Suppressors legal in Kansas, Why not Massachusetts

[Scrivener]

I think this is an important topic and should keep going.

You have an odd sense of priorities.

Those who cannot buy a handgun that best suits their needs because of an arbitrary determination by the AG would not consider silencers a pressing issue.

Neither would those who live where the chief demands multiple "letters of recommendation" and/or a "doctor's letter" and/or constant recertification in violation of state law.

Those who live where the chief refuses to issue an LTC/A at all would think your burning issue of silencers to be so far off the radar as to require the Hubbell Telescope to even be seen.

 

[pdm]

We can't even get rid of the "Assault" Weapons Ban.

 

[FunYun]

I think there are far more pressing issues in MA than suppressors (AG's list, discretionary licensing, AW ban, etc.).

Actually, it fits perfectly with everything you mentioned.

Suppressors are FIREARMS! They are a completely banned class of firearms exactly like DC with pistols. They are constitutional protect like any other firearm.

 

[Bob P]

You have an odd sense of priorities.

Those who cannot buy a handgun that best suits their needs because of an arbitrary determination by the AG would not consider silencers a pressing issue.

Neither would those who live where the chief demands multiple "letters of recommendation" and/or a "doctor's letter" and/or constant recertification in violation of state law.

Those who live where the chief refuses to issue an LTC/A at all would think your burning issue of silencers to be so far off the radar as to require the Hubbell Telescope to even be seen.

+1

 

[Scrivener]

Actually, it fits perfectly with everything you mentioned.

Suppressors are FIREARMS! They are a completely banned class of firearms exactly like DC with pistols. They are constitutional [sic] protect [sic] like any other firearm.

Really? Got a statute, regulation or case law to that effect?

 

[Scrivener]

Well, that's how they do it in KANSAS - why not HERE?

 

[Bob P]

Actually, it fits perfectly with everything you mentioned.

Suppressors are FIREARMS! They are a completely banned class of firearms exactly like DC with pistols. They are constitutional protect like any other firearm.

Actually, they're an accessory more along the lines of a high-cap mag then a firearm per se. While I applaud your intent, I think focusing on the AG restrictions and the AW Ban are more a priority.

 

[jar]

I think discretionary licensing is the number one problem. If the Heller decision is held to apply to the states, it should be a slam dunk. (Getting rid of discretionary licensing for ownership that is, concealed carry is another issue.)

 

[drumenigma]

I think most people here have listed much higher priority items than suppressors. Discretionary licensing, the AWB, the AG's heinous hand gun regulations, the cost of the license itself, inconsistency with licensing, etc........

 

[speedytt]

I think there are far more pressing issues in MA than suppressors (AG's list, discretionary licensing, AW ban, etc.).

Yes there are and I agree. Are we going to nit pic which laws first or we going to press many issues at once with the Heller decision behind us?

I would not live in a city or town that did not issue period. Went so far in my last city to get a letter of recommendation for a lawyer in order to get my LTC, yea it is that important to me. Talk to many folks about these issues and it turns out many are monday night quarterbacks. Joined this forum for the very knowledgeable folks here who make a difference. Any way to get this energy going in the right direction?

 

[pdm]

We need more numbers. Only 240k licensees in MA. That's not enough to push elections one way or the other. That's the sad truth of it.

 

[securityboy]

WOW...the "fudd-ification" of this board right before our eyes in one page of posts...and there had been such progress here with the NFA board "opening" so recently...

Seriously how can you NOT see the suppressor issue as being EXACTLY the same "priority" as AG handgun reg, LTC restrictions, AW bans, ect...

"you don't need suppressors" says the handgun guy, "but I need my 3rd generation glock"...
"Just shoot your 1st generation glock" says the blackrifle owner, "but I need NEW made AK"
"No one needs an AK" says the skeet shooter "but leave my lead shot alone"
"stoping using all my lead, and fight with me to make sportsman guide sell me flints again" says the blackpowder shooter...

OK I might have exagerated that all a little bit but not too much...But seriously take a step back and if you don't think there is something odd about making one a "priority" over another you may be more "fudd" than you are willing to admit...

 

[pdm]

It's not Fuddism to prioritize what we're more likely to accomplish. I want FA, NFA, etc etc, but I don't want them first. That's the difference.

 

[drgrant]

OK I might have exagerated that all a little bit but not too much...But seriously take a step back and if you don't think there is something odd about making one a "priority" over another you may be more "fudd" than you are willing to admit...

I see what you're getting at but IMHO all that stuff should take a back seat to attacking discretionary licensing. That's still the biggest hurdle in this state by orders of magnitude- after all, none of that crap means anything if you can't even legally own it because some anti gun chief prevents you from getting a license or makes it a pain in the ass. Until the "B rammers" and "Hunting and Target" a**h***s are eliminated (or at least legally
nullified) we have a lot of work to do there...


-Mike

 

[namedpipes]

fwiw, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Its absurd that something that is so illegal in this state as to send you to prison for 87,000 years is welcomed in some parts of the world, even the gun shy Europe.

Silencers would go a long way to improving the relations between gun clubs and their neighbors, and I'll bet if you could pull a Mary McFate, you'd find that to be part of the reason they ARE illegal here.

We can't have neighbors not mind the proximity of a gun range, after all!

btw, has anyone ever compiled statistics on violent crime in relation to the location of gun clubs and ranges?

All that said, in this state at least, it probably isn't the highest priority... Which is yet another sad commentary of this state, btw.

 

[securityboy]

It's not Fuddism to prioritize what we're more likely to accomplish. I want FA, NFA, etc etc, but I don't want them first. That's the difference.

Sorry but I don't see the difference...putting one type of firearm right over another is fuddism to me...

And quite frankly I think the is a better chance in getting suppressors legal than overturning th AW ban, or AG's handgun regs...I mean noise pollution/hearing loss and all that BS...come on we need silencers "its for the children"...

I see what you're getting at but IMHO all that stuff should take a back seat to attacking discretionary licensing. That's still the biggest hurdle in this state by orders of magnitude- after all, none of that crap means anything if you can't even legally own it because some anti gun chief prevents you from getting a license or makes it a pain in the ass. Until the "B rammers" and "Hunting and Target" a**h***s are eliminated (or at least legally
nullified) we have a lot of work to do there...
-Mike

I completely agree except I see it as "connected", discretionary licensing is NO DIFFERENT than a CLEO who wont sign off on a FORM4 (for an MG or silencer, etc)...

 

[pdm]

Sorry but I don't see the difference...putting one type of firearm right over another is fuddism to me...

And quite frankly I think the is a better chance in getting suppressors legal than overturning th AW ban, or AG's handgun regs...I mean noise pollution/hearing loss and all that BS...come on we need silencers "its for the children"...

Knock yourself out, but you'll be labeled a crank who wants to assassinate people, not save the poor precious widdums' ears.

 

[Scrivener]

Sorry but I don't see the difference...putting one type of firearm right over another is fuddism to me...

Sorry, but being unable to possess a handgun AT ALL is far more onerous than not being able to own a suppressed arm.

Get a grip.

 

[securityboy]

Sorry, but being unable to possess a handgun AT ALL is far more onerous than not being able to own a suppressed arm.

Get a grip.

SERIOUSLY A GUN IS A GUN! (and ATF considers a supressor to be a gun) and to say not being able to own a handgun is more bad than not being able to own a suppressor is NO different than saying not being able to own a blackpowder musket is more bad than not being able to own a handgun...

As I have obviously stuck a nerve by pointing out the inner "fudd" I think I'll just leave this thread be for a bit...but come on guys why the need to divide us into "priorities"....

My blackpowder guns rights are just as important as my MG rights...

 

[Skald]

SERIOUSLY A GUN IS A GUN! (and ATF considers a supressor to be a gun) and to say not being able to own a handgun is more bad than not being able to own a suppressor is NO different than saying not being able to own a blackpowder musket is more bad than not being able to own a handgun...

As I have obviously stuck a nerve by pointing out the inner "fudd" I think I'll just leave this thread be for a bit...but come on guys why the need to divide us into "priorities"....

My blackpowder guns rights are just as important as my MG rights...

Thing is, ALL your gun rights can go *POOFT* any time a CoP wants them to go *POOFT*, and with the VERY limited funds and clout gun owners have in this state, their time, money and effort is MUCH better spent on getting rid of the 'discretionary' aspect of a LTC.

Its called playing it smart and not wasting precious resources.

 

[uziduzit]

well, why cant multiple issues be presented at once?

 

[Titan]

We should be able to own them and we shouldn't have to pay an additional $200 for a stupid federal tax either. They are simply for hearing protection. Think about the noise pollution that they'd cut down on.

Suppressors being 'just for hearing protection' is certainly one view.

I could be wrong on this, but i believe that law enforcement views the noise of a gun discharge as an advantage to them.

There are laws against discharging guns within populated areas and the simple sound of a discharge can be an alert to the commission of a crime.

I'm not arguing their case - simply stating what I think it is.

.

 

[clinotus]

On the contrary and towards uziduzit's point; the segregation of gun rights by the myriad of laws has forced us to scatter and concentrate on multiple issues in stages, rather than the one true overall issue.

 

[pdm]

well, why cant multiple issues be presented at once?

Because you know how the antis work. They'll latch onto the one part that they can get Suzie Homemaker to fear and the whole thing will sink like the Titanic. And trust me, it'll be "OMG silencers like in the movies! blood in the streets!" Never mind the truth, you'd be fighting a perception and unreasonable fear. That's why we should concentrate on rolling back the bad laws a bit at a time.

 

[speedytt]

Because you know how the antis work. They'll latch onto the one part that they can get Suzie Homemaker to fear and the whole thing will sink like the Titanic. And trust me, it'll be "OMG silencers like in the movies! blood in the streets!" Never mind the truth, you'd be fighting a perception and unreasonable fear. That's why we should concentrate on rolling back the bad laws a bit at a time.

That is what happens in this state. We try one part at a time, the group looses steam and it all falls apart. Then we sit back, bitch and let the liberals walk all over us.

 

[drumenigma]

In general it's easier to fund, research, backup and support one issue at a time. You could prepare arguments for every issue that is important to us at once. However, by the time we have a case to present it's likely the anti group would have a leg up on us. For example, you don't see GOAL bringing large reaching comprehensive bills to the legislature. They bring up one at a time so they slip in nice and easy.

 

[clinotus]

In general it's easier to fund, research, backup and support one issue at a time. You could prepare arguments for every issue that is important to us at once. However, by the time we have a case to present it's likely the anti group would have a leg up on us. For example, you don't see GOAL bringing large reaching comprehensive bills to the legislature. They bring up one at a time so they slip in nice and easy.

The two steps back for every foot forward method isnt really working out that well for us, I mean look at the gun laws and restrictions in the last 10 years alone and you can clearly see that that approach is not working.

The pro and anti firearms groups are at war and our side has been cornered into a defense and mend role. They instead seem to have understood the old rule that your enemy will need two men to take one wounded off the field, and at the same time are sniping our ranks and using suppressive fire.

Advantage: Anti firearms groups.

 

[Jose]

I don't have a problem with licensing, as long as its done fairly. It eliminates the need for all the Brady BS like the 5 day wait and makes gun owners take a safety class.

You have ZERO clue about what you speak of.

There are NO licensing requirements in Ohio and Kansas (the two states that I have personal experience in buying firearms). I have NEVER, EVER, had to wait more than an hours (and that was once when I got a delay). Every single other time the NICS OK has come in right then and there and I was out the door with my new gun as fast as I could pay for it.

I have NEVER been subject to a 5 day wait or a safety class to buy a gun.

Clueless.....

 

[Jose]

Well, that's how they do it in KANSAS - why not HERE?

Actually, Kansans do not need to grovel to their chief of police to posses a gun. They do not need to report to the state government when they buy or sell a firearm in a private transaction. Their Attorney General does not dictate to them which guns they can or cannot buy. They do not know what an assault weapon is because the term does not exist in the Kansas Statutes Annotated. And the same KSA tells them they do not need to retreat when threatened with deadly force while in public.

So they have fixed almost every problem that exists with Massachussetts before addressing the supressor issue.

Seems Kansans are a hell of a lot smarter.

 

[Scrivener]

Actually, Kansans do not need to grovel to their chief of police to posses a gun. They do not need to report to the state government when they buy or sell a firearm in a private transaction. Their Attorney General does not dictate to them which guns they can or cannot buy. They do not know what an assault weapon is because the term does not exist in the Kansas Statutes Annotated. And the same KSA tells them they do not need to retreat when threatened with deadly force while in public.

So they have fixed almost every problem that exists with Massachussetts [sic] before addressing the supressor issue.

Which has nothing to do with my post.

Seems Kansans are a hell of a lot smarter.

Certainly freer.