New Suppressor Legislation for Hunters?

[vdub]

Good stuff.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but if it was limited to land owners and guests, wouldn't that make it legal for everyone hunting on private land? Technically, if you are nunting on someone's land and you have permission, aren't you a guest?

Yes it would make it legal for hunting on private land since you would either be the landowner or guest of landowner. Otherwise you would be trespassing. However, not everyone has access to private land to hunt on so you are actually just providing extra benefits to those people. It would be just as easy to remove the restriction that adding the several sentences last year's bill was adding to the regulations.

I've never hunted on public land, but would hunting unsuppressed be better for safety since you could have a better idea of those around you? I tend to think that it would be better to be suppressed but maybe that is the argument the senator is using with this language.

This is the biggest misconception on suppressors. Suppressors do not completely silence your rifle. There will still be an audible report and sonic crack for standard ammunition. If someone is using subsonic ammo, then yes the sound will be significantly less but there will still be some noise and the hunter is risking just wounding the animal and not killing it. Unsafe hunters will still shoot at things they do not see or know what it really is and will not follow safe hunting rules. Not using suppressors will not automatically change the unsafe habits of others.

Maybe with the landowner/guest rule, he is trying to define it as illegal to use a suppressor if you don't have permission to hunt. So, if someone is poaching and the have a suppressor, they are using the suppressor illegally. Maybe he is trying to tack on more laws against those not using it properly.

If you are poaching, you are poaching. It doesn't matter if you use a suppressor or not as you are already breaking the law. Right not it is illegal to use a suppressor at all. Allowing landowners and guests to use suppressors to hunt still does not make it legal to poach, with or without a suppressor. I don't think poachers are going to go through the cost and 6 month wait to purchase a suppressor. They will either use a rifle or crossbow and hope they don't get caught.

The reasoning he used for the way he worded the bill last year was the people who have lived out in the rural areas and have always shot predators messing with their livestock are now getting encroached by new neighborhoods. When the neighborhood pops up, people in them call the sheriff to report gun shots even though it is perfectly legal for the person to be shooting as long as they are not shooting at people's houses or damaging someone else's property.

 

[vdub]

Georgia introduced a bill allowing suppressors for hunting as well

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20112012/SB/301

 

[Erick]

I asked the Senator why doens't the bill open it up for all hunters. His reply was that "I wanted to narrow the focus to landowners and their rights on their property for this bill. There are many states that allow this type of hunting (even Connecticut) for all the good reasons that seem to connect on both sides of the aisle. With regard to public lands, the argument erodes into useless discussions on poaching and government control of lands. This bill addresses the need and allows hopefully for a common sense approach to the issue.

So it looks like the worry was that it couldn't get passed now (for what ever reason) if the government land was involved. Hopefully this will be a slam dunk and we can use our firearm mounted hearing protection while hunting on private land soon.

 

[vdub]

It is surprising that neighboring states, Arkansas and Texas, as well as numerous other states allow hunting with suppressors and you do not see rampant reports of poaching by hunters with suppressors. It would be easy to disprove any arguments about poaching on any land with statistics from states that allow this and getting details on poaching arrests in states that do allow hunting with suppressors without land restrictions.

It really doesn't address any need as it only put conditions on how you can exercise your Second Amendment rights. This bill will only establish that you have to own land before you can exercise your Second Amendment rights. Hopefully this very small victory doesn't get gutted like last year.

 

[Erick]

I agree that it should be open to everyone, everywhere. The problem is writing a bill that can get passed without, like you said, getting gutted. I don't think it puts conditions on exercising your rights anymore than not allowing firearms on any other government property. It's a silly condition but it certainly is a giant step forward. I think in a few years after seeing the benefits first hand, they will readdress the issue on public land.

What I am getting from it is:
1. You can use your suppressor if you own the land or have permission to hunt on the land. (lease included)
2. You can hunt all kinds of game.
3. If you do not have permission to hunt you can not use a suppressor and hunting while on such property is improper and unlawful use.
4. You can not use a suppressor on public land.

 

[vdub]

I agree that it should be open to everyone, everywhere. The problem is writing a bill that can get passed without, like you said, getting gutted.

The bill last year was gutted to try and get another attempt at passing an Open Carry Bill. It got shot down like all the others did.

I don't think it puts conditions on exercising your rights anymore than not allowing firearms on any other government property. It's a silly condition but it certainly is a giant step forward.

Numerous other states seem to have no problems getting it passed and have not had any issues with rampant poaching. As the Texas Wildlife Department stated in their report, they could not find any reason to prohibit the use of suppressors on any land while hunting. That statement right there speaks volumes!!! Maybe Oklahoma should pay some of them to come up here and educate our Wildlife Department on suppressors. However, the WMA's are vastly different than other government property since they are actually open for hunting and firearms. A government building is not for either of those purposes.

I think in a few years after seeing the benefits first hand, they will readdress the issue on public land.

What I am getting from it is:
1. You can use your suppressor if you own the land or have permission to hunt on the land. (lease included)
2. You can hunt all kinds of game.
3. If you do not have permission to hunt you can not use a suppressor and hunting while on such property is improper and unlawful use.
4. You can not use a suppressor on public land.

Unfortunately, the only Senator to attempt to get this passed, Senator Russell, is not running for re-election so unless someone else comes along to pick up the causes, then this will be the last attempt at getting anything passed for this issue. While it is better than nothing, you are still putting conditions on it. Unfortunately, requiring to own land, lease land or have permission to hunt the land will more than likely eliminate quite a few suppressor owners from being able to hunt with them.

I think your itemized list is correct to what the bill will accomplish if passed.

 

[sky428]

If we support this then we should make sure to contact the politicians and let them know. The more people they hear from the better chance we have for getting something passed. I am going to express my support for the idea along with my concerns about it being narrowed to just private land. I feel like the same benefits that apply to private land also apply to public land.

 

[vdub]

My Rep/Senator will be forwarded the letter I sent to Senator Russell that contained several resources to use and support opening up all lands to hunting with suppressors. I will also let them know that I will be watching how they support and vote on the measure as well as their actions will dictating if I vote for and support them next re-election cycle.

 

[vdub]

Here are a few more articles to include with your letters to your Rep/Senator.

Suppressed Hunting Laws by State
http://www.gem-tech.com/store/pc/pdf/HUNTING WITH SUPPRESSORS-STATE LAW COMPILATION.pdf

Very nice article on hunting with suppressors that was sent to Texas Wildlife Department
http://www.ncsilencer.com/Useful_Stuff_files/Hunting with silenced firearms article.pdf

 

[vdub]

Bill has been published on the Senate site.

List of changes dealing with suppressed hunting:
1. Changes the word silencer to suppressor in Section 5-201 Item 5.
2. Add the following paragraph to Section 5-201 as Item E

E. 1. The following persons shall be exempt from the prohibition specified in paragraph 5 of subsection A of this section:
a. any person hunting on property owned by the person, and
b. any guest or other person hunting on property with the permission of the owner of the property.
2. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt landowners or their guests from the requirements and provisions of the National Firearms Act regulations and tax requirements for lawful use of such weapons.

Link to full Senate Bill 1743:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12 INT/SB/SB1743 INT.DOC