Ohio Sportsman - Your Ohio Hunting and Fishing Resource banner

Silencers for hunting?

9K views 82 replies 24 participants last post by  Deehntr56 
#1 ·
Channel 12 in Cincinnati just reported about a bill going to the Senate for the use of silencers for certain types of hunting. Anybody else hear anything bout this? Mentioned hearing loss and "not disturbing the neighbors" as reasons why. The 24/7, 365 days a year hunters oughta love this. :thumbdown::thumbdown:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
 
#3 ·
I don't see any issue, poachers will always be poachers. Not to mention, in many European countries they are required to reduce noise pollution, and as a result are much cheaper.

I know of a few states (there's probably quite a few) that allow their use during hunting seasons.

Truth be told, they do take away a lot of the muzzle blast, but the sonic boom is still very much part of the equation.

Why they're an NFA item is beyond me, Hollywood has unfortunately painted a false picture of how a silencer actually works... Some things will never change though.
 
#4 ·
I don't like it. It just makes it easier to poach. Add this to the "No plugs" rule change and the call in game check and whatever else makes it easier to poach and it just means less guys will get caught.

Silencers require a $200.00 tax stamp to own one. Plus the price of the silencer. You will need a gun with a threaded barrel to attach it. Just more cost.

If they are legal I can see certain townships or villages requiring them to be used in certain areas. They can make their own rules about stuff like that.
 
#5 ·
I don't like it. It just makes it easier to poach. Add this to the "No plugs" rule change and the call in game check and whatever else makes it easier to poach and it just means less guys will get caught.

Silencers require a $200.00 tax stamp to own one. Plus the price of the silencer. You will need a gun with a threaded barrel to attach it. Just more cost.

If they are legal I can see certain townships or villages requiring them to be used in certain areas. They can make their own rules about stuff like that.
Nothing stopping people who want to poach with a silencer from doing it now... They're legal in Ohio anyways, so seeing someone with one on a rifle wouldn't raise eyebrows.

Aside from that I saw it mentioned that it might be allowed for gun season. I've never come across any for slug guns, maybe they're out there. Mine have all been with rifles.
 
#6 ·
I don't like it. It just makes it easier to poach. Add this to the "No plugs" rule change and the call in game check and whatever else makes it easier to poach and it just means less guys will get caught.

Silencers require a $200.00 tax stamp to own one. Plus the price of the silencer. You will need a gun with a threaded barrel to attach it. Just more cost.

If they are legal I can see certain townships or villages requiring them to be used in certain areas. They can make their own rules about stuff like that.
that's a lot of cost just tuh quiet a gun a tad...nuff tuh say i'm not interested in one...:biggrin:
 
#9 · (Edited by Moderator)
I don't like it. It just makes it easier to poach. Add this to the "No plugs" rule change and the call in game check and whatever else makes it easier to poach and it just means less guys will get caught.
I must respectfully dis-agree with you. It's the same logic that the store owner who puts a sign in the window saying "no guns allowed" will somehow discourage criminals. Legal owners of suppressors have already passed a federal background check, fingerprinted, photographed, police chief signed off on ownership, currently endured 1 year waiting period, and threatened with felony charges if used in the commission of a crime. All so they can poach? It's plain illogical.
You claim to "support your sport". Where you also against Sunday hunting, Dove hunting, handgun hunting for deer and the many other positive changes hunters have been granted over the years? There are always these horror stories of doom if new rights are granted. Remember CCW and how the streets would run red with blood? Repeat for CCW in bar's a couple years ago. Please remember there are law abiding people and then there are criminals, the gun doesn't change that.
The fact is that if granted this new right will be beneficial to those that choose to do so. I would love to shoot groundhogs all afternoon without the noise, or coyote hunt at night without waking up the county.
Let's all try to be more understanding of other people's right's even if we choose not to exercise them ourselves. Whether it gun rights, smokers rights, hunter's rights or whatever. As a fellow NRA member I hope we can agree on that.

Wouldn't this also be the logic that the likes of Bloomberg or Schumer use to advance gun control. " We must remove guns from law abiding individuals because they can't be trusted to do the right thing with them."
 
#10 ·
Please explain?
Sorry about that.

If you click the link above and then click on "details" next to the vote information, it will tell you which Reps voted yeas and nays. If the votes do not align with your beliefs then vote accordingly at the next election cycle.

In my opinion the 15 nays should not get another term in office but your opinions may vary.
 
#11 ·
Sorry about that.

If you click the link above and then click on "details" next to the vote information, it will tell you which Reps voted yeas and nays. If the votes do not align with your beliefs then vote accordingly at the next election cycle.

In my opinion the 15 nays should not get another term in office but your opinions may vary.
Thank you for the explanation and I would agree that is how our system of government is supposed to work. I also concur withyour desire to see these 15 not re-elected while choosing to support the 76 Reps who voted yea. Just didn't know which side of the fence you were on.
 
#12 ·
I don't have an issue with using a silencer. However, this sets a bad precedence.

Wildlife and hunting laws should go through the proposal-comment-Wildlife Council-legislature cycle.

Having legislators make these rules outside of the process is a slippery slope.
 
#13 ·
I must respectfully dis-agree with you. It's the same logic that the store owner who puts a sign in the window saying "no guns allowed" will somehow discourage criminals. Legal owners of suppressors have already passed a federal background check, fingerprinted, photographed, police chief signed off on ownership, currently endured 1 year waiting period, and threatened with felony charges if used in the commission of a crime. All so they can poach? It's plain illogical.
You claim to "support your sport". Where you also against Sunday hunting, Dove hunting, handgun hunting for deer and the many other positive changes hunters have been granted over the years? There are always these horror stories of doom if new rights are granted. Remember CCW and how the streets would run red with blood? Repeat for CCW in bar's a couple years ago. Please remember there are law abiding people and then there are criminals, the gun doesn't change that.
The fact is that if granted this new right will be beneficial to those that choose to do so. I would love to shoot groundhogs all afternoon without the noise, or coyote hunt at night without waking up the county.
Let's all try to be more understanding of other people's right's even if we choose not to exercise them ourselves. Whether it gun rights, smokers rights, hunter's rights or whatever. As a fellow NRA member I hope we can agree on that.

Wouldn't this also be the logic that the likes of Bloomberg or Schumer use to advance gun control. " We must remove guns from law abiding individuals because they can't be trusted to do the right thing with them."
but theres rilly no reason to change the plugged mag.law sice we can shoot 3 rounds only...anybuddy wanting that change wants to loader up...:D
 
#14 ·
I believe that silenced weapons(air guns to shotguns to rifles) and silencers are allowed in Great Britain and are essentially OTC purchases with minimal paper requirements.
Noise-reduction is the angle played there.

I expect 14 year-old boys would and do love silenced weapons here...pretty well explains the allure.
Beyond that, people spend their money for deer corn...might as well buy silencers.
Poaching?...eh.
 
#15 · (Edited by Moderator)
Hiller, apparently they are not legal to hunt with if they are working on a law for it now.

Ben C. , I believe your analogies do not represent my stance on things.

I have nothing against a law abiding citizen owning a silencer, tank, RPG, machine gun or anything else. In fact I wish I could have all of those. I also think the $200.00 tax stamp for the suppressor, and the 6 month wait to get it is ridiculous.

You guys just don't get what I'm saying. It all comes down to what should be legal to hunt with. Not own. And I do believe the easier it is for someone to poach, the more tempted they will be to do it. If you walk by someones car and see $1.00 laying on the seat would it cross your mind to take it? I would say not for most. But, If there was $1000.00 laying there it would not last long. For those with that mindset it is all about the ease and risk vs. the reward.

How do you guys feel about night vision scopes being used so you can take advantage of those prime time low light legal last few or first few minutes? Maybe lasers. Do you have a line in the sand you would not cross on what should be legal? Or, should it be anything goes for hunting? BTW, I started a new thread about this so this one won't get hijacked.
 
#16 ·
Hiller, apparently they are not legal to hunt with if they are working on a law for it now.

Ben C. , I believe your analogies do not represent my stance on things.

I have nothing against a law abiding citizen owning a silencer, tank, RPG, machine gun or anything else. In fact I wish I could have all of those. I also think the $200.00 tax stamp for the suppressor, and the 6 month wait to get it is ridiculous.

You guys just don't get what I'm saying. It all comes down to what should be legal to hunt with. Not own. And I do believe the easier it is for someone to poach, the more tempted they will be to do it. If you walk by someones car and see $1.00 laying on the seat would it cross your mind to take it? I would say not for most. But, If there was $1000.00 laying there it would not last long. For those with that mindset it is all about the ease and risk vs. the reward.

How do you guys feel about night vision scopes being used so you can take advantage of those prime time low light legal last few or first few minutes? Maybe lasers. Do you have a line in the sand you would not cross on what should be legal? Or, should it be anything goes for hunting?
I think they'll pick anything goes,prolly the same bunch complainin bout low deer numbers too...:biggrin:
 
#17 ·
I don't have an issue with using a silencer. However, this sets a bad precedence.

Wildlife and hunting laws should go through the proposal-comment-Wildlife Council-legislature cycle.

Having legislators make these rules outside of the process is a slippery slope.
This was amended in ORC 2923.17:

(8) Persons who own a dangerous ordnance that is a firearm muffler or silencer attached to a gun that is authorized to be used for hunting by section 1533.16 of the Revised Code and who are authorized to use such a dangerous ordnance by section 1533.04 of the Revised Code.

Suppressors are considered a "dangerous ordnance".

I know what you are thinking. How is an inanimate metal tube with some holes and stuff in it "dangerous"? This is the sort of thing that happens when voters are asleep at the wheel.

I am guessing here...I think the law had to be changed in order to create a mechanism for them to be allowed for use while hunting because of the way existing law was written.
 
#18 ·
Hiller, apparently they are not legal to hunt with if they are working on a law for it now.

Ben C. , I believe your analogies do not represent my stance on things.

I have nothing against a law abiding citizen owning a silencer, tank, RPG, machine gun or anything else. In fact I wish I could have all of those. I also think the $200.00 tax stamp for the suppressor, and the 6 month wait to get it is ridiculous.

You guys just don't get what I'm saying. It all comes down to what should be legal to hunt with. Not own. And I do believe the easier it is for someone to poach, the more tempted they will be to do it. If you walk by someones car and see $1.00 laying on the seat would it cross your mind to take it? I would say not for most. But, If there was $1000.00 laying there it would not last long. For those with that mindset it is all about the ease and risk vs. the reward.

How do you guys feel about night vision scopes being used so you can take advantage of those prime time low light legal last few or first few minutes? Maybe lasers. Do you have a line in the sand you would not cross on what should be legal? Or, should it be anything goes for hunting? BTW, I started a new thread about this so this one won't get hijacked.
Hunting aside, my point was that they're legal to own and use on a firearm in Ohio already. There are some states where they are not legal at all.
 
#19 ·
.

You guys just don't get what I'm saying. It all comes down to what should be legal to hunt with.
I was only hoping to generate support for an advancement in the hunting experience. Suppressors do not make the legal taking of game one iota easier as you have compared lasers, and night vision. Nothing to do with caliber, magazine, action or hunting hours.
Personally I am quite insulted that close minded people think no matter how many thousands of dollars someone has spent on their weapons that they should not be able to hunt with them because someone else might commit a crime. Or are you saying I might? It's like saying you can't have a car that will do 100MPH because you will speed. Might I also remind you this passed the House with a 5 to 1 ratio (very hard to do) and the DOW is not against it. Just maybe there is some merit to it.

I'm old enough to remember the debate of allowing "wheel bows" for deer hunting and how it would destroy the sport. There will always be mental midgets that want to impose their idea of the "moral way to hunt" on the masses.

I'm also old enough to know it is futile to attempt to change the opinion of small minded people. I would rather exhaust my time and resources defeating them. You can pick up your rock and stick and go hunting, then you'll be the most "moral" of all hunters.

P.S. Why/how did the spelling impaired retard turn this into a deer hunting issue.
 
#20 ·
I was only hoping to generate support for an advancement in the hunting experience. Suppressors do not make the legal taking of game one iota easier as you have compared lasers, and night vision. Nothing to do with caliber, magazine, action or hunting hours.
Personally I am quite insulted that close minded people think no matter how many thousands of dollars someone has spent on their weapons that they should not be able to hunt with them because someone else might commit a crime. Or are you saying I might? It's like saying you can't have a car that will do 100MPH because you will speed. Might I also remind you this passed the House with a 5 to 1 ratio (very hard to do) and the DOW is not against it. Just maybe there is some merit to it.

I'm old enough to remember the debate of allowing "wheel bows" for deer hunting and how it would destroy the sport. There will always be mental midgets that want to impose their idea of the "moral way to hunt" on the masses.

I'm also old enough to know it is futile to attempt to change the opinion of small minded people. I would rather exhaust my time and resources defeating them. You can pick up your rock and stick and go hunting, then you'll be the most "moral" of all hunters.

P.S. Why/how did the spelling impaired retard turn this into a deer hunting issue.
Good post.
 
#21 ·
Good post.
theres a lot of hunters that will"respectfully"disagree with you...and that's their right,you seem to think its your way or the highway...you mention you respectfully disagree then you start name calling...at least stay respectfull especially of fellow gunners or hunters...let people express their opinions and not attack the disrespectfully with the name calling...or do you think it doesn't apply to you...I guess that's a debate too...:Das for me i'm not for it...but I care less if it passes...but i'm not using it...hopefully it doesn't harm my hearing...that is a legitimate claim...but if its as loud as a 22...that can cause hearing loss...just my opinion...:D
 
#25 ·
theres a lot of hunters that will"respectfully"disagree with you...and that's their right,you seem to think its your way or the highway...you mention you respectfully disagree then you start name calling...at least stay respectfull especially of fellow gunners or hunters...let people express their opinions and not attack the disrespectfully with the name calling...or do you think it doesn't apply to you...I guess that's a debate too...:Das for me i'm not for it...but I care less if it passes...but i'm not using it...hopefully it doesn't harm my hearing...that is a legitimate claim...but if its as loud as a 22...that can cause hearing loss...just my opinion...:D
You can always tell when someone knows they have no facts to bring to the table. They start name calling. I think I have looked at this from all angles. Because I don't agree does not mean I'm closed minded.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top