PM EST
I say run it through as an environmental issue.

List the comunities that don't have a noise ordinance. I would imagine it's a pretty short list.

Neighborhoods located near ranges could see property values rise or home sales increase because "We can't hear those pesky guns going off, thanks Buy Owner!"

Most college educated idiots (those most likely to oppose us) today are Eco nuts and are blind to the cause as long as it is for the good of planet earth or it puts money in their pockets.

One could say that suppressors capture and contain carbon that would otherwise be released into the environment to be disposed off in a "safe" mannor

Therefore we paint it as a "Green" issue.

The Republicans will do what the insurance bums in Jeff city tell them so we'll have to grease them somehow with the property value thing.

The Dems will do whats popular so thats where the media comes into play.

Just one plan of attack. Someone else chime in.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 4:22:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cavalry99:
If you had someone you trusted to handle it on the floor and your lobbyist was good, the sponsor could always yank the bill. That's the advantage of doing this as a bill. You do it as an amendment, and then another anti-gun amendment goes on, your are at the mercy of the bill sponsor. He may not give two shits about firearm laws, he may just be worried about drug/sex/whatever crime laws and will take it with whatever is attached to it as long as it does'nt mess with his intentions of the original bill.


Looks like a bill would definitely be the way to do this. Up until now, all of my experience with the legislature has been community/industrial development and funding. Those are almost always done as amendments. This process seems to be much different. I think Cav is correct, we need to have as much control as is possible.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 3:36:01 AM EST
Erics SBR thread makes me wonder if suppressors could be treated like SBR's in that it requires an FFL.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:48:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By HRSGRUNNER:
Erics SBR thread makes me wonder if suppressors could be treated like SBR's in that it requires an FFL.


They will have to be in order to not be opposed to by the groups metioned above.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 5:44:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By JBowles:

Originally Posted By HRSGRUNNER:
Erics SBR thread makes me wonder if suppressors could be treated like SBR's in that it requires an FFL.


They will have to be in order to not be opposed to by the groups metioned above.

And what's the problem with that? C&R licenses are cheap and they nearly give them away. And who wouldn't want a C&R, what with the discounts that you get with it.

If that's all it takes, so be it.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 5:55:43 AM EST
Exactly

My C&R is in the works finally
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:44:08 AM EST
Read this on another board.

Link to "MO Suppressor Law" question

Anybody heard or know about this?

Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:18:15 AM EST
Interesting. I wonder what the story there is.

We might want to get this thread tacked as the whole MO/suppressor question seems to come up once a month.
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 4:10:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2006 4:16:03 AM EST by PolyTechKID]
I would love to have a suppressor :D Hopefully we can get this ball rolling. I would also like to see the defacto pistol registration "purchase permits" disappear. If this was introduced as a bill by itself it could possibly be added on. It would be real nice to not go to the jackson county sherriff and pay for a little cupon that says I can exercise my rights.
link
Polytech
Link Posted: 11/2/2006 4:38:26 AM EST
Neat pic. Never thought about the angle of "protecting my hearing" and they are comparable to safety glasses.
Top Top