Suppressor on a bolt action?

A "sound" requires 3 things, a transmitter, a transfer media, and a receiver. Take one away and there is no sound. So if you muffle the transmitter, you muffle all sound because all media and receivers are affected. If you muffle a single receiver you only affect that one receiver, the sound still exists for all other instances of the 3 requirements. If you remove the media.... everyone dies because we can't breath and the existence of a sound, or not, doesn't matter anymore.

Um...what? Thanks for the science lesson, but contextually....what? All I was saying was the law was written ambiguously, not arguing the physics of sound.
 
You can try to argue all of of this. And I hope you do. But my bet is it doesn't hold up. I wish it would. But no. But please try.
 
Um...what? Thanks for the science lesson, but contextually....what? All I was saying was the law was written ambiguously, not arguing the physics of sound.
I was replying to the comment about hearing protection possibly being a suppressor, and was explaining how that does not work because it only suppresses the one receiver and not ALL receivers, which would be necessary to suppresses the "sound". As opposed to suppressing the transmitter which would suppress the all of the "sound".

Of course you could outfit every living creature to suppress the reception side, but this seems a little extreme to me [laugh]

Just because a law doesn't contain a definition of a word, such as "sound", doesn't mean it has no meaning or only means what you want it to. Words have commonly accepted meanings, and lawyers will stretch this with interpretations. I was providing you the meaning of the word "sound" and how it was counter to the argument that hearing protection could be considered a suppressor.

As for suppressors...... I'm buying two.
 
This thread is hilarious considering the premise is the law doesn't say "rifle" but clearly says using a device that silences or muffles ANY GUN is a no no. Ffs its been common knowledge in ma the suppressors are flat out illegal for like.....forever......then a newb posts that there may be a legal argument that based on the non exclusion of the word "rifle" that we may have a case to bring forth and win.....and nesers actually start running with the premise🤣

Don't you supporters of this premise think goal would have run with this by now? Oh.....yeah.....you guys are all gonna get the ball rolling based on a newb post off nes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
This thread is hilarious considering the premise is the law doesn't say "rifle" but clearly says using a device that silences or muffles ANY GUN is a no no. Ffs its been common knowledge in ma the suppressors are flat out illegal for like.....forever......then a newb posts that there may be a legal argument that based on the non exclusion of the word "rifle" that we may have a case to bring forth and win.....and nesers actually start running with the premise🤣

Don't you supporters of this premise think goal would have run with this by now? Oh.....yeah.....you guys are all gonna get the ball rolling based on a newb post off nes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
NES has never been immune to magical or delusional thinking. We still have many people trotting out the argument that SBRs are exempt from the AWB because of the conflict in definitions between state law and federal law around pistol, rifle, etc. That is a fine case of magical thinking if ever I have seen one. This suppressors on rifles are legal theory is no different. People will always believe what they want to be true regardless of reality. Just look at every Libtard you have ever met...
 
This forum is NOT welcoming to new people. Just a bunch of cranks... no wonder there hasn’t been a single normal read in years. Every question is met with ridicule and animosity. EVERY.
Go to your safe space. Im really welcoming. And I offer my opinion when I have one. If not I make some off the cuff joke or post a meme. You need to relax. Not a new read in years? You joined 2 months ago. Most people here are welcoming. Of course there are jokes. Why the hostility? We usually respond favorably to people that don't come across like you do. A regular question is fine. We are usually the same in public. Act like a normal human being and we will do the same. Why are you so angry? There are other forums. Or maybe you like to troll.
 
Last edited:
This forum is NOT welcoming to new people. Just a bunch of cranks... no wonder there hasn’t been a single normal read in years. Every question is met with ridicule and animosity. EVERY.
Part of the problem is that some newbies would just throw out a question to draw comments for their personal amusement rather than research the gun laws and going to Google. Who pissed in your corn flakes this morning, Sam? Jack.
 
Ehh....the statement was made more than 9 months ago. Soooo... Yeah... Those corn flakes were eaten, pooped out, pumped out by the septic service pump, and dumped somewhere in Boston Harbor...
No offense intended, Sam. I just get a chuckle out of that comment whenever I see it used here.
 
@Sammy whether the reading of the law supports your opinion, you will find that if you file a form 4 for suppressor the ATF will reject it citing MGL.

Would be interesting to participate in a well-funded legal fight based on the MGL language however it can't be me to pay for it.
.
To be fair, suppressors are 100% illegal in RI, but I have a ATF approved form 1 because I found a loophole that ATF accepted. But if a state trooper ever saw it, I’d 100% be arrested, so I never built it.




§ 11-47-20. Sale or possession of silencers.

It shall be unlawful within this state to manufacture, sell, purchase, or possess any muffler, silencer, or device for deadening or muffling the sound of a firearm when discharged. Violations of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and one day.”

However I then cited 11-47-25

§ 11-47-25. Antique firearms and collections.

This chapter shall not apply to antique firearms unsuitable for use, nor to collections of firearms utilized and maintained for educational, scientific, or any similar purpose without intent to use the firearms.”

And sent ATF the word document I included a copy of below.

Low and behold it was approved

CFD47B6E-6B17-4886-B01E-DE61FC7A3726.png
DB3C368F-CC97-4082-A9F6-A212E65F9F11.jpeg
 
Last edited:
So you can build the suppressor, but not use it?
I want to be very clear, I never built it.

The reason for that is while ATF accepted my logic, the state absolutely would try to get someone doing this. It would take a ton of time, and money to get a ruling on this in a state court. And obviously that section in question wasn’t intended for the use I tried.

But it’s a testament to pushing the boundaries, you never know what might happen.
 
I want to be very clear, I never built it.

The reason for that is while ATF accepted my logic, the state absolutely would try to get someone doing this. It would take a ton of time, and money to get a ruling on this in a state court. And obviously that section in question wasn’t intended for the use I tried.

But it’s a testament to pushing the boundaries, you never know what might happen.
In summary you were willing to test your theory for $200 but not for $50,000 and your freedom. That I can understand.
 
I want to be very clear, I never built it.

The reason for that is while ATF accepted my logic, the state absolutely would try to get someone doing this. It would take a ton of time, and money to get a ruling on this in a state court. And obviously that section in question wasn’t intended for the use I tried.

But it’s a testament to pushing the boundaries, you never know what might happen.
You could easily build it out of state and store it that way and be immune from prosecution*. IIRC there's not even an ATF 5320 required for cans.

*in any state that allows cans, obviously
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom