Wyoming Rep Immediately Re-introduces Bill to Allow Suppressor Use

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Outlaw6.0, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Thank you Mr. Driskill, I've already written our senators, maybe this time...


    Wyoming Senator Ogden Driskill (R-1) introduced a bill yesterday (1/16) that would further expand the rights of hunters in the Cowboy State. Senate File 132 would repeal the state prohibition on hunting with sound suppressors (which are additionally regulated under federal law) while providing additional penalties for those who use them illegally.
    An identical version of this legislation was introduced earlier in the state House as House Bill 5. However, the House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee defeated it this week by a vote that was neither announced nor made public. Senator Driskill drafted this bill to accomplish what HB 5 was supposed to do before it was unfairly dismissed.
    Currently, more than half of the states across the country allow hunters to use suppressors. RecentlyArizona, Oklahoma and Texasadopted new rules allowing for use of suppressors when hunting game. It’s time that hunters in Wyoming are able to enjoy the same opportunities available to sportsmen in more than half of the country. For more information on firearms and suppressors, click here.
    Noise complaints are being used more frequently as an excuse to close shooting ranges, informal shooting areas and hunting lands throughout the country. Increased use of suppressors will help to eliminate many of these complaints and protect hunting and shooting areas well into the future.
    In order to acquire a suppressor, a purchaser must submit the appropriate paperwork to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives where long wait times for approval are unfortunately common (four to six months). Also, purchasers must undergo a background check by the FBI, find a licensed dealer authorized to conduct the transaction and pay a one-time $200 tax for each device. While suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report in a manner similar to the way that a muffler reduces exhaust noise from a vehicle. The benefits associated with suppressor use include increased accuracy due to reduced recoil and muzzle blast, protection from hearing damage and reduced noise pollution.
    To find your Senator’s contact information, please click herSF 132 has yet to be assigned to a Senate committee for further consideration. However, please call your Senator and urge him or him to support SF 132. Be sure to check NRA-ILA’s Wyoming page for more updates..


    t
     
  2. drbill

    drbill Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    334
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    :Dgun)
     

  3. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    I find it amazing how many of my fellow statesmen feel the need to interject their opinion into a subject/discussion/etc of which they know absolutely nothing. I've been involved in some pretty intense debates concerning suppressor use while hunting, outlining the benefits to the hunter, game & the surrounding area. You know what I get back? To put it in a nutshell "I don't like them so you can't use them."


    Great arguement, nothing like fighting with a toddler over their bowl of Lucky Charms. :D

    t
     
  4. Triple BB

    Triple BB Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    251
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    I contacted my senate rep and advised if they want to make them legal to own and use for target shooting, knock yerselves out, but I don't support using them for hunting. He said as a hunter he doesn't see the need for them either. He said from what he's hearing, senate leadership may not even let this on the floor since a similar bill was already defeated in the house. I guess we shall see...
     
  5. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010

    News Flash:

    They are already legal to own for target shooting, here's a clip from the Wyoming State Constitution:

    Firearms; automatic weapon or silencer prohibited.**
    No person shall take into or possess in the game fields
    or forests of Wyoming any fully automatic weapon or
    device designed to silence or muffle the report of any
    firearm...

    I can own it (and will before too long), I just can't do squat with it besides shoot paper & steel:rolleyes:...I need to approach the G&F about this as well, just for a little more clarification. Then there's that need thing again also... truth be told, we don't NEED to be able to hunt period, as you've already learned I get a little miffed when folks try to tell me what I do & don't need. When/where does one draw the line? I don't NEED to drive a diesel truck, I guess we should ban those too... I don't NEED a good paying job, might as well reduce my pay... I don't see a NEED for bowhunting, might as well ban that too... We don't NEED optical sighting devices, might as well go back to irons... We don't NEED high quality bolt action rifles, might as well go back to lever guns...See what i'm getting at here? They don't detract anything from those who choose not to use them but benefit those who chose to. I still struggle to find any logical arguement (considering none have been posted here) against their use.


    Time will tell for sure, if this one gets shot down, I will be writing all reps once again urging their re-introduction of another bill. From the article above, it's quite obvious i'm not the only person that thinks this way.


    t
     
  6. Triple BB

    Triple BB Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    251
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Time will tell for sure, if this one gets shot down, I will be writing all reps once again urging their re-introduction of another bill.

    Best of luck to ya on that...
     
  7. Broz

    Broz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,637
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Outlaw, I have shot suppressed rifles and see what they do offer. I like the reduced noise and recoil a lot. But I am still in undecided mode about using them for big game hunting. Maybe allow them for varmints but not big game. Here is the reason. Knowing what I know and helping to bust several poachers, it was the shot I heard or someone calling me to report shots fired that tipped us off. That said, low rent takers of game, that ignore all game laws to illegally take trophies, so they can make it look like they are great hunters:rolleyes: would still use them if they were legal or not. So, like I said, I like them but just not ready to vote in favor for big game hunting. Not yet any way. But I may change my mind as soon as I feel I know all the good and possible bad points.

    Jeff
     
  8. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010


    Jeff, at least you're keeping an open mind about it. That allows a civil discussion among peers to help conclude or at least guide an INFORMED decision. I commend you for that. I also recognize your point & inderstand both of them. Yes they most certainly can help poachers, but as low life scum, the legality of tool is a moot point. Illegal is illegal is illegal. This particular bill also touches on that subject, strengthening the penalty for illegal use. Again, another win for our cause. The penalty will be higher after the bill passes than it is now, while allowing those of use who are not idiots to enjoy their benefits.

    As always, your input is more than welcome. I maybe more than some, enjoy conversation as well as a good debate.


    t
     
  9. Broz

    Broz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,637
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    A few years ago it was mentioned as a possible bill here in Montana. I didn't think it would fly and it never even made it to a vote. I have thought about it a lot since then. I do understand some values of supressors. But still not sure. That said I would not vote against them either. I am truly on the fence.

    I wonder how many elk could be taken from one herd from 700 yards if they were not alarmed from the shot? I guess we have taken 2 from the same herd with braked rifles before they moved out, so what's the difference? Just talking out loud here as I would like to air all the good and bad and take a side. It is diminishing the potency of one of their defense mechanisms (hearing) but so is sent spray, camo, and such.

    I would be all for any increased fines for illegal taking of game. I feel most fines are way to low and most deliberate poachers keep poaching. They just get training in how to better get away with it.

    So Outlaw, you have aready said we don't "need" them and I got your drift there. But aside from the reduced recoil and quieter discharge what do you feel they bring to the table? I am looking for the reasons to hunt with them.

    Thanks
    Jeff
     
  10. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010

    The fine shout be WAY higher than it is now with a stint in the iron bar motel + loss of hunting rights. Violators should get hammered, hard when they do that.

    The whole need thing really gets me wound up :D

    Think about your 700 yard elk hunting setup. You, your bestest hunting buddies. You can conduct your whole routine, wind, range, dope, spotter + shot & spot all without yelling at each other & wondering whether or not they heard you.

    Think about your upcoming woof hunt (i'm guessing you have at least one coming up), the ability to retain you natural hearing abilities while traversing to & from your call sight or ambush site, (hey, you never know when/where they'll show up right?) could impact, positively, your success rate.

    For me the noise reduction is key, I have super sensative ears. Like, can barely shoot a rimfire & hear anything an hour later sensative. I already have a 20-30% hearing loss in one ear & live with tinitus every day of my life.... I could have used a suppressor 10 yrs ago!

    What about the new shooter/hunter? That one that's always been interested in the sport but is scared to death of the noise? I've been in that situation, they're scared of the noise, affraid noise it equally proportionate to recoil & generally shoot poorly or not at all because of it. Throw a suppressor on that rifle, noise is reduced drastically, along with recoil, allowing that individual to calm down, concentrate & enjoy. A suppressor could be a wonderful tool for the timid...

    I feel like i'm trying to sell you a used car, sorry about that. It's not my intention at all.
    I honestly feel like, for every con, two pros can be brought forth.

    I would personally support starting with varmint hunting. Let us use suppressors for varmint hunting, let the people learn that suppressors aren't some black magic death machine keen on taking their first born child. They are a tool, & if properly used, one that can greatly enhance ones time afield.


    t
     
  11. MachV

    MachV Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,385
    Joined:
    May 31, 2001
    The big arguement from the F&G is that its harder to pinpoint a surppressed shot BUT in reality its no harder than a muzzle brake! Someone that has the responability to go through all the hoops to get a suppressor is not likely to use it illegally!
    It sure would make spotting a lot easier....1/2 my 75% hearing loss is from shooting muzzle broke guns or being around the dang things, ya we try to remember hearing protection but someitmes?
    Bottom line here is there is not a downside to a supresser other than it adds a little weight and balk to the wrong end of a gun.IMHO
     
  12. Broz

    Broz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,637
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    The points made in favor are valid. Thinking of some of the young hunters I work with in the field. I am seeing the benefits more all the time. Just trying to get all the info. I am pretty surprised there have not been more opposition on here with some facts why they shouldn't be used. Maybe your right and there isn't really any solid reasons.

    Thanks

    Jeff
     
  13. benchracer

    benchracer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    I have been seriously thinking about stepping up to a true Long Range cartridge like .338 Lapua lately. One of the things I have decided for sure is that, if I do, I would prefer a suppressor to a muzzle brake. Lower recoil, won't go deaf shooting it... What's not to like?

    As more and more states change their laws to allow use of suppressors for hunting, I think they will continue to gain acceptance. I just hope they don't go from being accepted to being mandatory.

    If there is resistance to hunting big game with them, perhaps a good starting place would be to allow their use against varmints and predators, including wolves. I am betting that would be likely to change a lot of minds.
     
  14. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010

    I had alluded to something similar to that in one of my previous posts. I think it would be a great way to introduce the use of suppressors & would support that effort. Start small & work towards the end goal. A day on the prairie dog town or a good ambush position on a pack of wolves sure could benefit from suppressor use.

    MachV, I also agree with your statements. The process of procurement is pretty lengthy. Roto-rooter comes to mind:rolleyes: If bubbas got the mindset capable of procuring one, I sure wouldn't think he'd use it to poach something. If he does then you hunt him down & throw his ass in jail, fine him to the poor house & show the community that we are serious about this.

    With great reward comes great responsiblity.


    t