Printable View
Hi everyone,
I'm used to using a sound moderator on all my rifles when hunting, though I am however from the UK, and I think the law is different here? Do you need to get an extra licence to acquire them? Are they common place for hunters?
As you can see from the pic, even my rimfire used to have one.
Are they not too popular over here?
Josh
illegal:)
I am not sure of your question but if you are talking about silencers, I am pretty sure they are illegal here in Canada. Maybe someone with a little more shooting experience can confirm.
It looks like it has been confirmed
Oh wow. I didn't think they'd be illegal. Pretty much standard in England, yet are gun laws are much more unfairly restrictive.
Can take out a lot of deer with a silencer though ;D Though maybe the reason for them being made illegal here?
I once saw 15 red deer culled in under 5 minutes due to the quietness of the shot.
I never saw them in the magazines or videos. Now I know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
Yup looks like what we call a silencer here in Canada. Illegal.
I guess it'd be a poachers dream?
They are illegal in Canada because they look scary, like quite a few other things. But that's a discussion for another day. Here's some info:
Prohibited Devices
[COLOR=#000000]General
[COLOR=#000000]48. A prohibited device is:
- (a) any component or part of a weapon, or any accessory for use with a weapon that is prescribed to be a prohibited device (e.g. any device designed for the purpose of discharging cartridges in rapid succession, bull-pup stocks, etc.);
- (b) a handgun barrel that is equal to or less than 105 mm (approximately 4.1 inches) in length, but does not include any such handgun barrel that is prescribed where the handgun barrel is used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union;
- (c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm, such as silencers (please note that some silencers attached to airsoft guns may also be deemed prohibited devices if they can be used in real firearms);
- (d) large-capacity cartridge magazines prescribed by regulation; or
- (e) a replica firearm.
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publicati...-eng.html#a4x3
Welcome to the forum as well!
That's one of the strange ironies of our gun laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by dukesarcher
In North America, with plenty of wide open space to shoot, "silencers" became illegal because of the assumption they would be useful mostly to criminals -- an assumption fueled in large part by Hollywood. There is no meaningful movement to change this.
They don't even silence, they suppress, nothing a subsonic load in any rifle cannot do.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
It is up there with making a 20in barrelled 223 restricted or prohibited because it looks like a gun used to fight wars.
I think everyone here is aware of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Deer aren't that bothered by the sound of gunfire, they don't seem to make the association of it to danger. Many a time I have fired with in proximity to small group of deer and all they do is look up and they go back to eating.Quote:
Originally Posted by dukesarcher
So a 'moderator' would have no added benefit to hunting, unless you trying to keep humans from hearing it.
More to the point, the rifle is still going to be noisy enough to startle a group of deer you're shooting at. If you're on the receiving end, the sound of the bullet going past at supersonic speed is much louder than the thump of the gun firing.
The chief benefit is to your own hearing, in the long term. Also some reduced potential for complaints about the noise. This is something I'd like to see our firearms organizations work on, but it doesn't seem to be on their radar.
I get why, due to the criminal aspect, but in Europe they use them as hunting is close to homes and gun fire is a nuisance, we have the same crap here, shotgun only zones for deer have complaints all the time for people shooting.
The biggest complaint I hear from anti's is they hear gunshots and think they're in danger. This is why bowhunting is more widely accepted. If they don't see the kills or hear the shots then all is good for us and them. Some guns are so loud the shooter has more damage then the animal he's shooting at! Increase the fines for poaching and lets get this suppression issue legalized!
This is so true a couple years ago I shot a whole "flock" of deer during the controlled season (yes we had enough tags) in about two minutes. They just took a couple steps and looked back each step.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Suppressors being banned in Canada has nothing to do with wildlife. Its because the government thinks we suddenly become mass murderers if we have one. The same people that believe this also think that a 5 cent rivet in a magazine will prevent someone from using a high capacity magazine in an illegal fashion, or that a registry paper somehow prevents a murder.
The UK has some of the toughest and most ridiculous gun laws on earth, but getting a moderator is pretty standard tbh.
Handguns and semi-automatic rifles are prohibited though.
Go figure....
blasted_sabre nailed it.
If you try and make sense of gun laws your head will hurt. Logic had little to do with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukesarcher
I was actually surprised when I read this yesterday, I wasn't aware how many states (x42 now) allowed moderators' while hunting;
Quote:
On Thursday, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed into law House Bill 2279, which legalized the possession and use of firearm suppressors in the state. Iowa was one of the last holdout states to forbid the use of suppressors, along with California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and several others. With the bill signed and taking effect immediately, Iowa is now officially the 42nd state to legalize the possession of suppressors, and 39th state to legalize them for hunting as well. Governor Branstad signed the bill at a retail Brownells store in Grinnel.
“The legalization of suppressors in Iowa is a tremendous victory for the law abiding citizens of The Hawkeye State,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association (ASA), in a press release. “For the past three years, the ASA has worked alongside the Iowa Firearms Coalition, the National Rifle Association, Rep. Windschitl, and, this year, Rep. Baxter to get this legislation passed so that the sportsmen and women of Iowa could use these benign accessories to protect their hearing while in the field and at the range.”
Hearing safety was one of several reasons why gun owners and hunters have advocated for suppressor use. Also known as silencers, suppressors can reduce the noise generated by a gun shot, making both recreational shooting and hunting safer for hearing. There are other advantages to suppressors, such as reduced recoil, allowing shooters to easily communicate with each other at the range, and more auditory awareness in the field.
Efforts to support the bill were spearheaded by the ASA, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Iowa Firearms Coalition, along with other activist groups. The ASA says it will now turn its attention to legalizing suppressors in states that still ban the devices. SilencerCo, a renowned suppressor manufacturer, applauded the ASA’s efforts on Friday.
In Canada , I think it is mainly our politicians and our the police that are against sound suppressors, they see it as only bad guys and crooks use them.
I believe that if we were allowed to use them , there would be fewer complaints from individuals re. gunshots heard , especially when people hear some of the louder/noisier center fire varmint rifles.
The trend in the US is to deregulate suppressors.
And the objections are exactly what you would expect, based on the assumption that the purpose of a suppressor is to allow you to shoot without being detected: only crooks and assassins would use them!
Remember, most of the voting public lives in cities and is never disturbed by the sounds of gunshots. The idea that suppressors are desirable to (a) protect my hearing and (b) reduce conflicts over noise is simply not on their radar. And the problem we face, bluntly, is that pro-gun groups have so poisoned the waters by such antics as the NFA's "Don't Put Yer Eye Out, Kid" Xmas stunt that it has become very difficult to educate the public. You can't have a reasonable discussion anymore.
That was a most stupid stunt indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
They are actually now trying to make suppressors legal in Canada
It will never happen not a chance in H$LL
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdog
Suppressors yeah right! We even encourage tannerite exploding targets so target shooters can make even more noise. Now there's a fun but unnecessary noise that shout be banned.
It's interesting that it was encompassed into the Hearing Protection Act...making it a Health and Safety issue...
the 'shooting' aspects are secondary benefit
Quote:
Today, Thursday, March 31, Governor Terry Branstad (R) signed House File 2279, the Hearing Protection Act, into law. HF 2279 passed the House of Representatives with a 74-24 vote and the Senate with an overwhelming, bipartisan 46-4 vote. HF 2279 will go into effect immediately.
Most importantly, suppressors reduce shooters’ risk of hearing damage, which can occur when discharging a firearm without the proper hearing protection. Additionally, suppressors can help reduce noise complaints from neighbors, particularly in more densely populated areas.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...protection-act
Pretty much legal everywhere except for the most liberal leaning and or anti gun States.
California, Illinois, New York, Mass., Hawaii, Delaware, New Jersey.......
I still use earplugs sometimes out of habit but they do seem to make a huge difference in the actual dB, tone and duration of the report without earplugs.
Especially inside.
I shot a suppressed Uzi loaned to me briefly from the local FBI office to shoot a few rounds and there was a huge difference between suppressed and not. Both in noise and heat.
Our Police team rifles are suppressed and were quiet and surprisingly accurate without subsonic ammo.
On account of our silly laws suppressors aren't legal on air-rifles either . --- The Benjamin Marauder is being sold (in the US) WITH a suppressor while here (in Canada) only the "stripped" version is available . --- Not too many crimes committed with air-rifles , BUT ------ !--- Since heavy .22 and .25 caliber pellets won't exceed the speed of sound (leaving THIS barrel) these guns are "absolutely" silent . --- NICE ! --- Perfect for "dropping" half-a-dozen squirrels before they'd wise-up .
Check You Tube - you can make your own silencers - one kind uses a oil filter-
A homemade one is still a prohibited device in CanadaQuote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
If we were to push this antis would just say "why not just ban guns entirely?"Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
It's not the antis we need to convince.
If they're made legal in Canada I'm sure manufacturers biggest market would be guys jacking deer. Home made versions usually affect accuracy too much to make them practical over longer distances.
The NFA has since largely marginalized itself, even among gun owners. But you're right Welsh, thanks to campaigns like that and the NFA's ill-conceived comments during the Moncton shootings, there's been some damage done. The CSSA being the remaining national gun owners' group seems more level-headed, but also needs to work on its image and profile. As far as the media is concerned, they think that CGN is the national gun lobby.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Dont forget the ccfr.. we are having a huge welcome from RCMP OPP and other police forces.. also having good luck with the government..Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Firearmrights.ca
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Certainly not with that attitude. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
I heard Steven Rinella talking about this on his podcast. Apparently a CO told him that hearing the gun shots actually helped him catch poachers. If the shot was outside the legal time and simply to locate the hunter in order to check his or her papers or issue a fine, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
I could never SEE someone wandering my land, but if they start shooting I hop on the bike and go to see who it is and what they are shooting at. And I have called the MNR at 2am because of shots down the road.
Its a mixed subject in this household...
Hunting issues aside, I think, at the very least, suppressors should be allowed for target shooting both on a certified range and at home on private property.
Baffles and over hanging roofs which are present at gun clubs reflect the report back at the shooter. Perhaps a suppressor might lessen the risk of hearing damage and quieter shots can only help with the neighbours. As far as private land, again, quieter shooting can only help with keeping the peace with the neighbours.
Here's a bombshell....a gunshot can damage the hearing of a child in the womb. Noise trauma can also have adverse effects on a fetus.
The use of a suppressor would eliminate this risk. Just sayin'...
A bit of fear mongering :rolleyes:?Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
The biggest market would be people who want to save their ears.
Absolutely. My wife did not shoot during her pregnancy. Also the inherent risk of lead during development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
We already have equipment to save our ears..and few guys wear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
How in heck would one verify that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
Have you ever had your head under water? How much 'above water' noise do you hear?
How is an unborn child different?
Problem is for most (me included) by the time you realise you should have, it's too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
People do wear ear protection on the range ... and still suffer hearing loss.
Few guys wear protection when hunting, but then again I never remember hearing the shot that was a confirmed kill..:)Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Reading "Predator Extreme " magazine, there are more varmint hunters using suppressors in the U.S. in the last year or two.
Every month there are articles about hunters using them and also a few adds from suppressor manufactures.
But not in Canada , where only the bad guys will use them according to our "law makers and enforcers ".
You can buy/have/posses a Maxim muffler for your car but not his other invention.
We don't tolerate loud and annoying automobiles today and car mufflers actually add to the quality of life for us when we are near automobiles.
The difference is that suppressors have an image problem due to politicians continuing to be out of touch with real world vs the make believe Hollywood world.
Simply put suppressors have an image problem.
Imagine the problem solving ability of allowing them at ranges. Surely an improvement in the quality of life in that area for homeowners and gun owners alike. Quite the advantage for hunting as one could hear game yet not damage hearing as happens today.
Even more tax money for the robber barons that govern.
The quickest way to suppressor approval is for elected officials to find themselves on the wrong side of the issue.
Many voters simply didn't see a need to care about suppressors or were supporters of suppressor legislation. Politicians against approval could find little support except from a few Chiefs of Police organizations(appointed by the mayors and obviously politically motivated) Many other LE organizations were silent or actively supported approval.
Once the politicians found themselves on the wrong side of the issue they quickly touted the fact that the LE community would still be involved somewhat in the process(Federal BATFE actually does and has always done the work) but it was close enough for the politicians to save face and of course attempt to spin it into their idea for approval and signing into law.
Boy how true - now that I can't hear very good I'm more concerned about wearing ear protection - its the higher frequencies that I can't hear anymore - like birds singing and the frogs down by the pond in the spring - I've tried hearing aids but just can't get used to them - when there is music in the background I have a real hard time hearing someone speak - the one thing though it is a lot more peaceful and quiet when I want it to be -Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Unfortunately it's too late for me already ; my sense of hearing has been irreparably damaged due to a "life-time" of shooting and engine-noise . Now-a-days I'm using hearing-protection (at the range) but that won't bring my hearing back anymore . --- I'd still like to be (legally) able to use a silencer , though , to "enhance public-relations" . The less racket we'd create , the less opposition we'd encounter . --- It also wouldn't spook game to the same degree as an unsilenced gun does . --- Occasionally I sit (undetected) in a Beech- or Oak-grove and drop ~ half-a-dozen squirrels and grouse before moving on . --- I like to utilize an air-rifle for that . It would be nice if a silencer-equipped gun , like the Benjamin Marauder , would be legal . --- My gun is NOT silenced and it "disturbs the "peace" (in that patch of bush) for longer than a "quiet" one would . --- Oh well , generally I "score" anyway BUT it involves more time .
I've only recently first heard of the CCFR. I presume they are relatively new?Quote:
Originally Posted by topher
We need in Canada an effective gun lobby with a more credible public image. The few TV appearances that I've seen from current pro-firearms spokespeople were cringe-worthy.
Ccfr first Agm will be this year so yes they are new. Any question pm me here and I'll give you my email.. or check out firearmrights.ca
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
There's now a website on the subject of sound moderators in Canada:
http://soundmoderatorscanada.ca/
Plus, things are gearing up for a Parliamentary Petition.
The non-parliamentary petition (to show MPs that it is worth supporting) is located here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/s...al-prohibition
Necroposting a bit, I know, but this thread already existed and fits the bill.
Text of the current petition
Quote:
We, the undersigned, Citizens and Residents of Canada, call upon the individual Members of the Parliment of Canada to:
Sponsor the following petition as an official e-petition to the Government of Canada.
Petition to the Government of Canada
Whereas:
Highly damaging noise levels repeatedly reach the ears of firearm users despite the use of traditional hearing protection.
Section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognises an individual’s right to personal health and safety.
Sound moderators are the only universally recognised health and safety device that has a criminal prohibition in Canada.
As affirmed in Bedford v. Canada at the Supreme Court of Canada, one cannot be prevented from taking reasonable steps to improve personal safety in a hazardous situation.
The majority of G7 nations and many others have recognised the health and safety benefits involved, and allow the legal use of sound moderators by hunters and sport shooters.
Sound moderators reduce noise pollution and noise complaints in communities with shooting ranges, in rural and farm communities, and in areas used for recreational activities where hunting and target shooting is legal.
Sound moderators facilitate significantly increased humane husbandry of game animals, livestock, and pets as hunting companions.
Hearing damage is a significant quality of life and public health issue costing taxpayers millions annually.
We, the undersigned, Citizens and Residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to:
Take a stand and empower Canadian's to be responsible for their own health and safety by removing the prohibition of sound moderators from the Criminal Code of Canada.
Allow the legal acquisition, possession, and use of sound moderators on firearms by all licensed firearms users in Canada.
Call upon the provinces and territories to amend provincial and territorial prohibitions and allow the use of sound moderators while engaged in all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.
Oh, how nice it would be...
http://americansuppressorassociation...smens-package/Quote:
The House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing for the morning of June 14, in which the Federal Lands Subcommittee will hear a discussion draft of the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. The SHARE Act, which is being championed in a bipartisan manner by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Co-Chairs Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Representative Gene Green (D-TX), is a comprehensive package that covers a wide range of hunting, fishing, and outdoor related issues. Included in the legislation is Title XVII, a strengthened version of the Hearing Protection Act.
Since the re-introduction of the Hearing Protection Act by Rep. Duncan and Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) in January (H.R. 367, S. 59) the American Suppressor Association (ASA) has met with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on multiple occasions to discuss technical amendments to the language. As a result, we were able to create several technical amendments that were incorporated into the current draft of the SHARE Act. These include:
Sec. 1702: Removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act, subjecting them to the same instant NICS background check as long guns, and issuing a refundable tax credit to anyone who has purchased a suppressor since the HPA’s original date of introduction
Sec. 1703: Ensuring that suppressors will remain legal in all 42 states where they are currently legal, after suppressors are removed from the National Firearms Act
Sec. 1704: Preempting states from levying taxes or registration requirements on suppressors. However, this will not make suppressors legal in any state where state law currently prohibits them.
Sec. 1705: Granting the ATF 365 days to destroy all suppressor related records from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR)
Sec. 1706: Developing a “keystone part” definition, and requiring that such keystone part is serialized on every suppressor. This will ensure that individual suppressor parts, like pistons and endcaps, will not require serialization.
Sec. 1707: Imposing a 10% Pittman-Robertson excise tax on the manufacture of each new suppressor, a tax that is currently imposed on all Title I firearms
“The inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act in the sportsmen’s package highlights the commitment of the Sportsmen’s Caucus to make the hunting and recreational shooting experiences safer and more enjoyable for all,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “We know for a fact that exposure to noise from recreational firearms is one of the leading causes of hearing loss, which is why the CDC, NIOSH, and the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) have all recommended using suppressors as a tool to mitigate the danger. We look forward to working with the Sportsmen’s Caucus to make this legislation a reality.”
Suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Currently, prospective buyers must live in one of the 42 states where they are legal, must send in an application including fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax, and wait for an indeterminate amount of time for the ATF to process the application. As of June, 2017, wait times are in excess of 10 months. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.
To voice your support for the Hearing Protection Act, visit www.HearingProtectionAct.com.
Prohibited.....you might as well be hunting with a handgun
Yes. Thanks. We all know. That's why this thread exists.
My avatar pretty much sums up what side of the debate I am on. Less noise to piss off my neighbors, additional hearing protection (especially when hunting) and less recoil. What's not to like?
I think both petitions have now officially closed.
I don't know when they will be presented in the HOC though.
Nope, I was wrong for the electronic petition:Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
Closed for signature : June 17, 2017, at 4:16 p.m. (EDT)
3 hours to get another few signatures if you want.