• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

kyleplusitunes

kyleplusitunes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Lennon Michigan, ,
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.
 
S

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
L

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
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.
 
S

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
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!
Click to expand...
springerdave
 
M

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
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
 
kyleplusitunes

kyleplusitunes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Lennon Michigan, ,
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
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 
S

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
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.
 
Tao

Tao

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
116
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
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.
 
lil_freak_66

lil_freak_66

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
Mason, Michigan
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Tao

Tao

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
116
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
Heh, does anyone here consider .22lr a major caliber?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
Heh, does anyone here consider .22lr a major caliber?
Click to expand...
The chiltwren does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top