Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Why no supressors in CA.IA,MA and MI ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Owosso, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    I can understand CA and MA, their laws are rediculous, but why MI an IA in the heart of the midwest?

    http://www.gem-tech.com/legal.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    I might not know all the facts about a supressor however, to me the only thing that one would be used for is to conceal a gunshot, I am all for them being illegal based on this.

    ia from my understanding has some pretty absurd gun laws, so does Michigan.

    Chicago is also at the heart of the Midwest, and look at their gun laws.

    all I know is if someone in my hood shoots a gun, I want it to wake me up so I can get to the proper area to protect or defend myself.

    I could see a prosecutor tearing apart any defense in any state if a suppressor was used in a shooting.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    kyleplusitunes wrote:
    I might not know all the facts about a supressor however, to me the only thing that one would be used for is to conceal a gunshot, I am all for them being illegal based on this.

    ia from my understanding has some pretty absurd gun laws, so does Michigan.

    Chicago is also at the heart of the Midwest, and look at their gun laws.

    all I know is if someone in my hood shoots a gun, I want it to wake me up so I can get to the proper area to protect or defend myself.

    I could see a prosecutor tearing apart any defense in any state if a suppressor was used in a shooting.
    I'm for being innocent until proven guilty. The owning of a device should not infer that the owner of that device is up to something nefarious. Why don't you support all A2 issues? If a person uses a device in a felonious manner, then that person should be held accountable to the full extent possible. Until then it is just a possession.springerdave.

  4. #4
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    Gee I have a 10lb bag of suppressors all the way from Idaho, are they illegal?:P:P:P

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    I assume kyle was just yanking our chain.

    Seriously?

    If suppressors were a modern invention, we would probably be REQUIRED to use them. Mufflers are already required on cars, trucks, atv's, motorcycles etc. The people who live down the road from the shooting range would certainly be happier if suppressors were used. It's not as if they make a gunshot whisper quiet (except a .22LR perhaps)

    As far as pulling the trigger...if the noise were suppressed enough that you could shoot without hearing protection, wouldn't that be a bonus? Especially for hunting, since wearing ear protection makes it impossible to hear if a deer is approaching.

    The ban on suppressors doesn't really make any sense. There is little or no crime that has benefited from the use of a suppressor, and they apparently are relatively simple to make. If you were a criminal, you could already be in possession of a suppressor, although apparently there is not much advantage, or criminals would be using them to commit crime.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    I assume kyle was just yanking our chain.
    I don't think so, look at some of his other posts.
    Seriously?
    Yes, seriously.
    If suppressors were a modern invention, we would probably be REQUIRED to use them. Mufflers are already required on cars, trucks, atv's, motorcycles etc. The people who live down the road from the shooting range would certainly be happier if suppressors were used. It's not as if they make a gunshot whisper quiet (except a .22LR perhaps) Yes.

    As far as pulling the trigger...if the noise were suppressed enough that you could shoot without hearing protection, wouldn't that be a bonus? Yes! Especially for hunting, since wearing ear protection makes it impossible to hear if a deer is approaching. Yes.

    The ban on suppressors doesn't really make any sense. You are correct. There is little or no crime that has benefited from the use of a suppressor, and they apparently are relatively simple to make. If you were a criminal, you could already be in possession of a suppressor, although apparently there is not much advantage, or criminals would be using them to commit crime. Bingo!
    springerdave

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    I suggest you reconsider your thought process that led you to the conclusion that suppressors are for criminals. Same can be said by anti's when talking about handguns & rifles. The fact is that suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, machine guns are already heavily regulated by the NFA. The prohibition in my opinion is just as unconstitutional as the Chicago gun ban. Any law abiding citizen should be able to own one following federal law and completing their NFA paperwork an handing over the government tax. We have the MSP to thank for it not being overturned by AG Cox's opinion which returned our right to own machine guns.

    FYI we have been lobbying Mike for an opinion on supressors. It is very possible that he may before leaving office. As some of you may know Mike is the most pro-2A AG this state has ever had and as Governor we would see some sweeping changes.

    Mike

  8. #8
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    I do support the second amendment on all issues, but a suppressor doesn't affect my right to bear arms in the slightest, I don't think. however, I do admit your arguements for supressors is much better than my arguements for not having them.

    so, I suppose I concide my arguement agains them

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    I dont want to be required to use them.

    Range safety would be greatly enhanced by the option. Nothing quite like a new-b being able to hear instructions. Especially when they are full of excitement, and dont really have a clue whats going on.

    As far as criminals go, nothing stops them, just like other forms of gun control, they dont use them because they arent really practical for crime to begin with. They are difficult to conceal, to draw from concealment, and when they want to shoot up a house or a person, they are generally trying to make a statement. The fear, noise confusion and so on, just helps them accomplish their goals. It would make more sense to offer a year off their sentence if they DID use a silencer.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    Polarizing at the least, a person ether supports the 2nd A all the way or not. I am for locking up criminals, I am for persons without unlawful intent to be on their own without restriction of any kind relative to their choice of firearms, accessories or ammunition, period. The 1st A is allowing a lot of crappy things to take place that I find disturbing, ie, hate groups masking themselves as churches to disrupt funerals of servicemen and women, I don't like that, but it is allowed because free speech is a protected right. I want the same respect for the 2nd A, in where, what, why and how I carry. You don't think I should carry an AR pistol with a can, don't look at it then. If it scares you, I'm not the problem, your Progressive Liberal mind is just playing tricks on you, its called Projection. That is when you can see yourself carrying out an unlawful act or misdeed and you project your emotional thoughts of wrongdoing on another person. Sorry, if the "your" or "you" is taken personally, change it to "a person".IANAL or shrink. I see Free People!springerdave.

  11. #11
    Guest

    Post imported post

    kyleplusitunes wrote:
    I do support the second amendment on all issues, but a suppressor doesn't affect my right to bear arms in the slightest, I don't think. however, I do admit your arguements for supressors is much better than my arguements for not having them.

    so, I suppose I concide my arguement agains them
    I don't understand how you coincide your argument against them.

    I am all for most of the second amendment too.

    But since most guns make a loud noise, those that do should be unlawful just like loud radios are.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Some folks take more time throwing off the chains of their masters. It's difficult, especially at first, to see all the multitude of ways in which we are bound. This takes time as the public school system and MSM have decades of a head start in the brainwashing department. I know that my own journey isn't complete and I'm refreshed to see that there are those here willing to share the path with others.

    For those with an open mind, one can (re)learn that a freeborn sovereign doesn't require the .gov's permission to own anything.

  13. #13
    Guest

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Some folks take more time throwing off the chains of their masters. It's difficult, especially at first, to see all the multitude of ways in which we are bound. This takes time as the public school system and MSM have decades of a head start in the brainwashing department. I know that my own journey isn't complete and I'm refreshed to see that there are those here willing to share the path with others.

    For those with an open mind, one can (re)learn that a freeborn sovereign doesn't require the .gov's permission to own anything.
    The key here is the open mind.

    Contempt prior to investigation can be the greatest obstacle to freedom.

    It is demonstrated repeatedly on this forum.

    For your first homework assignment...

    Find the law that requires a Citizen of the State of Michigan to obtain any permit to purchase, possess, transport, or register a pistol.

    And since this is a thread on suppressors... find that law that prohibits a Citizen of the State of Michigan from possession of one.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    For clarification, 28.422 (LTP statute) and 750.227 (CCW statute) appear to be restrictions on "person" whatever that means, not on "resident".

    Imo, I believe the SOM wants us to believe that "person" means every flesh and blood human. This is impossible, because "person" legally means many things, all of which are legal fictions. Furthermore, "person" cannot possibly mean flesh and blood human because that would be putting the flesh and blood human in a subordinate position to the state, which was created by flesh and blood humans. On the contrary, the state, no matter if it is de jure or de facto, is rightfully subordinate to the people who created it. The people told the state what to do in the state constitution and did not give up any rights by doing so. By consequence, the legislation of the state cannot lawfully grant itself new authority any more than it can restrict the rights of the people.

  15. #15
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    IIRC,many ranges in europe require supressors.


    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  16. #16
    Regular Member Tao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    I think someone (*cough*kyle*) has been watching too many hollywood movies. Its an easy trap to fall into, the same one the artards who support the old laws fall into.

    This is one place europe has it right, when it comes to guns. Imagine what a wonderful place it would be, if "silencers"# were as commonly available as slings or replacement grips. Hunting, and pretty much all the shooting sports would be much more accessible, and downright pleasant.

    #- 'Silencer' is a huge misnomer. Sure, you can muffle the explosive noise of the powder burning, but that bullet, in most cases, is still going to travel at a supersonic speed, causing a sonic crack all the way to the target. You need specialty ammo and equipment to really get major calibers down to reasonable levels, and the levels of attenuation in the movies (pew pew) are just laughable.


  17. #17
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    Tao wrote:
    I think someone (*cough*kyle*) has been watching too many hollywood movies. Its an easy trap to fall into, the same one the artards who support the old laws fall into.

    This is one place europe has it right, when it comes to guns. Imagine what a wonderful place it would be, if "silencers"# were as commonly available as slings or replacement grips. Hunting, and pretty much all the shooting sports would be much more accessible, and downright pleasant.

    #- 'Silencer' is a huge misnomer. Sure, you can muffle the explosive noise of the powder burning, but that bullet, in most cases, is still going to travel at a supersonic speed, causing a sonic crack all the way to the target. You need specialty ammo and equipment to really get major calibers down to reasonable levels, and the levels of attenuation in the movies (pew pew) are just laughable.
    with the exception of .22 LR's shooting sub sonic rounds of course...but they arent that loud to begin with eh?

    hollywood and the media should be blamed for thesebs gun controllaws more than criminals
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  18. #18
    Regular Member Tao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    lil_freak_66 wrote:
    Tao wrote:
    I think someone (*cough*kyle*) has been watching too many hollywood movies. Its an easy trap to fall into, the same one the artards who support the old laws fall into.

    This is one place europe has it right, when it comes to guns. Imagine what a wonderful place it would be, if "silencers"# were as commonly available as slings or replacement grips. Hunting, and pretty much all the shooting sports would be much more accessible, and downright pleasant.

    #- 'Silencer' is a huge misnomer. Sure, you can muffle the explosive noise of the powder burning, but that bullet, in most cases, is still going to travel at a supersonic speed, causing a sonic crack all the way to the target. You need specialty ammo and equipment to really get major calibers down to reasonable levels, and the levels of attenuation in the movies (pew pew) are just laughable.
    with the exception of .22 LR's shooting sub sonic rounds of course...but they arent that loud to begin with eh?

    hollywood and the media should be blamed for thesebs gun controllaws more than criminals
    Heh, does anyone here consider .22lr a major caliber?

  19. #19
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    Ask Reagan or Brady! :what:

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Tao wrote:
    lil_freak_66 wrote:
    Tao wrote:
    I think someone (*cough*kyle*) has been watching too many hollywood movies. Its an easy trap to fall into, the same one the artards who support the old laws fall into.

    This is one place europe has it right, when it comes to guns. Imagine what a wonderful place it would be, if "silencers"# were as commonly available as slings or replacement grips. Hunting, and pretty much all the shooting sports would be much more accessible, and downright pleasant.

    #- 'Silencer' is a huge misnomer. Sure, you can muffle the explosive noise of the powder burning, but that bullet, in most cases, is still going to travel at a supersonic speed, causing a sonic crack all the way to the target. You need specialty ammo and equipment to really get major calibers down to reasonable levels, and the levels of attenuation in the movies (pew pew) are just laughable.
    with the exception of .22 LR's shooting sub sonic rounds of course...but they arent that loud to begin with eh?

    hollywood and the media should be blamed for thesebs gun controllaws more than criminals
    Heh, does anyone here consider .22lr a major caliber?
    The chiltwren does.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    lil_freak_66 wrote:
    IIRC,many ranges in europe require supressors.

    My uncle lives in Finland, and he said in many places in Europe, it's considered "rude" to shoot an un-suppressed firearm.

    I think this has been an anti-gun trick decades in the making.... 1st, make suppressors difficult to obtain, 2nd (decades later), file lawsuits against gun ranges for noise pollution.
    Rand Paul 2016

  22. #22
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    Tao wrote:
    I think someone (*cough*kyle*) has been watching too many hollywood movies. Its an easy trap to fall into, the same one the artards who support the old laws fall into.

    This is one place europe has it right, when it comes to guns. Imagine what a wonderful place it would be, if "silencers"# were as commonly available as slings or replacement grips. Hunting, and pretty much all the shooting sports would be much more accessible, and downright pleasant.

    #- 'Silencer' is a huge misnomer. Sure, you can muffle the explosive noise of the powder burning, but that bullet, in most cases, is still going to travel at a supersonic speed, causing a sonic crack all the way to the target. You need specialty ammo and equipment to really get major calibers down to reasonable levels, and the levels of attenuation in the movies (pew pew) are just laughable.
    so you're saying i shouldnt be getting all my facts from hollywood movies?

  23. #23
    Guest

    Post imported post

    kyleplusitunes wrote:
    Tao wrote:
    I think someone (*cough*kyle*) has been watching too many hollywood movies. Its an easy trap to fall into, the same one the artards who support the old laws fall into.

    This is one place europe has it right, when it comes to guns. Imagine what a wonderful place it would be, if "silencers"# were as commonly available as slings or replacement grips. Hunting, and pretty much all the shooting sports would be much more accessible, and downright pleasant.

    #- 'Silencer' is a huge misnomer. Sure, you can muffle the explosive noise of the powder burning, but that bullet, in most cases, is still going to travel at a supersonic speed, causing a sonic crack all the way to the target. You need specialty ammo and equipment to really get major calibers down to reasonable levels, and the levels of attenuation in the movies (pew pew) are just laughable.
    so you're saying i shouldnt be getting all my facts from hollywood movies?
    Not if that's the facts you use to formulate a Clintonista opinion like this:

    kyleplusitunes wrote:
    I might not know all the facts about a supressor however, to me the only thing that one would be used for is to conceal a gunshot, I am all for them being illegal based on this.

    ia from my understanding has some pretty absurd gun laws, so does Michigan.

    Chicago is also at the heart of the Midwest, and look at their gun laws.

    all I know is if someone in my hood shoots a gun, I want it to wake me up so I can get to the proper area to protect or defend myself.

    I could see a prosecutor tearing apart any defense in any state if a suppressor was used in a shooting.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    Everyone should have a suppressor and they should be available at Walmart. That way you can buy a $3.27 box of subsonic .22lr ammo along with a pre threaded walther p-22 and the suppressor. I bought one and am currently waiting on the ATF to decide if I getapproved or not. They cashed my check last month.



  25. #25
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    Everyone should have a suppressor and they should be available at Walmart. That way you can buy a $3.27 box of subsonic .22lr ammo along with a pre threaded walther p-22 and the suppressor. I bought one and am currently waiting on the ATF to decide if I getapproved or not. They cashed my check last month.

    So the Sheriff finally signed your form...
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •