New Legislation to allow Suppressor Hunting in AZ

[coues7]

All,

 

I am in support of the legislation that State Representative David Gowan (R-30)is preparing to introduce that would allow hunters in Arizona to use lawfully-possessed suppressors (also referred to as silencers) on firearms for hunting. I hope all of you are as well. Below is a short email/letter I prepared and sent off to the Governor, Silva Allen, Chester Crandell and Brenda Barton. I hope each of you will do the same.

 

To _________,

 

As an avid outdoorsman, hunter and suppressor owner, I urge you to support legislation that would allow lawfully-possessed/owned suppressors (also referred to as silencers) to be used for hunting.

 

Unfortunately, the media and movies give people the impression that suppressors or silencers are used to completely silence a weapon and that they are typically used for illegal activity. This could not be further from the truth. In order to acquire a suppressor/silencer, a purchaser must submit the appropriate paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives where long wait times are common (4-6 months), undergo a FBI background check, find a licensed dealer authorized to conduct the transaction and pay a one-time $200 tax for each device.

 

Currently 40 US states allow civilian ownership of suppressors. The following states already allow legally owned suppressors to be used for hunting big game animals: AK, OR, WA, NM, UT, CO, NE, SD, ND, WI, PA, AR, MS, SC, WV, VA, KY, TN and SC. MT, TX, GA, and OH allow suppressors to be used for the harvesting of non-game animals.

 

Suppressors make shooting more enjoyable by lessening felt recoil and reducing muzzle blast, protect shooters’ hearing and help reduce noise pollution. Noise complaints are causing closures of shooting ranges, informal shooting areas and hunting lands throughout the country. Increased use of suppressors/silencers on shooting ranges and hunting lands will decrease these detrimental complaints.

 

It’s time that hunters in Arizona enjoy the same opportunities available to residents in more than half of the country.

 

As a proud supporter, I encourage you to do all you can in assisting this legislation move forward.

 

Best Regards,

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Below is a map showing the states that allow civilian ownership of suppressors.

 

This map shows where suppressors are legal/illegal for hunting purposes, although the information about Washington State is incorrect.

 

[DesertBull]

Not surprising that 90% of all the lib--tards in America live in those red states.

[.270]

is it against the law now? i mean if you have the proper license now you can have a silencer. but can you hunt with it legally? i've shot them before on firearms owned by folks with the license. still make a fair amount of noise. even a .22. Lark.

[POB]

Whats next? Claymores hooked to trail cameras and 155 howitzers for those long rang shots on those pesky coues? At 3000 FPS my bullet should kill the deer before the sound of the shot ever gets there. I don't feel a hunter needs it, a poacher sure.

[ForkHorn]

POB,

 

I hadn't thought of or viewed it in that matter. I think it could be a good idea for the simple sake of saving some of our ears. How many of you guys actually wear ear protection while out hunting? Even though I know I should I dont. Ringing ears is never a good thing.

[POB]

Ok, good point about the hearing. My ears are gone (long ago). Still most shooting is done on the range, hunting involves (hopefully) only one or two shots. I just think they're opening a big can of worms with this. Plus an effective suppesor for a 300 mag would need to be atleast 12 inches long and weigh about 2 lbs or more. I'll pass.

[Swivelhead]

Me, I won't do the class III thing. It would be nice if the laws would allow devices that could take firearm noise levels from 110 db+ down to say 85 db WITHOUT the need for a class III stamp.

[DesertBull]

I am for anything that gives us rights as opposed to taking them away. Just because something "can" be used to commit a crime does not mean that it must be taken away from everyone.

[coues7]

POB,

 

May I provide you with a little bid of information: From World War II and through Vietnam, hearing damage has been a leading disability for returning US veterans.

 

Tinnitus is currently the number one service connected disability of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The total number of vets awarded disability compensation for tinnitus at the end of 2009 surpassed 760,000. Since 2005, the number of veterans receiving service-connected disability for tinnitus has increased by at least 15% each year. At this alarming rate, 2014 will see 1.5 million vets receiving military compensation for tinnitus, at a cost to American taxpayers of over $2.26 billion.

 

Anyone who avidly shoots a rifle and does not either use a suppressor or use hearing protection permanently damages their hearing. It does not come back, it does not improve! I couldn't agree more with DesertBull. The comment about it being a tool for poachers is, in my opinion invalid. Of the 40 states in the union who allow civilian ownership of suppressors, 20 (HALF) allow them for hunting. Many have for some time. There has been no data to support the use of suppressors for poaching. Anyone who would pay $200 to the ATF and then use a suppressor or class III weapon illegally is an idiot. If such a weapon is used in a crime, it automatically is a felony with lifetime suspension of your 2nd amendment rights.

[ThomC]

Is that $200. plus paper work and waiting period for each gun. Most gun shots are with shotguns like 50 shots a day Dove hunting. So, what would my shotgun look like with a suppressor. I am not against it but I dont think that it would be much use to me.

[POB]

I just think it is impractical for big game hunting. Varmints, coyotes.and the like, sure, but I don't think I want to be in the field for Deer or Elk with a bunch clown with suppressed high power rifles. Sorry but I'm against it. Ultimatly YOU are responsible for your hearing, muffs, and plugs should ALWAYS be worn at the range, and there are high dollar units that can be worn when hunting.

[azslim]

Huh????

 

can't hear you over the ringing in my ears

[coues7]

I just think it is impractical for big game hunting. Varmints, coyotes.and the like, sure, but I don't think I want to be in the field for Deer or Elk with a bunch clown with suppressed high power rifles. Sorry but I'm against it. Ultimatly YOU are responsible for your hearing, muffs, and plugs should ALWAYS be worn at the range, and there are high dollar units that can be worn when hunting.

Well get the heck out of my way so I can be responsible for my hearing and shoot all my high powered rifle with a suppressor attached to the end of them.

[ForkHorn]

POB,

 

Suppressors only suppress the sound from the gases coming out of the barrel immediately in front of you. (Saving the ears). Most calibers used for big game shoot bullets at supersonic speeds that create their own sonic boom as the bullet passes through the air. So only the sharp crack as you pull the trigger would be gone. You would still be able to hear the bullet traveling through the air and making impact.

[.270]

even with a .22 you need to use subsonic ammo for it to be very quiet. i don't see what the big deal is about just uaing ear plugs? silencers aren't gonna have much affect on a .300 ultra. and they are real expensive and you have to get a class 3 license. same as a machine gun. you open yourself up to all kindsa fed stuff with that. if folks want one, fine. but i don't see a need for one for what i do. when i shoot coyotes in my chicken coop in the middle of the night with a 12 guage, my neighbors might appreciate one. Lark.