Advertisement

Archive for Monday, March 28, 2011

Kansas Legislature approves bill allowing silencers for outdoor recreation

March 28, 2011

Advertisement

— The Kansas Legislature has approved a bill that would allow the use of silencers for hunting, fishing and fur harvesting.

The bill, supported by the National Rifle Association, is awaiting Gov. Sam Brownback's signature.

The Hays Daily News reports that the bill received only one no vote in the Senate and was unanimously approved by the House last week.

Chris Tymeson, chief counsel for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, says he doesn't know how if many people own silencers, in part because they are expensive and must be licensed by federal authorities. Owners also must undergo an FBI background check.

He says a few people have filed requests with the state's wildlife agency to be able to use silencers, mainly for shooting prairie dogs.

Comments

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

The correct term is "suppressor." But also, props for passing this. Great idea.

0

concernedeudoravoter 3 years, 6 months ago

Wow - just like always, Kansas Legislature - let's pass something that pales in comparison to important legislation such as the budget for next year. Why on earth would you want to spend any time on that.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

The little things need attention too.

0

Synjyn Smythe 3 years, 6 months ago

Please tell me how one fishes with a silencer?

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Well duh, you don't want to scare the fish.

0

SnakeFist 3 years, 6 months ago

Without a silencer, the dynamite would make an awful racket.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 6 months ago

This opens the doors wider for those who illegally hunt people to kill.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

[sigh] Take your uninformed opinions elsewhere, merrill.

0

timetospeakup 3 years, 6 months ago

merrill, anybody that's willing to break the law against murdering doesn't care about gun laws. Suppressors were already legal in Kansas anyway, this just allows their use while hunting. It effectively brings KDWP policy in line with the rest of state law, it's not a major change.

0

pace 3 years, 6 months ago

Your willingness to speak for murderers is charming, but is it from personal experience or just word of mouth from a friend?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 6 months ago

Planet-killer merrill actually posted something new that was sort of on-topic? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

0

some_random_person 3 years, 6 months ago

"illegally hung people"

As opposed to legally hunting people?? Wow, get a life dude....People who "illegally" kill other people don't give a damn about gun laws whatsoever....Absolutely NO logic in your comment....

0

Jake Esau 3 years, 6 months ago

I'd rather be able to legally drive 75mph on I-70 than legally silence a hunting rifle...

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

Thanks for letting us all know. We were sincerely wondering.

0

timetospeakup 3 years, 6 months ago

Sure - if you pay the $200 tax stamp for that 2 liter bottle. If not, that's still illegal.

0

Ralph Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

slowplay 3 years, 6 months ago

33 states already allow the use of silencers. When the silencer was invented it was marketed as the "gentleman's way of target shooting". However, don't forget, the possession of a silencer without a federal permit is a felony with a max sentence of 10 years.

I just love this explanation from the Western Criminology Review: "Professionally-made silencers may screw into a threaded barrel, and continue to allow the use of the gun’s sights (which is not possible with things like pillows)."

0

Ken Lewis 3 years, 6 months ago

Just what the State needs. And this was such an important issue when the State budget is in crisis. Forget the schools. Get the rednecks with silencers on thier guns.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

Hey culturechange, leave the LJW boards and take your uninformed "opinions" with you.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 6 months ago

you are foolish to think that since an opinion is opposite of yours it must be uninformed.

Especially considering your history....I am quite sure you need to be informed as to what the word means.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

Being against suppressors is indeed an incorrect and uninformed opinion. Saying only "rednecks" have suppressors is a little offensive, too. [sigh]

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 6 months ago

You are clearly uninformed.

It is an offensive term, but if that bothers you, attack that, and not call the opinion uniformed. The opinion is still valid even if it is counter yours, the language is not.

Are you really unable to understand the difference?

0

speedy47 3 years, 6 months ago

Guess this means I won't be hearing the deer poachers anymore?

0

riverdrifter 3 years, 6 months ago

Correctimundo. But they were already using them illegally, so no biggie. What illegal rack hunters now fear are the covert PIR camera traps that photograph them & their vehicles -including license plates. reconyx.com

0

Newell_Post 3 years, 6 months ago

Uhhh.... Point of information.....

"Silencers" don't actually work like the sound effects in most movies. The movies show a quiet "pffft" instead of a "bang." A real suppressor just produces a bang that is a little less loud than normal. An unsuppressed report can be 160 dB, and a suppressed report can be 120 dB.

0

Glenn Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

My first reaction was shock. The only use I could think of for such a device is murder. That's really the only thing I've ever seen it used for on TV.

I reread the article, thought about it for a few minutes, and I could see how the device might find legitimate use in hunting. My fears of illegal applications are tempered by the required background check, though I'd like to know what the requirements to be met are. I'd also like the bill allowing ownership of the device to require a background check at the state level, in case the federal rule gets changed.

On a side note, telling folks to shut up and go away does nothing to enhance your credibility, majestic. Explain your position and provide intelligent rebuttals to others' arguments. Otherwise, you're going to look like a redneck with a death-grip on his boom-stick.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Next time you hear a gun-related legislation, and your reaction is "shock," think about this....

Criminals have access to a myriad of weapons, mostly illegal. A criminal (by definition) breaks the law, so a 'gun control' law won't stop them from accessing firearms that a legislature has deemed 'unsafe'. Criminal access to suppressors will not change with this legislation. There will still be a market for illegal access to these devices, now there is at least a legal access to it for law-abiding citizens. If you're willing to commit a crime, such as murder (your example), the restriction on suppressor ownership would not have stopped you.

Though I agree simply telling people to 'shut up' isn't the correct way to go about it (actually he never said that specifically, but I understand your point), he was responding to posts that weren't really any more intelligent or informed than his.

0

Glenn Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

You read the first paragraph and the last paragraph of my comment. Good job, now read the middle one.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

He was concerned about your initial reaction. And good for you for actually doing research and not just knee-jerking your way to decrying this law. And if I seem angry about uninformed people, it's because I've had to deal with them for far too long. Guns aren't evil, no matter how much you scream and shout about it.

0

Glenn Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, the fact that he was concerned "only" with my initial reaction is the annoying part. I didn't do a great deal of research beyond rereading the article.

I've never described guns as "evil."

"Dangerous" and "deserving of respect" is a bit more accurate, I think. This implies the need to have some controls in place, in my opinion.

I must apologize for the "death-grip on his boom-stick" comment.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Yes, as Majestic clarified, I was using your initial reaction to make a broader point about guns and gun control. I'm making assumptions here, but due to your initial reaction, I can guess your reaction to issues like concealed carry.

Your middle paragraph is correct, though I will make the point again that you shouldn't worry about illegal activities with weapons because the legislature is making the weapons legal. Illegal will be done whether the tools are legal or not.

0

Glenn Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

The article wasn't about concealed carry.

I have a concealed carry license. I can't, for the life of me, find a good reason to put a suppressor on the gun I carry.

If I ever have to discharge it outside of the firing range, I want as loud a report as possible. Every additional person who hears the shot will increase the chance that someone will inform the police. Putting a suppressor on it would reduce that effect.

So, other than avoiding police attention, why would I put a suppressor on the gun I carry?

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

You are missing my point entirely. Your first post, your first sentence, gave me the impression that you were unfamiliar with firearms, or even anti-gun. It was an assumption, assuming is wrong, yes, but I don't think I was that out of line by making the assumption by the way you worded it.

So, with the assumption you were somewhat anti-gun yet still open-minded, I tried to give you something to think about next time a gun issue came up. Concealed carry is a hot button issue, so I used it as an example.

So I think it was just a misunderstanding. No one is talking suppressors on concealed firearms, so that's a non-issue.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 6 months ago

"The only use I could think of for such a device is murder. That's really the only thing I've ever seen it used for on TV...." Expecting life to be like TV is a mug's game.

0

rtwngr 3 years, 6 months ago

People who know nothing of firearms and the laws, seem to have the strongest opinions on them. One of the ways that our freedom, in this country, has always been guaranteed was by an armed populous. This is the way the founders of our constitution designed it. Yes, criminals commit crimes with guns. On the other hand, there are verifiable statistics (too numerous to mention here) that violent crimes decrease in states where there is a "right to carry" law in place. This bill brings consistency to KDWP and state law already on the books. Vital interests of the state were not held up because this was not debated for months on end like our federal budget.

0

gudpoynt 3 years, 6 months ago

i would like to see some causal evidence of this claim, because I think violent crime has more to do with factors such as overall population, demographics, urban densities, economic discrepancies and poverty levels, etc.

A correlation does not imply causality, and given that violent crime is arguably affected far more by the above stated causes than it is by RTC laws, it erodes the strength of any correlation discovered.

The NRA-ILA (lobbyists) ignore this inconvenient problem when citing how crime has dropped in Florida from 1987 to 1992 after passing RTC laws.

Advocates of gun control face the same problem, of course, when they attempt to prove that looser gun laws lead to higher crime levels.

However, the NRA-ILA, in the same page of information, do not hesitate to state that "There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates".

But the same reason why there is no viable study, is the exact same reason why it's nearly impossible to claim that crime rates go down as a result of RTC laws -- that is, because real researchers know that weak correlations don't imply a cause.

What is needed is a controlled experiment between demographics of negligible variance, where some have RTC laws, and the others don't. Of course, this is nearly impossible as well, since we're dealing with US states, communities, and citizens, and setting up control and variable groups isn't at all feasible.

source http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Having a research methods flashback?

A big problem is the groups that have invested interest in this issue always release slighted statistics.

In my opinion, I don't think there is any noticeable effect for right-to-carry areas vs. not. An experiment would be extremely difficult due to the other strong variables like you mentioned, any difference might not even be detectable.

0

gudpoynt 3 years, 6 months ago

Exactly. And you're right, groups that have invested interests will always release slanted stats, which is why it's important to get non-partisan research firms involved on issues like this.

If you consider the FBI to one such firm, then here's what they've got available to the public so far... http://bit.ly/fB6WyX

Notice that you can drill down for more detail. Here's violent crime per state in 2009. http://bit.ly/gfqcCL

Now, what would be sweet, is if you could click on any number in those cells, and it gives you a list of synopses of actual police reports, detailing for instance, whether or not a gun was used, what type of gun, age of the victim, etc.

Then, after they get that done, they'd need to provide more flexible interfaces to better filter and compare data across different variables.

For instance, if I, a mere public citizen, wanted a list of all Kansas police reports from 2000-2010 where handguns were reported to be fired, in order to find a yearly trend of how many firings were in self defense, accidental, malicious intent, or no consequence, I could just pump the variables in and voila! Data!

Not an easy task by any means, but certainly doable. We're probably closer than we think.

0

bevy 3 years, 6 months ago

No one has answered the question: How do you fish with a firearm? Firearms aren't listed on the legal equipment page on KDWP's website: http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Fishing/Fishing-Regulations/Legal-Equipment

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Read this: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/year1/measures/documents/supp_note_sb152_00_0000.pdf

They are probably just using it to cover their bases, keep fisherman safe from persecution or prevent confusion in the future.

0

timetospeakup 3 years, 6 months ago

I think the old KDWP regulations prohibited possession of a suppressor when engaged in an activity covered by KDWP regs (hunting, fishing, trapping) and this law removes that whole prohibition.

So this law makes it legal to possess a suppressor while fishing, even though you wouldn't use one to fish.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 6 months ago

Suppressors are commonly used for hunting in many European countries and are even required in some areas to prevent "disturbing the peace". Depending on the caliber, the cycling of the gun's action can create more noise than the round being fired. Any round traveling at speed greater than the speed of sound will still cause a loud snap as it breaks that barrier, but sound can still be reduced by up to 85 decibels, possibly eliminating the need for hearing protection. Suppressors are available in Europe for rifles, pistols and even shotguns. They can also reduce recoil as much as 75% on weapons that kick hard and in most cases improve accuracy.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 6 months ago

"Please tell me how one fishes with a silencer?"

Vewy kwietly . . .

0

gudpoynt 3 years, 6 months ago

Or, think of a silencer as a little baseball bat.

0

gudpoynt 3 years, 6 months ago

"[A] few people have filed requests [...] to use silencers, mainly for shooting prairie dogs."

If you've got a prairie dog problem, don't shoot the poor buggers. Call this guy!

http://bit.ly/e9WWTR

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Don't assume gun-owners are all Republican. Many of the Republican legislatures in this state make me embarrassed to call myself a Kansan. They are generally a hypocritical bunch that claims non-intrusive government yet has a bill that tells strip clubs they can't have nude dancers; they claim the support the constitution but only if it's something they agree with (we won't even talk about if it's not their religion).

That being said, the firearm issue is disengaged from party lines. This was a simple issue, not a lot of resistance to it except by those who are completely ignorant to the issue.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Well to me, it looks as if the amount of "arguing" over this issue was about as minimal as it gets. It's part of the many many small bills that are handled every year. To expect a legislature to do nothing but the hot press issue at the time is ridiculous. Yes the budget in Kansas needs attention, but that doesn't mean other issues don't deserve any attention.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 6 months ago

Then you base your views of firearms on movies, and not reality. Suppressors have a use in sport shooting and hunting.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

Whoops, just discredited everything you just said. Hate it when that happens.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 6 months ago

Incredibly offensive. Bannable offense.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 6 months ago

Let us hope that Hodgdon and IMR are working on bringing Hushaboom to market in the near future.

0

riverdrifter 3 years, 6 months ago

I once owned a .243 with a suppressor. Nice rifle but after half a dozen rounds it was a sooty mess. Never again. Let'er bark.

0

Kontum1972 3 years, 6 months ago

ahhhh...Kansas....no,..... not the basketball team....

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.