Moot point. They exist already, they're legal in 39 states and in many of those legal for hunting, and crime rates with suppressed firearms has not risen dramatically nor is it a rampant problem.


And they will be legalized in Alabama for hunting.

Pretty compelling!

If you choose to ignore your constitutional rights and how law is enforced you won’t have to worry about any of this for very long. You will not be allowed to carry a rifle anywhere. Try listing the places that you can legally carry a rifle across your shoulder in our state, even though the second amendment gives you that right. That is a very short list.- Bucky's own words on this forum, emphasis mine.

Bucky, I'm going to use your words against you. A suppressor is legal to own in the U.S.A. and Alabama. I believe a suppressor falls under the 2nd Amendment and I have a right to own one and I will exercise that right to keep it from disappearing. If they are legal to own why shouldn't I be able to use one for hunting? To exercise my ownership right there are fees and stamps and a wait time to purchase them. Up until now the DCNR has not allowed them for hunting. They are changing that. Please tell me how changing the legality of use for hunting in Alabama makes them easier to purchase. No purchasing restrictions are being changed.


Your argument against suppressors is the same argument gun-grabbers use to justify their anti-constitutional views.

So why not outlaw every thing that could be used for something bad? You have skirted all around the issue but using your logic that's exactly what you are saying should happen. Even if suppressors were used for something illegal what is your reasoning for banning them besides they MIGHT be used for something bad. Money can be used for something bad. Should we outlaw money? Knives? Guns? Golf clubs? Cars? The more of all those things there are the more opportunity to misuse them. I honestly can't believe how illogical your argument is. I.had a conversation with an otherwise conservative female not long ago about gun control. She was convinced limiting legal access to guns would make it safer. She was completely emotional and illogical about the subject. I feel like I'm having the same conversation all over again.

Chicago
New York
Los Angeles
Gary, Ind.
New Orleans
Miami
Atlanta
Washington, D.C.

Commonality among them? Gun control.

Another commonality? High crime rates.

And Clem for the record, I value your opinion and don't think your an idiot in any way. I just don't agree with you on this one as far as suppressors improving our hunting in Alabama.

My argument has nothing to do with hunting improvements. It's about freedom and liberty. Can you give me a valid reason why suppressors should be outlawed for hunting but rifles should be legal? You have avoided the whole freedom and liberty aspect in favor of arguing need. Have at it. I'll wait.

Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In no way were we ever guaranteed unlimited freedoms. Key phrase: "without due process of law" That's why I enjoy hearing all sides of some of these arguments. People will argue these same points when the decision is made on suppressors. I don,t feel hunting has any more to do with our freedoms than making you be a legal adult to carry. Do I agree with everything our government decides. Hell no, but all arguments were heard and that was what they decided the best for the majority. I had my opportunity to express my views on the matter. No way in hell will I ever agree to disarmament. By the same token the 2nd amendment protects a 10 year old and his right to bear arms, same as yours. But our government feels after hearing arguments that is probably not a good idea to have a 10 year old taking a gun to school and I agree with them on that. If your taking either side in this argument and you didn't even take the time to vote, you need to sit down and STFU.

If it was legal for Women to walk around Nude..... 98% of them would be ones you dont want to see Nude anyway....

Im sorry that just stuck with me...

And to carry on with the true theme of this thread.. Would a 125gr Nosler Ballistic tip out of a supressed 18" barrel in 300BO be effective enough on deer and pigs??

Decided what was right for the majority?.The Bill of Rights was written expressly for the individual, not the collective. Spend some time reading the Bill of Rights along with the history of James Madison who authored it and you will either gain a whole new perspective on restricting liberty based on "need". Or , based on emotion, you may still cling to your liberal, illogical fear of unimpeded liberty for those who you fear might use that liberty in a way
you're uncomfortable with.

Bucky, it's not a matter of whether suppressors will "improve" hunting. It will for some because it will give them a measure of joy to hunt with their suppressed rifles. Biologically, it will not have an impact.

It boils down to whether the DCNR should suppress, no pun intended, the use of a weapon accessory that is legal to own and does have some positive benefits, including reduced noise for the hunter and others in the area and mild benefit of recoil reduction. It will benefit - and, thus, improve in a way - those who need to eradicate hogs or deer in culling situations and can take out at least a few from a group instead of just one before they bolt.

The "you don't need" argument is moot at its core. We don't "need" anything other than a stick bow and bamboo arrows with flint tips. Or a spear. But there are better weapons, obviously, to use. We discuss that with the .243 vs. .270 vs. .308 discussions.

As for "improving" hunting, that discussion could be wide and varied. A fedora, wool pants and red/black wool jac/shirt worked for Fred Bear. If MossyTree camo had been around 60 years ago, he probably would have put that on to slink around in the brush stalking mulies and bears. Is that an improvement? Yes. Is it needed? No. Wool pants and a jac/shirt works today, too. A lot of things have characteristics that improve hunting but may not be "needed." Suppressors are one of them.

Clem, in some ways suppressors could have a positive biological impact:

Auburn studies are starting to show that coyote are having a larger negative impact on the herd than was originally thought. Currently the only effective way to thin them is to trap them. Suppressors could make hunting them more effective.

Feral hog have a negative impact on wildlife habitat. Hunting them with suppressors would probably be more effective and help slow down their increasing population.

I'm for anything that improves the quality of hunting in Alabama.

It really takes a COMPLETE IDIOT to give up an ounce of liberty in an attempt to gain even a pound of security.

The Feds treat suppressors as a firearm. Because of that, they are subject to the 2nd Amendment, and therefore should NOT be regulated. SBR/SBS and Machine Guns shouldn't be regulated either. They are "arms". In 1789 I was granted the right to KEEP AND BEAR THEM WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

Suppressors are already legal to own, just like SBR, SBS, and Machine Guns. You just have to get Uncle Sam's permission first. Since that's the case, why in the world would making a legal firearm a legal means of hunting more prone to theft? Why would making a legal firearm a legal means of hunting more prone for illegal use by gangs?

You are reaching and grasping while staning on the tippy-toes of your ignorance and looking like a complete fool while doing so.

The Constitution limits GOVERNMENT POWER, not the rights of the people. When people figure that out, they'll look at the laws on the books a lot differently.

My guess is that you're either current or former LEO, and you actually believe that certain types of arms should be off limits "just because they're bad".

My wife is very noise sensitive (as in ear plugs and muffs), and she would love to have a silenced firearm. Especially for casually walking around our land plinking.
I haven't took that step yet though. My only concern with a suppressor is the firearm functioning correctly with it.

How many here think its really going to make a difference in how many people will use them? I dont see the majority of hunters (or even poachers) sitting there thinking "yes, suppressors are legal now!" and run out to fill out the paper work and pay the fee. Its not going to change how most of us hunt.

I can see in an operation like elk hunter runs to aid kids/women in shooting hogs but thats about it as far as a real world "need".


I wasnt sitting on "go" when cross bows or feeding became legal and still dont own a feeder or crossbow. Its an unneeded expense for most of us that are struggling enough to be able to hunt a few months a year.

In reality, there could actually be benefits to our hunting with suppression, mostly with coyote's and hogs. I just like to argue, especially if I know you can't win because of the rules in the first post.

We used to have another member here that, once embarrassed and proven wrong, would change his story and make believe he was only kidding. You would be better off just owning it and moving on. You just look petty and silly now.

You had a good point if you would have stopped there.

I don't care for the extra length and weight involved. 90% of the time, I'm carrying my Steyr Mountain Rifle. Why? Because it has a 20 inch barrel and is maneuverable. Hell, I hunt too heavy as it is...last thing I need is another two or three pounds to lug a quarter to a half a mile every time I hunt. Not sure I'd like that extra weight all the way out on the end of my rifle, either.

Not for me at all, but to each his own. I wear hearing protection at the range, and I'll take my chances firing two, three, four shots per season without hearing protection while deer hunting. Dang sure ain't paying for a $200 stamp plus more than a nice new rifle costs to have one. Those are personal decisions, though.

While I don't get the "excitement" or whatever it is over hunting with them, I don't care if they legalize them or not. Have at it.

[quote=Bucky205 I just like to argue, especially if I know you can't win because of the rules in the first post. [/quote]

You're confusing 2 different threads with your bullshit logic. My thread had a "rule" in the opening post. This thread has no such "rule". So, either you're a liar or you're 100% against DCNR allowing suppressors for hunting.

Bill, This thread started with a discussion on the usefulness of suppressors and hunting, and a possible regulation change. Your tried to twist it into an argument about gun rights. You are truly stupid enough to believe that somehow it is ok for a 10 year old to carry weapons because it's about freedom and the Bill of Rights. You want my opinion, here it is. I think your truly a poor dumb ass sitting in a trailer somewhere with no one to talk to.

Have a nice day.