JASON LEE
Member
It does affect me because I hunt in Montana and I have suppressors.
If you dont think the gun laws of chicago and DC being struck down does not effect you then you need to look beyond your own little world.
Silencers/Suppressors legal for hunting.....
- Thread starter Horn Seeker
- Start date
It does affect me because I hunt in Montana and I have suppressors.
If you dont think the gun laws of chicago and DC being struck down does not effect you then you need to look beyond your own little world.
sweetnectar
New member
The one thing I like about tjones is that he just keeps on going...even when he looks...
I'll just say to vote against this one is a step toward being anti gun and everyone but tjones is understanding that.
I'll just say to vote against this one is a step toward being anti gun and everyone but tjones is understanding that.
JASON LEE
Member
"Shall not infringe" does that not mean anything to you?
It seems like you guys have been infringed upon for a while now.
Its obvious you are not educated about suppressors, you should do some research before you taint the well that we all drink out of.
JASON LEE
Member
I havent spent enough time here to know many of the members, it seems like you have a better handle than I do.
Does Wyoming "infringe" by not allowing .22 cal meaning say a 22-250 to hunt antelope?
Did you plan on coming to Montana and hunting then cancelled because you could not use a silencer?
How can it be a step toward anti gun? If it does not pass, you lose nothing. Business as usual.
One more time, it does not make it illegal to own one, it does not take away anything you had yesterday, or last season. Sweet go out and buy as many as you can afford. You can. All the bill does is make it legal to HUNT with one.
Last edited:
RockyDog
Member
Tjones you need to learn to use your tunnelvision and keep it oh so simple......nevermind that montana has highly sought after bighorn sheep, mountain goats, moose, elk, mule deer and whitetail deer. Nevermind that they grow to incredible size in ....just pick one issue and distort it to your shortterm needs so we can all be happy.
JASON LEE
Member
You were infringed upon when ever your F&G decided that it should not be legal to shoot animals with a suppressor attached to your gun.
Your logic goes along with the banning of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. I mean heck its not like we cant still have the guns, just not as many bullets in the gun.
Its against the law to murder someone, so do you think another law banning high cap mags will keep someone from killing? It doesnt all it does it make life harder on the law abiding citizens of the country.
Your logic that allowing people to use suppressors to hunt with will increase poaching is foolish at best.
Its time to repeal the gun laws that are unconstitutional.
onpoint
Well-known member
while all you boys trade jabs about about guns, gun accessories and their uses, here in Montana real men are sharpening their spears...have fun arguing.....
I dont follow your logic... so your suggesting f&g's archery season is unconstitutional? Because you can not use your rifle?
This a joke? Or are you serious?
JASON LEE
Member
JASON LEE
Member
I missed in the reg when suppressor season was listed.
Jason, as a life member of the NRA, I am all about gun rights. But, I have a hard time following where my right to bear arms, as guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, is infringed upon when a state passes a law as to what weapon I can hunt with.
The law says nothing about possessing or owning these items, which technically are not firearms, but accessories. It does not prohibit/infringe/restrict my right to bear any arms. It restricts the type of weapon accessories that may be used for the purpose of hunting with a rifle in Montana.
Do states that have only archery or muzzle loader seasons infringe my 2nd Amendment rights? I don't think so. They only tell me what weapon I can hunt with, not what arms I can bear.
That makes it hard for me to follow your statement of "You were infringed upon when ever your F&G decided that it should not be legal to shoot animals with a suppressor attached to your gun."
There is no right that I know of that guarantees me the right to have accessory "X" and be allowed to use any accessory I so choose for the purposes of hunting.
Not trying to be argumentative, but trying to sort out Constitutional rights from wishes we may or may not have.
JASON LEE
Member
BF, I appreciate your opinion.
Your rights were infringed upon when a government agency puts restrictions on the weapons that they say you can or can not use.
And as defined by the ATF, a suppressor is a weapon not an accessory that is controlled by the National Firearms act.
My stance is that any restrictions put on the law abiding citizens of the United states by a government agency is an infringement on my rights.
I could be wrong from the get go, but as a law abiding citizen I am sad to see the situation that we have gotten ourself into with the "It doesnt pertain to me" attitude.
Your rights were infringed upon when a government agency puts restrictions on the weapons that they say you can or can not use.
And as defined by the ATF, a suppressor is a weapon not an accessory that is controlled by the National Firearms act.
My stance is that any restrictions put on the law abiding citizens of the United states by a government agency is an infringement on my rights.
I could be wrong from the get go, but as a law abiding citizen I am sad to see the situation that we have gotten ourself into with the "It doesnt pertain to me" attitude.
WV Hunter
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that you can't simply walk into the local gun shop and purchase a suppressor. There aren't Class 2 Manufacturers and Class 3 dealers on every corner. If you are going the individual purchase route you have to get a sign off on the Form 4 by your local Sheriff or Chief of Police and finger printing before you can even mail the form and $200 check for tax to the NFA. You do realize you're on the short list of suppressor owners in your AO and the local law enforcement knows who's door to knock on if animals or people are being quietly sniped in the middle of the night.
As far as poaching by legal ownership by law abiding citizens, well, it simply doesn't happen. There are other states that allow hunting with a suppressor and there isn't wide spread black op animal sniping operations going on. As far as the research I have seen on Class 3 weapon ownership there have only been two cases of criminal acts by somebody who owned Class 3 weapons legally and they were both police officers. One was a murder commited with a Mac 9 machine gun in Ohio.
I've been on hunting websites and pro 2nd web sites and it just seems the two groups can not get along. Hunters for the most part don't seem to care as long as their shotguns and bolt actions are safe and classified as "sporting rifles" while the 2nd group wants to know where hunting is in the constitution. Zumbo is a classic example of this with his off the wall rant back in 2007 that almost ended his carrier (still not sure how he got back on tv).
I see this argument as a freedom issue. If I am a law abiding citizen I should have the right to use a suppressor to hunt with, there is nothing unethical about it. The argument pertaining to calibers has an ethical problem (using a .22 on an antelope) nothing to do with freedom.
As far as poaching by legal ownership by law abiding citizens, well, it simply doesn't happen. There are other states that allow hunting with a suppressor and there isn't wide spread black op animal sniping operations going on. As far as the research I have seen on Class 3 weapon ownership there have only been two cases of criminal acts by somebody who owned Class 3 weapons legally and they were both police officers. One was a murder commited with a Mac 9 machine gun in Ohio.
I've been on hunting websites and pro 2nd web sites and it just seems the two groups can not get along. Hunters for the most part don't seem to care as long as their shotguns and bolt actions are safe and classified as "sporting rifles" while the 2nd group wants to know where hunting is in the constitution. Zumbo is a classic example of this with his off the wall rant back in 2007 that almost ended his carrier (still not sure how he got back on tv).
I see this argument as a freedom issue. If I am a law abiding citizen I should have the right to use a suppressor to hunt with, there is nothing unethical about it. The argument pertaining to calibers has an ethical problem (using a .22 on an antelope) nothing to do with freedom.
Personally, I don't see any debate on rights and hunting... seems two seperate discussions somehow becoming confused as if it is one discussion. I dont have a preference for using such hunting. If it becomes something fwp wants to add for hunters to use... so be it. MT has several defined refs on what is / is not allowed for hunting purposes. Archery season (as an example ) mt hunting may not use lighted pin sights... specific minimal permitted size bows allowed... etc... i don't see a constitutional infringement regarding what is permissible to hunt with... though to each his or her own on opinions...
xrayts
New member
God bless the USA! I'm sooooo grateful that we can even have discussions like this.
WV Hunter
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
What is there reasoning behind decisions that won't allow lighted pin sights?
I can understand weight draw mins on a bow (falls back into ethical arguments)
RockyDog
Member
How about hunting night with night vision scopes and grenade launchers?
Similar threads
