Effect of Federal "Hearing Protection Act", removing silencers from NFA

[mikem317]

Sorry, wrong subforum.

 

[tuna]

shit I don't know if a federal law to make mandatory suppressor legality becomes possible, I'd consider tattooing trump on my back. That would perma-win him people for life.

Would that be a Trump-Stamp?

 

[knfmn]

I hope it allows it here. Silencers/suppressors not being allowed here in MA is the stupidest thing about this place.

If you think that suppressors not being allowed in MA is the stupidest thing about this place, hold on tight because there is some very advanced levels of stupidity in this state. You just have to think about things for a minute or two.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I hope it allows it here. Silencers/suppressors not being allowed here in MA is the stupidest thing about this place.

Especially considering how many socialist euro hellholes (you know, the ones our legislators idolize) allow them, and some actually REQUIRE them.

My father, a retired LEO, believes that it's not just misconceptions that've kept them out, but communities across the state which have invested in some kind of expensive gunshot-location devices which are mounted on telephone poles and used to triangulate shootings. I'm not familiar with the technology but it was just coming about when he retired.

 

[Kevin_NH]

. . . costs about $40,000 per square mile per year. ...

My father, a retired LEO, believes that it's not just misconceptions that've kept them out, but communities across the state which have invested in some kind of expensive gunshot-location devices which are mounted on telephone poles and used to triangulate shootings. I'm not familiar with the technology but it was just coming about when he retired.

That would probably be "ShotSpotter", the company is definitely opposed to relaxing laws on silencers, even though they have claimed in the past that "suppressors should not interfere with shot spotters as long as the sound profile is entered in the scanner database."

Here's all I found on the topic from their website:

Phil Dailly, Shotspotter southeast region director, gave a presentation on the technology
. . . costs about $40,000 per square mile per year. ...
Shotspotter typically recommends the technology be deployed in targeted areas of the community and not the whole city. But cities are encouraged not to tell the public exactly where the sensors are located, and Dailly said cities often see improvements in the crime statistics citywide, not just in the targeted areas. Dailly said the technology also can distinguish between different caliber guns and can help investigators determine if multiple guns were used in a crime. It also can determine the direction of fire, and if the shot was fired from a moving vehicle. The technology works best when shots are fired outdoors. If the shots are fired inside with all the windows and doors closed, it may not pick up the noise, Dailly said. The technology will not detect shots fired if a silencer is used. The technology has saved lives, Dailly said, alerting police to gunshots where they found shooting victims when no one had called police. Sixty-five U.S. communities have the technology, including large cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Minneapolis,

Ralph Clark, president and CEO of ShotSpotter, said in cases where the person shooting the gun isn’t using a silencer and is within the boundaries of the ShotSpotter technology, the sensors still might miss the gunshot if someone is killed execution style — the acoustic energy would be absorbed by the body. But that doesn’t happen often across the 90 cities using the system, he added.

I suspect that eventually ShotSpotter will wise up, realize that they can sell customers a special "suppressor detection" hardware upgrade, and pull even more money out of municipal budgets.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

That would probably be "ShotSpotter"....

Thanks for the info.

Nice to see our money "well spent" *cough cough*

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think this is a double-edged sword. While the MA legislature might have been receptive to the idea of repealing the ban in this state, the fact that the new Congress and President are behind changing the federal law will probably result in a reflexive reaction against the state bill. If Donald Trump's son is for it, we need to be against it. The Mass bill had a better chance last term.

My understanding is that the shot spotter people have NOT been open with law enforcement regarding how the system works with suppressed firearms. It may be that shot spotter relies more on the bullet's sonic properties than it does on the combustion part of the equation.