Illinois bill would allow gun owners to use silencers

[Duckhunter935]

Cross post from the other gun group as they do not allow open dialog and debate.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) _ Hunters and other gun owners would be allowed to use silencers under a bill filed in the Illinois legislature.

The Belleville News-Democrat (http://bit.ly/1KAyo8Y ) reports the measure would lift a restriction prohibiting the use of silencer for those with a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.

The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Brandon Phelps. The Democrat from Harrisburg says gun owners want silencers to avoid hearing loss. Phelps acknowledges not everyone is going to support the use of the noise-reducing devices.

Mark Walsh of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence says about 1,000 die annually in this state from gunshots and allowing silencers “is a bad policy.”

more
http://fox2now.com/2015/02/07/illinois-bill-would-allow-gun-owners-to-use-silencers/

Of course we all know "silencers" do not make a weapon silent but just limit the noise level. They may have an issue with federal laws on this but I agree they should be legal. Some European countries require them for hearing safety. To bad the "gun safety" people do not worry about hearing safety.

[yeoman6987]

1. At first I thought this was ridiculous

But the United States does have a bad hearing challenged populous. Perhaps elevating some noise pollution may help that.

[machI]

2. A person would think the baners would demand silencers

Mandating that every gun be equipped with a silencer would:

1. Increase cost of ownership
2. Increase the weight of the gun
3. Make the gun longer, harder to conceal
4. Make the gun more fragile, increase the probability of barrel damage
5. Give law enforcement one more opportunity to fine or arrest gun owner and confiscate non-compliant guns

Proponents of restricting the right to keep and bear arms just are not properly recognizing this opportunity.

[jehop61]

3. yeah, I'm on board

Thanks for the great idea!

[NaturalHigh]

4. Gun "safety" people don't actually care much about safety.

They just don't want people to have firearms. If someone gets killed by a felon who kicks down the front door, well that's just part of the price that must be paid for a "gun-free utopia."

[Duckhunter935]

6. here is the level of debate over there

Sticking them up their ass would be a cheap fix.

Wacko humpers.

of course that easily meets their SOP and is allowed by the esteemed host. I am sure he will chime in anytime how he approves of that.

[GGJohn]

8. And they call us nuts?

That statement by that controller shows a clear hatred towards gun owners.
I wonder if EM will rebuke that member? Oh wait.

[Duckhunter935]

10. sure he will

you are right about this

[NaturalHigh]

13. The only reason I'm not banned from that nuthouse...

is because I've never posted there. I don't even peak in there. It causes me headaches and indigestion. Seeing their posts here and elsewhere is aggravating enough, but at least they have to contend with sane people (which drives them crazy) outside of their little safe haven. They couldn't care less about decent people's right to self defense, but they are always happy question whether a shooting in self defense could have been handled better. Couldn't he just shoot him in the leg? Couldn't he shoot the gun knife out of his hand?

It's enough to wake a latent drinking habit.

[GGJohn]

16. Another uninformed statement from the clueless bunch.

Now Bubba won't wake up
his neighbors when he stands his ground against a stranger ringing his doorbell late at night.

The ignorance, it never ends with some.

[Duckhunter935]

17. the ignorance is indeed stunning

but they know all they need to know, any information is some kind of NRA talking point.

[GGJohn]

21. Here's another one from the same person.

The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Brandon Phelps
who is a Democrat (read DINO) from Harrisburg, and who should be primaried and replaced with a real Democrat who can GOTV and represent Democratic values.

We have too many of these right-wing NRA "Liberals" among our ranks.

The ignorance, it burns.

[DonP]

23. That was their "go to" response when he sponsored the Illinois ccw bill too

"He's not a real democrat."

Nor were all the other dems in the supermajorities in both houses.

But don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to reach for their checkbooks or volunteer to start petitions for a challenger to Phelps. They are big on online whining very, very short on the "activism" component.


He's very popular in his district and with the leadership.

[ileus]

12. Controllers want to control...of course they're not about safety.

[NaturalHigh]

14. That's pretty much my opinion.

I have to ask myself why they support laws that favor criminals.

[ileus]

15. Because criminals provide them the feedback they need to continue the struggle.

[Duckhunter935]

18. they support any new law

how ever stupid or senseless it is and probably is unenforceable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Don't silence guns -- SILENCE DISSENT!

[petronius]

5. Sounds like an excellent idea! Should be a national move rather than just a state,

but good for Illinois if it happens...

[Duckhunter935]

7. I agree

Federal law would have to be updated

[benEzra]

19. Federal restrictions on sound suppressors would still apply.

Whether or not to allow hunting with sound suppressors by people with the proper Federal paperwork is up to the individual states. It is currently verboten in Illinois, but many states do allow licensed hunting with a lawful suppressed firearm.

[krispos42]

9. Guns are the only consumer product that Democrats seem to want to be more dangerous to the user…

…and people in the vicinity.

Examples:

Silencers/suppressors - A gunshot can be 160 decibels or more. In an enclosed environment, it's even worse. Yet, a certain type of person fights tooth and nail to outlaw such things, or make, at a minimum, the purchase of such a device expensive, drawn-out, and subject to must red tape and other legal hassles.

Flash reducers - Generally, ammunition does not burn completely in the barrel before the bullet exits the muzzle. The result is a "flash" of still-burning gunpowder. While not really noticeable in daylight, it can be like a camera flash going off in dim light or darkness. Obviously, if the shooter is being blinded by his own gunfire, this will inhibit his or her ability to shoot at night. A flash reducer works to reduce the flash visible to the shooter, and thus help preserve vision. A certain type of person insists on banning these as "assault weapon" features.

Pistol grips - Although they do not make shooting from the hip easier, they do make shooting from the shoulder gentler on the wrist and shoulder; a pistol grip is more ergonomic. Now, obviously, many shooters prefer straight grips to pistol grips, or switch between them depending on the type of gun and the situation it is intended for. But a certain kind of person thinks they should be banned (as an "assault weapon" feature) and shooters forced to use the harder-on-the-wrist straight grip.

Forward pistol grip - Again, the support hand of a rifle or shotgun should be less than ideally ergonomic, at least according to a certain kind of person. If one pistol grip is bad, two is obviously worse... right?

Barrel shroud - Gun barrels get hot. A bullet that is larger than the inside diameter of the barrel is being forced down it anyway by a blast of high-pressure gasses; the friction from the interference fit is high. After several shots, a barrel can be hot enough to burn. But a certain kind of person thinks that the parts of a gun that get hot enough to burn should be left uncovered. You know... "assault weapon" feature.

Telescoping stock - Shooters are different body statures and types, they shoot from different positions, and wear different amounts of clothing. Despite these differences, a certain kind of person thinks that changing the "length of pull" (distance between the trigger and the end of the buttstock) should be fixed, or at least require time and tools to adjust. Yes, yes... "assault weapon" feature.

Folding stock - For packing and travel and storage, the ability to fold the buttstock and shave a foot or more off the length of a rifle or shotgun is useful. Of course, trying to shoot a rifle or shotgun with the buttstock folded sharply reduces the accuracy and rate of fire of the shooter. But to a certain kind of person, this is also ban-worthy because "assault weapon".

Bayonet mounting lug - This is for mounting a knife to the end of a rifle or shotgun. Obviously, the recent spate of drive-by bayonetings in Chicago and Los Angeles means that a certain kind of person wants these banned because "assault weapon".

Rifle-grenade launcher - This is a gizmo that turns a rifle into a medium-range grenade launcher. A small bomb (think large hand grenade or small mortar shell) is stuck on the muzzle of the rifle, and the soldier loads and fires a blank cartridge to blast the grenade at the enemy. Since replaced by the 40mm grenade launcher, nevertheless the horrific rifle-grenade slaughter of the past decades means that, to a certain kind of person, this needs to be banned because, yet again... "assault weapon".




Try to imagine any other consumer product that is prohibited by law from being ergonomic, heat-shielded, sound-muffled, flash-reduced, and quickly and easily customizable to the user.

Try to imagine Senator Feinstein banning protruding pistol grips on power drills, Senator Schumer banning adjustable legs on camera tripods, or Representative McCarthy banning car mufflers. In fact, try to imagine them being taken seriously by millions of people.


It's incredible.

[Duckhunter935]

11. very good points

Yes I do find that crazy but I am sure some will be along any time now to explain it is for the children

[ManiacJoe]

22. Excepting the politicians, is there anything special about the IL population

that would make them more dangerous than the rest of the country where "silencers" are legal?