Did you hear something? Hunting with silencers will soon be legal in Alabama

[AScott]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NYC_SKP (a host of the General Discussion forum).

The next hunting season might be a little bit more quiet than the last. Last week, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Advisory Board voted unanimously to allow hunting with silencers in the state. According to the National Rifle Association, more than 30 states already allow hunting with silencers, or as they're also called, suppressors.

According to Fred Harders, the assistant director of wildlife and freshwater fisheries for the state Department of Conservation, the board decided that the benefits to allowing silencers outweighed the cons. "When someone is hunting around an urban area, it will allow that to take place without bothering people nearby," Harders said. "And it can help with damage to the ear, especially with young people."

The effectiveness of a silencer depends greatly on the gun and the type of ammunition. While the silencer suppresses the explosion of the powder, it does nothing for the sound of a bullet breaking the sound barrier after it leaves the barrel. A silencer used with sub-sonic ammunition can make as little sound as a pellet gun, while higher velocity rounds can still make a lot of noise.

The new rules will go into effect later this year, before the fall hunting seasons, Harders said. But just because the ban on silencers for hunting has been lifted, that doesn't mean everyone will have easy access to them. Buying a silencer requires a lengthy, expensive approval process and lots of paperwork. "What some people don't realize is that it is not that easy to get approval to buy suppressors," Harders said. "There is a pretty good bit of paper work and a lengthy wait before the federal authorities will let you have one."

http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/05/did_you_hear_something_hunting.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Count me in

as someone who wishes mightly our hunters use noise suppression.
I live just close enough to the edge of town to hear guns blazing from fall till spring, each POP sets off the dog, who then barks madly.
Now if the crack dealers in the community over the hill would use suppresors, that would make the weekend nights peaceful as well.

[pnwmom]

12. Dogs will still be able to hear the sounds.You just won't know why they're barking. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

27. so you know nothing of suppressors

OK

[pnwmom]

43. I know all I need to know.

There will still be sounds, although humans will be less disturbed by them.

And I know that dogs, with their sharp hearing, find many sounds disturbing that don't bother people.

[dixiegrrrrl]

53. Point taken... tho the sounds will be more mufled.

But since our dog can apparenlty hear thunder in Mississippi............

[Duckhunter935]

2. been that way for years in some european

countries, Sound suppressors are seen as a safety device as they quiet the shot protecting the shooters hearing. Suppressors do not make shooting silent.

In the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act. They are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in 39 of the 50 states.[40] However, a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a federal tax payment of $200 and a thorough criminal background check. The tax payment buys a revenue stamp, which is the legal document allowing possession of a suppressor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

[Spirochete]

3. Can't wait till one of these goofballs

gets lost in the woods, fires three shots in the air, and wonders why nobody shows up...

[linuxman]

4. What?

You hope someone gets lost and cannot summon help....why exactly?

You are aware that the suppressor comes off, right?

[Electric Monk]

7. Before someone goes alerting on them, that was quite obviously a joke.

[Spirochete]

8. It's called a joke, Einstein

Google the word sometime...

[linuxman]

11. A bad one

Apparently.

[Spirochete]

16. What can I say

I don't make a living as a comedian

[blueridge3210]

34. My mom (78) still gives me the same advice. lol (nt)

[rrneck]

9. That's happened to me when I was bow hunting.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. You think you've got it bad...

I fired three arrows into the air, and I missed.

[Aerows]

47. LOL

Now that WAS funny!

[Eleanors38]

50. LOL!

[aikoaiko]

5. This makes a lot of sense for hearing protection and general safety

Firearm sound suppressors still have to go through a comprehensive BATFE background search and approval process.

[spanone]

6. no smart guns, but let's keep it quiet while we're killing things....stupid nation

[linuxman]

13. Why not?

Seriously.

[spanone]

15. why not smart guns, seriously.

[linuxman]

19. Because

They are not a proven technology

When cops and police have used them successfully and without incident for, say, ten years, then I would say that the concept of putting sensitive electronics into a shock-creating device makes sense.

[spanone]

22. bwahahahahahaaaa

[linuxman]

24. Such a well reasoned and thought provoking response.

I can see how the firearms rights proponents have had so little success in recent years.

[Duckhunter935]

28. I say bring them on after repealing all laws

requiring them and the ban of non smart guns. Let the market decide. I will not buy one as they are to expensive require batteries and add complex electronics to a simple item.

Mandate the police use them

[SecularMotion]

29. I think you hit all the NRA talking points in one comment.

I'm impressed.

[Duckhunter935]

31. Thank you

Can you link me to this list of talking points so I can try and avoid them. Funny since they are my own views as much as you hate them.

Surprised you commented, I guess you can in GD but you refuse to follow the SOP in RKBA, your favorite group.

[savalez]

32. Haven't you heard?

"It's not proven technology" is the new "Guns don't kill people"

Nobody is fooled by it.

[Paladin]

46. +100. They can't dodge the gun safety technology.

All that's going to happen with time is that gun safety features will become more convenient, more reliable, and---most important---significantly cheaper. Welcome to the 21st century, Gun Enthusiasts.

[Duckhunter935]

51. and when that happens

people will buy it. Not there yet so do not force it on people.

[oneshooter]

45. Did you ever find that third "K"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[spin]

37. I suggest you read this article which lists a number of problems with smart gun technology. ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/

I will post one excerpt from the article as it is rather lengthy:

Perhaps most telling about the deficiencies inherent in smart guns is the fact that law enforcement is not converting to them. Many policemen and policewomen have children at home and have strong incentives to want weapons that only authorized parties can fire. They also face dangerous criminals in the line of duty who might try to grab their weapons. But, as of today, no law enforcement agency has converted to smart gun technology; in fact, the New Jersey smart gun mandate specifically exempts law enforcement. The aversion of police to these so-called “safer products” is very telling; if the expert professionals don’t trust smartguns, why should civilians?

However some reliable safe gun technology does already exist for certain firearms but few know of it.

A S&W revolver or certain Ruger revolvers can be sent to a company and modified to be a reliable safe gun. Some police do use this modification and the company has been performing the modification since 1976. It's reliable but unfortunately the modification costs $350 plus $60 for the ring you are required to wear.

You can read about this conversion at:
http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

[AScott]

39. So the ability to convert (certain) revolvers into smart guns has been around for 4 decades.

In that time, how many owners of revolvers have chosen to convert their guns? 0.001%? Less?

It would appear the market demand for smart guns is virtually nil. The only way they will succeed is if a requirement for their use is mandated through legislation.

[spin]

41. I considered the mod for my carry revolver but the price was simply too high. ....

I also read a couple of reports that mentioned that the magnetic ring you have to wear can wipe out the magnetic strip on a credit card. I have no idea if this is accurate or not.

[AScott]

42. So let whoever wishes to design & sell smart guns do so, and let whoever wishes to buy them do so.

Or not.

Problem (such as it is) solved.

[Kingofalldems]

44. Why do you post this in GD and not the gungeon?

Most of us don't want to look at your gun porn.

Do you have some sort of agenda?

[spin]

49. A gun manufacturer might offer smart technology as an option. ...

Those who wish to have it could buy a firearm that was "safe" and those who didn't want it could buy a firearm without it.

[Duckhunter935]

52. I agree, just repeal the NJ law first

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Not to mention, that it will give a bad hunter more opportunities to take down a kill.

[NickB79]

18. To be fair, some bad hunters already get too many chances

[Baitball Blogger]

21. The elk I saw in Oregon were so much smarter.

A distance from the road, there was a herd of them in a stream as we drove by. I asked my husband to turn the car back, which he did. As I got out of the car to take a picture, I noticed that there were sentinels posted along the edge of the road. When they saw me they headed back to the herd, which steadily began to retreat into the woods. But, somehow they knew I wasn't a threat, and they stopped and went back to foraging.

[Travis_0004]

23. I doubt it

Silencers bring down the noice a bit, but its still very obvious that its a gun shot, and would scare away any game nearby. Its nothing like a hollywood movie. It would make the noise level safer for a shooter, and somebody a few miles away might not be able to hear the shot, which would allow them to enjoy their property in a bit more peace and quiet.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. I would have to disagree.

Noise is an important warning for animals. It's one of the reasons that a silent bird predator, swooping from above is so lethal.

[JJChambers]

38. Guns with suppressors are still very noisey

Just slightly less so as not to cause as much hearing damage. They're not whisper quiet like the movies.

[pnwmom]

14. I would rather people know that hunters are in the area,

so they can take more precautions and/or stay away.

And if there is an accidental shooting, it would be easier to determine the direction the shot came from, and who was responsible.

[JJChambers]

17. Suppressors should be deregulated like they are in Europe

Hearing loss is a major problem and we need to be progressive in our treatment of suppressors (aka: silencers). Anyone should be able to go to the local hardware store or gun shop and pick one up. In Europe they're common place, standard equipment.

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. Last words the ill fated hunter hears;

"There goes one!"

[Hoyt]

30. Now, there's something to get all giddy about.

[oneshooter]

48. So you would "get all giddy about" the accidental death of another human being?

[Submariner]

33. No silencers

The noise should be loud and apparent to scare off wildlife. Don't tilt the already warped playing field balance to satisfy the primitive bloodlust of the 21st century animal shooter.

During wetland/upland surveys I have too many times seen woodland trails and clearings littered with dead squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits and birds left by these dumb frustrated hunters who in the absence of their target species (deer, moose, turkey, etc.) blow everything away that's alive and within range to shoot.

Ban silencers. Wildlife is already at a great disadvantage.

[LittleBlue]

35. Uh my understanding of silencers with high powered rifles

is that there is still a big bang. Rifles without silencers can be so loud that they damage the ear of the shooter.

It's not the same as silenced pistols used in the movies.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. You're impeding the moral panic mongering with factual evidence

Good work...

[The Straight Story]

40. Now, Now, safety measures to protect people using guns is BAD. We don't care about people

unless it is smoking, fast food, big drinks, etc and so on. THEN we want to protect them and limit their choices. Something like this that protects hearing, well now we can't have that!

[Hoyt]

54. There are other ways to protect hearing, including taking up "hobbies" which don't hurt society.

[NYC_SKP]

55. Please feel free to repost this in the Gun Control and RKBA group.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Gun posts are generally against the Statement of Purpose for this forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

Forum Hosts' consensus is to lock this thread.