It’s time to legalize suppressors in Minnesota and take back our Second Amendment rights! The first of our pro-rights bills are scheduled to be heard next week. The hearings are open to the public, and we need you there to show our strength! The House Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing for three GOCRA-supported bills we want to see passed this year. The hearing will be held at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, March 12 in room 10 of the State Office Building, near the State Capitol, and will include these three bills: HF1434 – Rep. Mark Anderson‘s bill would legalize firearm suppressors in Minnesota for all lawful purposes. HF372 – Rep. Jim Nash‘s bill would remove the obsolete notification requirement for permit holders who enter any Capitol Area state building. HF830 – Rep. Eric Lucero‘s bill would, after 29 years, update Minnesota law to make it clear that Minnesotans are allowed to buy long guns in other states. Rep. Dan Fabian‘s HF305, which would add recognition of North Dakota carry permits in Minnesota. Please come if you can, wear a GOCRA t-shirt (or another maroon shirt) and make your presence known!
Today, long-time Second Amendment advocate Rep. Tom Hackbarth introduced HF1289, a bill that would put an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, guaranteeing and protecting the right to keep and bear arms on the ballot in 2016. While 46 other states include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in their Constitutions, Minnesota never has. In legal terms, this amendment would introduce the standard of strict scrutiny to the review of any state law relating to guns: the state would need to show that any restriction of the right was necessary to accomplish a “compelling governmental interest,” and that the restriction was the least intrusive way to accomplish that interest. This amendment, if passed, would likely result in the repeal of a number of ridiculous laws based on prejudice, ignorance and fear, such as the restrictions on inexpensive guns, scary-looking guns, and hearing safety devices.
What is a sound suppressor?Invented in 1902 by Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the automobile muffler, a sound suppressor is a device that lowers the volume of most gunshots from “instant hearing damage” to just “really loud.” These devices protect hearing, reduce recoil and noise pollution, and allow shooters to more easily communicate together, making hunting, target shooting and coaching safer for everyone.
Not Really a “Silencer”Maxim, an expert marketer, named his invention the “Maxim Silencer,” leading to over a hundred years of misconceptions. Shooting a firearm makes three separate sounds:
Legal in 39 States – and GrowingIn the last five years, 15 states have expanded the ability of private citizens to own and use sound suppressors. The devices are legal in our neighboring states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Traditionally liberal states like Maryland and Connecticut allow suppressors, and legislation – introduced by Democrats in both chambers – is working its way through the Illinois legislature.
Heavily Federally RegulatedThe possession and use of sound suppressors are governed by the National Firearms Act of 1934. To obtain a sound suppressor, a law-abiding citizen must:
CDC-Recommended Hearing ProtectionThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has, on five separate occasions, in separate studies, over multiple years, with multiple researchers, recommended the use of a sound suppressor with a firearm whenever possible. For example: “The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.”
Not a Tool for Violent CriminalsSuppressor usage in violent crime is extremely rare. In fact, most states don’t track suppressors used in crime because it’s too rare to bother tracking. A scientific study in 2007 looked at a ten-year period, and found only two federal prosecutions in which someone was actually shot with a suppressed firearm. In most of the approximately 15 federal prosecutions per year, the suppressor wasn’t used in a crime, but was merely found in the possession of the defendant.
Poaching Concerns UnfoundedSuppressors are not used in poaching to any significant extent. In the ten-year study above, there was only one prosecution found for illegal hunting. This is understandable, due to the limited muffling of gunshots provided by a suppressor, combined with the harsh federal penalties. In an Alabama newspaper, a senior state conservation official said, “A poacher typically uses whatever they’ve got. They’re not going to go out and fill out a lot of paperwork.” When asked about the concern that conservation officers wouldn’t hear gunshots, he said, “Our officers don’t follow the shot. We use other methods.”