52 replies to this topic

[TriumphRider]

I didn't see this posted anywhere and thought some might be interested....

http://stlouis.cbslo...k-on-silencers/

[Lou]

It sounds like a good reason fro Kenny to get that class III license.

[highspeed]

I guess i don`t understand! Does that nullify using a flash bang, after all it will be a loud noise.Also there will be yelling and all kinds of chaos. I just don`t get it.

[Joeyl]

I think it's a good idea. Shows a need to easily protect from the potential hearing damage of legally firing a firearm indoors.

[samy12386]

Joeyl, on 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I think it's a good idea. Shows a need to easily protect from the potential hearing damage of legally firing a firearm indoors.

Yeah great idea keep arming cops better than us.....

[Joeyl]

samy12386, on 13 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Joeyl, on 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I think it's a good idea. Shows a need to easily protect from the potential hearing damage of legally firing a firearm indoors.

Yeah great idea keep arming cops better than us.....

I don't see it as an arms race between leo's and law abiding citizens. I see it as a really really uptight state loosening up a little bit, even if it doesn't affect the average guy for now.

[bornhunter04]

First the police and then us......then in about 50 years we'll be able to hunt with them.....

[Patriots & Tyrants]

I can see where a "silencer" might come into play for some sort of far fetched, Rainbow Six type Jack Bauer Osama Bin Laden Jr. has a group of hostages situation but beyond that do SWAT teams really need silencers?

[abolt243]

Patriots & Tyrants, on 14 February 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I can see where a "silencer" might come into play for some sort of far fetched, Rainbow Six type Jack Bauer Osama Bin Laden Jr. has a group of hostages situation but beyond that do SWAT teams really need silencers?

Touched off your 16" .223 or .40 Glock inside a closed room without ear protection lately??  Kinda' hard to wear muffs and plugs and still hear your buddy warn you of the bad guy coming at you.

It's not about keeping someone else from hearing it, silencers really don't yield the "pfffft"  that movies would have you believe.  But, it does reduce the noise enough that it does much less damage to unprotected ears.

European countries, for all their gun paranoia actually encourage suppressors for health reasons and noise issues.

[es503IL]

LEO Silencers

The law allows only for Department owned suppressors (no private ownership by LEOs) that are used by SWAT teams and "tactical response teams", so the regular beat cop doesn't get seem to be cleared to have one. There is currently some testing going on as to if the use of suppressors will inhibit the flash ignition of vapors, by gunfire, found in places such as meth labs.

And, as Abolt said, gunfire is LOUD indoors.

[samy12386]

I could care less about a cops eardrums. If something is legal for the government but illegal for civillians it is tyrannical.  Not matter how large or small or necessary.

[chip]

The US Armed Forces #1 health issue is hearing loss. I think this is good that this law sets a precedent that suppressors (the correct and more accurate term) are a good thing.
Really sucks that the press release fails to mention that in most of the US the average law abiding citizen can apply for the proper tax stamp and have one legally. Nearly every news report and article I read is filled with as much misinformation as information.

[es503IL]

samy12386, on 14 February 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I could care less about a cops eardrums. If something is legal for the government but illegal for civillians it is tyrannical.  Not matter how large or small or necessary.

Just to point out, that is not always true. Just a couple of examples; it is legal, and just, for the Government to press criminal charges and conduct a trial against an individual, it is illegal for my neighbor to do the same. It is legal for the Government (depending on the State) to condemn a person to death for their crimes, while it is illegal for my neighbor to do the same (outside of acting in a lawfully convened jury). It is legal for the government to institute a tax; it is unlawful for you to do the same. It is legal for the Government to enact and enforce Constitutional Laws; it is illegal for you to do the same. None of these examples of what Government can do reach the standard of "tyrannical"

My point is, you should be careful when making broad overarching statements.

[samy12386]

es503IL, on 14 February 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

samy12386, on 14 February 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I could care less about a cops eardrums. If something is legal for the government but illegal for civillians it is tyrannical.  Not matter how large or small or necessary.

Just to point out, that is not always true. Just a couple of examples; it is legal, and just, for the Government to press criminal charges and conduct a trial against an individual, it is illegal for my neighbor to do the same. It is legal for the Government (depending on the State) to condemn a person to death for their crimes, while it is illegal for my neighbor to do the same (outside of acting in a lawfully convened jury). It is legal for the government to institute a tax; it is unlawful for you to do the same. It is legal for the Government to enact and enforce Constitutional Laws; it is illegal for you to do the same. None of these examples of what Government can do reach the standard of "tyrannical"

My point is, you should be careful when making broad overarching statements.

Maybe I should point out this is a firearms forum. The constitution says what a government can and can't do. They can't have arms for themselves and deny they to us  hope that wasn't to broad and overreaching for ya

[es503IL]

samy12386, on 14 February 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

es503IL, on 14 February 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

samy12386, on 14 February 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I could care less about a cops eardrums. If something is legal for the government but illegal for civillians it is tyrannical.  Not matter how large or small or necessary.

Just to point out, that is not always true. Just a couple of examples; it is legal, and just, for the Government to press criminal charges and conduct a trial against an individual, it is illegal for my neighbor to do the same. It is legal for the Government (depending on the State) to condemn a person to death for their crimes, while it is illegal for my neighbor to do the same (outside of acting in a lawfully convened jury). It is legal for the government to institute a tax; it is unlawful for you to do the same. It is legal for the Government to enact and enforce Constitutional Laws; it is illegal for you to do the same. None of these examples of what Government can do reach the standard of "tyrannical"

My point is, you should be careful when making broad overarching statements.

Maybe I should point out this is a firearms forum. The constitution says what a government can and can't do. They can't have arms for themselves and deny they to us  hope that wasn't to broad and overreaching for ya

That is not what you said. You said "If something is legal for the government but illegal for civillians it is tyrannical.  Not matter how large or small or necessary.
". My reply was directly targeted to that comment. There are many topics that are brought up on this board (especially in "The Back Room") that are not strictly firearms related.

Also, just to put my opinion out, I believe that Illinois should allow Title II weapons, and the Thurne Amendment should be thrown out. Furthermore, the NFA should be done away with. Lawabiding Citizens should have access (if they can afford it) to any type of weapon in common usage by the military. Access to the "heavier" type weapons is controlled simply through the cost (for the weapon itself as well as the ammunition).

Edited by es503IL, 14 February 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[samy12386]

I can't respond anymore I guess saying I don't care is being disrespectful.....

[Ranger]

I know a couple former SWAT officers with hearing aids as a direct result of firing in a confined space.  I support silencers for everyone's use including law enforcement.

[Davey]

I'm still bothered that LE couldn't already use suppressors.

[Skorpius]

Yes, I agree we all should be able to own them like other free men and women do in other states. That said...

You know we have a ridiculous state when a new law is needed just so that those whose very work it is to use weapons in the fulfilling of their duties need permission from the municipal overlords.

[Buckfarrack]

bornhunter04, on 14 February 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

First the police and then us......then in about 50 years we'll be able to hunt with them.....

Yip exactly,except Georgia must be about FIFTY YEARS ahead of this state because they just passed a law making the use of silencers legal.The main purpose of hunting Hogs. Look it up!

Edited by Buckfarrack, 16 February 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Buckfarrack]

Skorpius, on 16 February 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

Yes, I agree we all should be able to own them like other free men and women do in other states. That said...

You know we have a ridiculous state when a new law is needed just so that those whose very work it is to use weapons in the fulfilling of their duties need permission from the municipal overlords.

Yip.What's next....new face shields before the NATO and G-8 summits? Here,see for yourself.....

http://www.herald-re...1871e3ce6c.html

[LPD5408]

Glad it was passed and there are some valid uses for Suppressors in the LE and SWAT environment. Wish that it was legal all along and that others had the same opportunity as well. Hopefully it will also be passed as well as RTC in Illinois. With that being said our team might get one, but with budgets the way they are I dont see it happening anytime soon.

[Buzzard]

LPD5408, on 17 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Glad it was passed and there are some valid uses for Suppressors in the LE and SWAT environment. Wish that it was legal all along and that others had the same opportunity as well. Hopefully it will also be passed as well as RTC in Illinois. With that being said our team might get one, but with budgets the way they are I dont see it happening anytime soon.

ONE???

Just how expensive ARE suppressors?? (Not that I'll ever be able to own one legally.)

[abolt243]

Buzzard, on 17 February 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

LPD5408, on 17 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Glad it was passed and there are some valid uses for Suppressors in the LE and SWAT environment. Wish that it was legal all along and that others had the same opportunity as well. Hopefully it will also be passed as well as RTC in Illinois. With that being said our team might get one, but with budgets the way they are I dont see it happening anytime soon.

ONE???

Just how expensive ARE suppressors?? (Not that I'll ever be able to own one legally.)

Look Here!  (A product of a quick Google search!!)

.223 class = $500.  .308 class = $1000+.  Civilians need a $200 "tax stamp", not sure if LEO agencies are required to have the stamp or not.  

T

[LPD5408]

From my understanding and experience we will not have to pay the Tax as a Government entity. I could be wrong, but in the past we have been exempt from paying taxes on this stuff. In my opinion and its just that my opinion we have other things we need/should be spending our money on. I'm just the quartermaster and member of the entry team, but the real decision will be with the team commander not me. To add to that not everyone has the same type of weapon. Currently we have AR15's in .223/5.56, H&K MP5's in both 9mm and 40 S&W, and one H&K UMP in 40 S&W. Not to mention the bolt guns in .308. Besides getting the suppressor you will need to purchase the appropriate FH's and any gunsmithing work that may be needed. I'm no expert in suppressors as I have lived in Illinois my whole life and never really looked into them figuring it was never going to happen. I am slowly changing that and educating myself, but I know that it will be costly expenditure. Personally if this bill was for all LE and not just a SWAT team I think it would be better. The team I am on is a part time team. My main job is patrol and the likely hood of something happening is greater while I am on patrol. We have a gear up and get ready time that patrol does not. In the event of an active shooter (school or business) I cant tell the suspect wait a minute let me call the team and we will get ready. I have to go into that building face the threat and use deadly force if warranted. Shooting a rifle or a pistol in a building sucks. Lets just say that there are more than one suspect. If shots are fired by me and one suspect is down and I have to look for potentially more I am doing so with depreciated hearing. Now I carry a pair of those Surefire Sonic Defenders with me everywhere so hopefully im prepared but it would be better to have a grab and go option. Long winded im sorry. Should be at IGOLD and if I am I talk like this too. Can go on and on and on.

[Ranger]

They should definitely be legal for everyone.  I hope they will be someday.

Another good, governmental use I can think of is animal control officers being able to dispatch animals with least disturbance.

[highspeed]

What about the street cop who may have to shoot  inside a building?

Edited by highspeed, 19 February 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Bud]

samy12386, on 13 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Yeah great idea keep arming cops better than us.....

Dude, you break me up. This and the next post you added are really beyind hilarious.

I will guarantee you that several of us on this board are more heavily armed than any three suburban departments and most county Sheriff departments.

As far as you not caring about a cop's ears?

Really, so you don't mind paying more taxes for increased workman's compensation costs associated with police work?

I overlooked the moral reference to protecting the people that protect us because I think it would have been wasted effort in your case.

[JackTripper]

Based on this thread, I just ordered more hearing protection to store with my heaters. I normally leave the ear muffs in my range bag.

Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk

[Lou]

BudMan5, on 19 February 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

samy12386, on 13 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Yeah great idea keep arming cops better than us.....

Dude, you break me up. This and the next post you added are really beyind hilarious.

I will guarantee you that several of us on this board are more heavily armed than any three suburban departments and most county Sheriff departments.

As far as you not caring about a cop's ears?

Really, so you don't mind paying more taxes for increased workman's compensation costs associated with police work?

I overlooked the moral reference to protecting the people that protect us because I think it would have been wasted effort in your case.

Not me!  I handed in all of my firearms in one of Father Pfleger's past gun turn in programs.  I am now defenseless.......