Legislative Alert - Sound Suppressor Bill Hearing July 14

Mike S

Mike S

NES Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,582
Likes
1,468
Location
The PRM
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
From GOAL:

GOAL has learned that there will be a public hearing for the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on Tuesday July 14th at 1:00 PM in room A2.

Joint Committee on the Judiciary Hearing, Tuesday July 14th 1:00 PM
GOAL has learned that there will be a public hearing for the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on Tuesday July 14th at 1:00 PM in room A2. Click here to see the full listing of bills to be heard.

The committee will be hearing testimony regarding GOAL's H.1305, " An Act relative to suppressors".

At this time section 10A of Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws bans the use of suppressors in Massachusetts unless the individual is a federally licensed manufacturer or law enforcement officer. This bill does away with the state prohibition. It also puts in place the federal definition for suppressor and creates severe penalties for the criminal use of such devices.

Our friends at the American Suppressor Association have a fantastic page which nicely illustrates how the bulk of states have far less regulation regarding owning a suppressor, please click here to read.

Please join us at the hearing in support of this important legislation.
Click to expand...

link to email with active links for more info: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...tend-.html?soid=1101878640504&aid=7Idugg1SAig
 
I'd love to see the elimination of flash suppressors/hiders inserted somehow. The text seems to only cover the suppression of the report (sound). Bunching flash suppressors into this could be beneficial... at least a negotiating point if this ever goes anywhere.
 
Reminder: the MA State House has TSA like screening to enter, you can't even bring a pocket knife in. Keep that in mind if you plan to attend.
 
Is there any chance of this going anywhere? This is exactly the thing I have been waiting for for a long time. We should show up in droves to show our support.

Edit: this should be posted on the front page.
 
Last edited:
Great - so the moms without brains have a gun violence thing at MGH from 9-12 and can still make it to this hearing at 1.
It is pathetic that we have to fight so hard in this state for natural rights.
We probably need to turn out in large numbers for this to offset the idiots
 
a co worker asked me about this and said, why would you need one unless you were trying to kill someone and not make a nose. facepalm
 
AngelKing said:
a co worker asked me about this and said, why would you need one unless you were trying to kill someone and not make a nose. facepalm
Click to expand...
Can't facepalm - push that it is about being a good neighbor and quieting down ranges. Push safety angle - less hearing loss. Push less intimidating to new female shooters who may be interested in being able to defend themselves but have been scared of the whole process

Most people only know certain talking points - (often the narrative from the antis) we need to get the truth/our side out
 
Mike S said:
it would bring MA in line with the bulk of the country, all federal paperwork would still need to be filed, see this page for info: http://americansuppressorassociation.com/education/
Click to expand...

Mike, tell me if I am wrong?

If this were to pass into law, it would however conflict with our AWB (for most cases) which prohibits post-ban threaded rifle barrels unless it was permanently attached (or they used some twist-lock scheme). Unless any potential conflict were to be corrected, it would still be problematic.
 
the likelihood of this passing is zero +/- zero %.

that being said if i werent stuck at work i would be at the state house too! props to GOAL and everyone who is able to attend this.
 
Len-2A Training said:
Mike, tell me if I am wrong?

If this were to pass into law, it would however conflict with our AWB (for most cases) which prohibits post-ban threaded rifle barrels unless it was permanently attached (or they used some twist-lock scheme). Unless any potential conflict were to be corrected, it would still be problematic.
Click to expand...

Even if were permanently attached or use a twist lock system, there's still the problem of flash suppression (unless it's somehow addressed per Skeeters
post), for AR's, AK's etc.
 
Len-2A Training said:
Mike, tell me if I am wrong?

If this were to pass into law, it would however conflict with our AWB (for most cases) which prohibits post-ban threaded rifle barrels unless it was permanently attached (or they used some twist-lock scheme). Unless any potential conflict were to be corrected, it would still be problematic.
Click to expand...
Some muzzle brakes accept a suppressor that locks over it. The brake would be still pinned and welded on, which should cover the threaded barrel part of the AWB, right? Surefire brakes and suppressors are an example.
 
CobaltBlueSteel said:
Some muzzle brakes accept a suppressor that locks over it. The brake would be still pinned and welded on, which should cover the threaded barrel part of the AWB, right? Surefire brakes and suppressors are an example.
Click to expand...

All of that only applies to semi-automatic anyway per the AWB, but yes with a pinned & welded muzzle break you would be fine. Bolt actions would be fair game.
 
Seems as if GOAL should be marketing this as a safety issue--reducing ear-splitting noise while encouraging the use of low-velocity ammo. After all, the opposition will cite safety in terms of seeing bad guys use "silencers" on TV. Easy to make disarmament enthusiasts look like ignorant anti-safety chumps.
 
CobaltBlueSteel said:
Some muzzle brakes accept a suppressor that locks over it. The brake would be still pinned and welded on, which should cover the threaded barrel part of the AWB, right? Surefire brakes and suppressors are an example.
Click to expand...

correct, the two most popular suppressor mfg's make MA compliant muzzle brakes that can be legally added to any rifle in MA.

- - - Updated - - -

I had a nice one added to my Rem700 [smile]
View attachment 141522

DispositionMatrix said:
Seems as if GOAL should be marketing this as a safety issue--reducing ear-splitting noise while encouraging the use of low-velocity ammo. After all, the opposition will cite safety in terms of seeing bad guys use "silencers" on TV. Easy to make disarmament enthusiasts look like ignorant anti-safety chumps.
Click to expand...

GOAL had suppressors at the education day for legislators and it was a huge success, really opened a lot of eyes.
 
Last edited:
Mike S said:
correct, the two most popular suppressor mfg's make MA compliant muzzle brakes that can be legally added to any rifle in MA.

- - - Updated - - -



GOAL had suppressors at the education day for legislators and it was a huge success, really opened a lot of eyes.
Click to expand...
Right, but legislators really personally care about nothing and will react to the shrill cries of Everytown/MDA when they start screaming about suppressors killing the children. No MA pol is going to be the one who put our children's lives at risk to appease the evil gun lobby.
 
jjman15 said:
All of that only applies to semi-automatic anyway per the AWB, but yes with a pinned & welded muzzle break you would be fine. Bolt actions would be fair game.
Click to expand...

On a post-ban, large capacity, semi-auto rifle it would still be illegal as a sound suppressor also has the functionality of a flash suppressor....

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

MAR 25 1999 903050:CHB
3311


Dear Mr. Bardwell:

This refers to your letter of January 13, 1999, in which you ask
about flash suppressors. As you are aware, the term flash
suppressor appears in the definition of a semiautomatic assault
weapon in section 921(a)(30) of Title 18, United States Code. The
term flash suppressor is not specifically defined in the statute.

A flash suppressor is a device which diminishes the visible flash
which occurs at the muzzle of a firearm as the bullet leaves the
barrel. While certain devices are exclusively designed as flash
suppressors, many other muzzle attachments are designed to perform
multiple functions such as a combination flash suppressor and
grenade launcher, or a combination flash suppressor and muzzle
break. Any such combination devices which function as a flash
suppressor would qualify as a flash suppressor for purposes of
section 921(a)(30)(B)(iv).

A firearm silencer or muffler would also function as an effective
flash suppressor; therefore, a semiautomatic rifle, such as an AR-
15, having a silencer or muffler and a pistol grip would qualify as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as that term is defined in section
921(a)(30)(B).


We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If you have further questions concerning this matter, please
contact us.

Sincerely yours,


Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Click to expand...

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter51.txt

I know... it's an ATF ruling from 1999 regarding the since expired federal AWB, and the ATF's current position is that they couldn't give a
flying **** about 'evil black rifles' or MA firearms laws.

That would pretty much leave it up to our illustrious AG to define what a flash suppressor is or isn't... anyone want to guess on how
that would turn out?
 
LoginName said:
On a post-ban, large capacity, semi-auto rifle it would still be illegal as a sound suppressor also has the functionality of a flash suppressor....



http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter51.txt

I know... it's an ATF ruling from 1999 regarding the since expired federal AWB, and the ATF's current position is that they couldn't give a
flying **** about 'evil black rifles' or MA firearms laws.

That would pretty much leave it up to our illustrious AG to define what a flash suppressor is or isn't... anyone want to guess on how
that would turn out?
Click to expand...

I thought the common rule around here is that if the product specifically SAYS it is a flash hider or flash suppressor on the manufacturer's specs, it is a no go. There are many muzzle devices that advertise "flash suppression" but are marketed as compensators, making them legal in MA. This would probably work for suppressors/silencers as well, because even though they have flash suppressing characteristics, is in fact not a "flash hider" and not marketed as one.
 
Last edited:
Da_lucche said:
I thought the common rule around here is that if the product specifically SAYS it is a flash hider or flash suppressor on the manufacturer's specs, it is a no go. There are many muzzle devices that advertise "flash suppression" but are marketed as compensators, making them legal in MA. This would probably work for suppressors/silencers as well, because even though they have flash suppressing characteristics, is in fact not a "flash hider" and not marketed as one.
Click to expand...

Since the AG's office has regularly refused to provide any rulings or determination of what is legal or illegal in this state, the common rule (at least on NES),
has pretty much been what was legal/illegal under the 94 AWB and ATF decisions.

The compensators you mention are probably 'legal' only because no one from the AG's office or State Police has pressed the issue or conducted any
testing to measure any flash suppression.

When the federal AWB was in play, manufacturers would submit examples of their muzzle devices to the ATF's tech branch to determine, certify and
provide documentation if their product was indeed a flash suppressor or not.

Now since the AWB has met it's rightful resting place, the ATF no longer provides any testing.

I'm guessing any determination would have to come from the AG's office, and the ATF letter clearly states that " A firearm silencer or muffler would
also function as an effective flash suppressor" and the AG would simply take the easy way out and go by that decision.

Making it even more likely... trying to get noise suppressors legalized in this state is going to be a hard enough battle.
Throwing "evil black rifles" into the mix will only have even more disastrous results.

Unless someone becomes a test case, bottom line is no really knows, and if they do, they're not saying.
 
jjman15 said:
All of that only applies to semi-automatic anyway per the AWB, but yes with a pinned & welded muzzle break you would be fine. Bolt actions would be fair game.
Click to expand...

so do you find that acceptable? im so tired of hearing AWB cast aside as if all gun owners in MA dont care.
 
If the legislation isn't written correctly and the existing MGL corrected as a result we will end up with another huge grey area akin to SBR's. I believe this is what Login is fretting about.

When was the last time a flash suppressor violation was prosecuted? Has one ever been? If the law isn't enforced it loses its efficacy.
 
LoginName said:
Since the AG's office has regularly refused to provide any rulings or determination of what is legal or illegal in this state, the common rule (at least on NES),
has pretty much been what was legal/illegal under the 94 AWB and ATF decisions.

The compensators you mention are probably 'legal' only because no one from the AG's office or State Police has pressed the issue or conducted any
testing to measure any flash suppression.

When the federal AWB was in play, manufacturers would submit examples of their muzzle devices to the ATF's tech branch to determine, certify and
provide documentation if their product was indeed a flash suppressor or not.

Now since the AWB has met it's rightful resting place, the ATF no longer provides any testing.

I'm guessing any determination would have to come from the AG's office, and the ATF letter clearly states that " A firearm silencer or muffler would
also function as an effective flash suppressor" and the AG would simply take the easy way out and go by that decision.

Making it even more likely... trying to get noise suppressors legalized in this state is going to be a hard enough battle.
Throwing "evil black rifles" into the mix will only have even more disastrous results.

Unless someone becomes a test case, bottom line is no really knows, and if they do, they're not saying.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of how the AG would likely act.

Also unlike the BATFE, who has technical people that actually know which end the bullets come out, MA has no such expertise. Having recently seen what a veteran MSP Trooper/Ballistics "ex-spurt" had for a resume wrt firearms expertise (he visited a dozen or so factories) and what he wrote and testified to wrt a low-capacity gun/mag/clip (yes the SKS has both) being large-capacity, I would have less than 0% faith in their reviewing any suppressor against the AWB!
 

Similar threads

MagLite suppressor
Replies
5
Views
201
pcgod
P
GOAL ALERT – Legislative Hearing
Replies
9
Views
907
MainelyFree
MainelyFree
Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
785
Garys
Garys
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Grand Jury Declines to Prosecute Texas Mother Who Shot 14-Year-Old Boy During Break-In
Replies
2
Views
165
Agnotology
Agnotology
Back
Top Bottom