Silencers for Georgia hunters – so’s not to bother the neighbors
For hunters who prefer trenchcoats and fedoras to safety vests and gimme caps, from the Associated Press:
A Georgia Senate proposal would end the ban on silencers for hunting firearms.
Senate Bill 301 is sponsored by Sen. John Bulloch, who says allowing hunters to use silencers would keep them from disturbing their neighbors. The Ochlocknee Republican says hunters would still have to have a federal permit to possess a silencer.The bill has been assigned to the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which Bulloch co-chairs. Sen. Ross Tolleson, a Republican from Perry who co-sponsored of the bill, is the committee’s chairman.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
85 comments Add your comment
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
3:34 pm
Georgia: Always Leading The Way
Cliff
January 12th, 2012
3:46 pm
Now if we could affix silencers to the Georgia Senate, we would really be getting somewhere. Of course, a disadvantage for taxpayers would be the sharp increase in the Capitol’s heating bill this winter due to the lack of its naturally occurring source of hot air.
Chris
January 12th, 2012
3:50 pm
There shouldn’t really be much value in using silencers for hunting… hunting rifles, almost without exception, discharge high-powered supersonic rounds. A supersonic projectile makes a sonic boom — there’s no way around it.
FS
January 12th, 2012
3:54 pm
Once again the conservative Georgia Senate ignores real problems like jobs and education.
td
January 12th, 2012
4:03 pm
Sounds like a sound piece of legislation to me.
Don't Tread
January 12th, 2012
4:05 pm
“For hunters who prefer trenchcoats and fedoras” suggests that hunters (and all other gun owners, by extension) have criminal intent. Not surprising, coming from a Democrat.
And of course, mum’s the word on Fast and Furious. Nothing to see there, move along.
Keith
January 12th, 2012
4:08 pm
As someone who lives in the country and has a nearby neighbor who likes to disturb everyone with gunfire – this bill would be a godsend. I’d buy the silencer for him!
GaBlue
January 12th, 2012
4:13 pm
Don’t Tread (on your last brain cell, you might need it),
Mr. Galloway is doing his JOB, which is to report to us what the buzzards in the Georgia Senate are doing. The bill is about silencers which are generally associated (by sane, rational people) with stealth. The reference to trenchcoats and fedoras to introduce the topic is a literary mechanism that injects color into otherwise dry prose.
Furthermore, if you think Democrats in Georgia are unarmed… Heh.. heh heh… I caution you against trying to surprise one of us in our homes.
JV
January 12th, 2012
4:19 pm
From the December issue of The American Rifleman:
We hear the same story from countless hunters and shooters who might not realize that a lack of hearing protection can result in lasting hearing loss—until it’s too late. Billions of dollars are spent every year in our healthcare system for hearing loss conditions, such as shooting-related tinnitus.
Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called “silencers” in federal law) are an additional tool available to help protect our hearing and are quickly gaining in popularity throughout the country.
The Snark
January 12th, 2012
4:19 pm
@ Don’t Tread:
Wow, dude, you just hit the low water mark for paranoia and churlishness. Even td made a pretty good funny on this one.
td
January 12th, 2012
4:27 pm
GaBlue
January 12th, 2012
4:13 pm
I hope Jim will post the final vote on this bill because you will see very few Democrats voting in the no. Georgia is one of the biggest 2nd Amendment rights states in the country. This is a mostly bipartisan issue, the uber left are the only ones opposing the 2nd amendment.
Look before I leap...
January 12th, 2012
4:36 pm
Chris
January 12th, 2012
3:50 pm
There shouldn’t really be much value in using silencers for hunting… hunting rifles, almost without exception, discharge high-powered supersonic rounds. A supersonic projectile makes a sonic boom — there’s no way around it.
I am not a gun guy, but don’t ALL guns fire bullets at supersonic speeds? Isn’t 400 ft/sec a supersonic velocity?
Given that, I would think the sound created by a firearm discharging is related to the rapidly expanding gas as the bullet exist the muzzle and not the projectile breaking the sound barrier.
Georgia, The "New Mississippi"
January 12th, 2012
4:40 pm
This will breeze through our “Johnny Rep” legislature . They will be selling the state parks to ‘job creators” before Gov. Real Deal leaves office during his second term.
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:43 pm
Don’t Tread
January 12th, 2012
4:05 pm
“For hunters who prefer trenchcoats and fedoras” suggests that hunters (and all other gun owners, by extension) have criminal intent. Not surprising, coming from a Democrat.
Nah it’s suggesting that most of them are bats**t insane, which is true
Beeg Boi
January 12th, 2012
4:44 pm
.45ACP is subsonic
MrLiberty
January 12th, 2012
4:45 pm
Tell the feds to go to hell. There are plenty of quality silencers manufactured in this state (no interstate commerce) that should be able to be sold without having to beg permission from our imperial federal overlords. It is a great idea but grow a spine GA legislature and start standing up for the 10th amendment and the rights of your citizens. We are citizens of GA and the Federal Government exists because YOU will it, not the other way around.
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:46 pm
JV
January 12th, 2012
4:19 pm
From the December issue of The American Rifleman:
We hear the same story from countless hunters and shooters who might not realize that a lack of hearing protection can result in lasting hearing loss—until it’s too late. Billions of dollars are spent every year in our healthcare system for hearing loss conditions, such as shooting-related tinnitus.
Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called “silencers” in federal law) are an additional tool available to help protect our hearing and are quickly gaining in popularity throughout the country.
Ever heard of hearing protection? It’s a lot cheaper and much more practical. There are hearing protectors with microphones and amplify ambient sound (so you can hear better than with your own ears), but automatically mute and shield your ears from the noise from a gunshot. Or you can spend a few bucks on earplugs.
This is pandering legislation that doesn’t really do anything, but gun nuts are so obsessed they’re already chomping at the bit to reelect this guy.
GaBlue
January 12th, 2012
4:47 pm
td @ 4:27,
So true. Most Dems I know own at least one firearm. I did not feel the need to protect myself and home thusly until the past few years when the mouth-foaming, right-wing “don’t tread on me” crowd started demonstrating their lack of respect for anyone and everyone who dared express an opinion that was different from their own. And when I say “lack of respect,” I mean physical intimidation, unveiled threats of violence, and harassing tax-paying citizens in our homes because we somehow caused all their problems when we voted for the black guy, even though he did not take Georgia’s electoral votes. Live & learn, right?
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:51 pm
I own several guns to protect myself from Tea Partiers, should the need arise.
Don't Tread
January 12th, 2012
4:52 pm
“when [those people] started demonstrating their lack of respect for anyone and everyone who dared express an opinion that was different from their own”
“unveiled threats of violence”
See the post at 4:13 as examples of the above. (You might want a mop to clean up the foaming on the floor.)
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:53 pm
Look at how dumb you are
catlady
January 12th, 2012
4:54 pm
My neighbor likes to shoot 300-400 rounds on Sundays. It relaxes him. It makes my hair stand on end, and I start twitching after about 5 shots. He also baits deer and bear to his yard (unstopped, although it has been reported.) He also likes to hunt from his porch as it gets dark. He’s going to kill someone yet.
I welcome the silencer; as it is now, it sounds like he is shooting at ME, and I am tempted, badly, to shoot back.
td
January 12th, 2012
4:55 pm
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:46 pm
Your posts on this subject just proves how “out of the main stream” your believes really are. Even most Dems in Georgia own guns and want the least restrictive laws on prohibiting gun ownership. Only the far left people (that still think the 2nd amendment only applies to the military) is adamantly opposed to this legislation. Watch the vote totals and you will see at least 50% by the Dems in the legislature.
beaker
January 12th, 2012
4:55 pm
There is no such thing as a silencer; the devices are actually sound suppressors. Some handguns have a bullet velocity in excess of the speed of sound some don’t. Most rifle bullets have a bullet velocity velocity in excess of the speed of sound. Thus the created sonic boon will not be significantly abated by a suppressors. Also you can’t just stick a suppressor on the end of either a pistol or rifle; the end of the gun would have to be machined/threaded by a skilled machinist to fit the suppressor onto the barrel; otherwise shooting the pistol or rifle would be dangerous. Somehow shooting a rifle in a densely congested area seems to be something the General Assembly shouldn’t be worrying about when there are many more real world problems. Also suppressors are quite expensive (about $600.00 for the suppressors and about $250.00 for the federal fee (for a typical 9mm handgun)).
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:57 pm
td
January 12th, 2012
4:55 pm
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:46 pm
Your posts on this subject just proves how “out of the main stream” your believes really are. Even most Dems in Georgia own guns and want the least restrictive laws on prohibiting gun ownership. Only the far left people (that still think the 2nd amendment only applies to the military) is adamantly opposed to this legislation. Watch the vote totals and you will see at least 50% by the Dems in the legislature.
This is a great reason to continue to scroll past TD posts.
Everyone, remember: Don’t reply to TD.
Gun Smoker
January 12th, 2012
4:57 pm
A big-game hunting rifle is much louder without a silencer than with one, even though the supersonic bullet will always make some noise and can never really be made “silent.” But with a silencer (more correctly called a sound suppressor, or a sound “moderator” in the U.K.), you can make a .30-06 deer rifle sound like a .22 rimfire, or a “ladyfinger” firecracker. This means it will cause less damage to the hunter’s hearing. And non-hunters who are a couple hundred yards away either won’t hear it, or it won’t be loud enough to bother them. Anybody very close to the shooter, including any game animals within normal hunting distances, WILL hear the shot. Again, it’s not silent. But it’s less noisy, and LESS damaging to the hunters’ hearing.
P.S. I own silencers. And I’m a hunter. And I have some hearing loss from those few-and-far-between times I’ve shot powerful guns without proper hearing protection and without any silencer on the muzzle.
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
5:00 pm
beaker
January 12th, 2012
4:55 pm
There is no such thing as a silencer; the devices are actually sound suppressors. Some handguns have a bullet velocity in excess of the speed of sound some don’t. Most rifle bullets have a bullet velocity velocity in excess of the speed of sound. Thus the created sonic boon will not be significantly abated by a suppressors. Also you can’t just stick a suppressor on the end of either a pistol or rifle; the end of the gun would have to be machined/threaded by a skilled machinist to fit the suppressor onto the barrel; otherwise shooting the pistol or rifle would be dangerous. Somehow shooting a rifle in a densely congested area seems to be something the General Assembly shouldn’t be worrying about when there are many more real world problems. Also suppressors are quite expensive (about $600.00 for the suppressors and about $250.00 for the federal fee (for a typical 9mm handgun)).
True. Plus, suppressors don’t make firearms “quiet.” They reduce the report somewhat, but anyone can go on YouTube and see dozens of comparisons of suppressed and unsuppressed firearms. It’s not like the movies; suppression offers some benefit, but not to the extent most people think it does.
td
January 12th, 2012
5:00 pm
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
4:57 pm
The truth hurts does it not my young padawan.
GaBlue
January 12th, 2012
5:25 pm
Don’t Tread,
I apologize for refuting your stereotypes and paranoid attack on Mr. Galloway for doing his job. How RUDE of me! If you’re not busy, you can google “Rand Paul Rally” and watch the video of a guy wearing a “don’t tread on me” button shoving a young woman to the ground and holding her while another guy stands on her head — because they didn’t like her sign. Oh wait… y’all probably watched it a million times and nearly peed yourself laughing already.
Chip
January 12th, 2012
5:32 pm
@darvocet, should we also suggest that everyone wear ear plugs while driving instead of installing those more-expensive and less-practical silencers on their automobiles?
roughrider
January 12th, 2012
5:40 pm
The U.S. military has silenced rifles for those of you who don’t think it is possible.
Ol' Timer
January 12th, 2012
5:42 pm
Apparently the pressing issues have been addressed and now we can deal with silencing high powered rifles that are being dischanged so close to homes that the sound is disturbing the neighbors.
Duh!
From where I sit the sound of the discharge is the least of your problems.
nelsonh
January 12th, 2012
5:51 pm
Does not the loud “bang” of a gun alert the neighbors that they should look for cover. Let us assume the woods is full of hunters, all with silentcers, If a hunter needs a silencer not to annoy the neighbors, he is to close, man I do not know what they could be thinking of.
sheepdawg
January 12th, 2012
5:52 pm
only an idiot would propose such legislation
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
6:05 pm
Chip
January 12th, 2012
5:32 pm
@darvocet, should we also suggest that everyone wear ear plugs while driving instead of installing those more-expensive and less-practical silencers on their automobiles?
Completely unrelated, try again
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
6:06 pm
sheepdawg
January 12th, 2012
5:52 pm
only an idiot would propose such legislation
Welcome to the South!
double
January 12th, 2012
6:06 pm
I can’t own a gun,Don’t need silencer.
Need Weed
January 12th, 2012
6:35 pm
Ok now we have someone stepping up for silencers, How about Medical Marijuana? We need Ron Paul in the White House and a democratic governor that understands and shows copassion. How many people do you know addicted to Oxycontin and then how many do you know that are addicted to pot. How many have died because of MJ,,,last year there were numerous and even thousands of deaths from OXY. Make it illegal and legalize pot.
HENRY
January 12th, 2012
6:43 pm
MY PRAYERS ARE ANSWERED…………
Matt
January 12th, 2012
6:51 pm
I guess these people have never actually heard what a suppressed gunshot sounds like. By the way, “suppressor” is the correct name for what you folks keep calling a “silencer”. The reason for this is because a suppressed gunshot still sounds like a gunshot. Completely silencing the report of a firearm is not possible. The neighbors will still hear the gunshots, it’ll just be harder to identify which direction the gunshots are coming from. That is all suppressors are good for. This is reality, not a Hollywood movie where they depict suppressors reducing a gun’s report to a tiny “ptew”.
Such a shame we can’t elect politicians with brains.
Now you've done it
January 12th, 2012
6:52 pm
There is no way Georgia is gonna sit back quietly and allow our neighbor Florida to be considered crazier than us…no way.
double
January 12th, 2012
6:52 pm
I doubt hunters would use silencers.Bulloch must not understand silencers.We need eliminate the senate.Why both?
gg
January 12th, 2012
6:52 pm
yeeehawww we dont need none a them jobs and education
brother bill
January 12th, 2012
6:53 pm
In 007 movies, the sound with a silencer is barely above a whisper. In reality, a silencer reduces the sound by only a few decibels. It is still quite loud and noticeable, but does produce less hearing damage.
If the hunter was after some wild onions, or some wild pecans, no rifle would be needed.
Sister Sarah
January 12th, 2012
6:53 pm
One poster had it right when they stated that silencers are intended for one purpose only – stealth. Furthermore, $650 for a silencer and $250 for tax stamp, no problem. Ever wonder how so many folks living in shacks and trailers out in the hills and woods of nowhere who don’t have a pot to whizz in yet have .50 cal rifles and all kinds of other “artillery”? Rich right wingers who bankroll their weaponry/militias (in case they need them to “protect their interests”). No different than what we found when our government followed the money trail of AlQaeda/Taliban and cut off financing. I guarantee it!
brother bill
January 12th, 2012
6:56 pm
The Georgia Legislature wishes to protect the hearing of gas station clerks, so that after they are shot in a robbery, at least their hearing is still good. Perhaps, we could add one year to the perp’s sentence, if a gun, WITHOUT a silencer is used in a crime!
double
January 12th, 2012
6:56 pm
Silencers would probably increase night hunting,poaching.
Gunn Smoker
January 12th, 2012
6:59 pm
An unsupressed high powered rifle shot might be heard from over a mile away. It could be loud enough to bother some people (people who don’t like guns and shooting, or don’t like hunting) from maybe 1/2 mile (760 yards) away.
So it’s WRONG and INCORRECT to say that if you hear the gunshot, obviously the hunter is too close to you and your home. THe hunter could be a long way from your home, firing AWAY from your home, shooting at a deer that is standing in front of a hill (meaning, the bullet will hit the dirt in the hill even if it misses the deer or zips right through the deer’s body). And yet the homeowner would still be startled at the sound of the rifle shot.
Noise and gun safety do not go together. Hearing gunshots doesn’t mean you’re in danger. Hearing a muffled gunshot / popping sound doesn’t mean you’re safe. Apples and oranges.
Katz P. Ajamas
January 12th, 2012
7:02 pm
Speed of sound is about 330m/s at sea level.
bronco
January 12th, 2012
7:11 pm
I’ve always wondered why they were illegal in the first place
ricky
January 12th, 2012
7:37 pm
Silly Atlantans, you tickle me. People can hear deer rifles for MILES away. I cant imagine why you would want to silence a deer rifle, all it would do is affect ballistics and you would have to “dope the scope” to compensate. Besides, if any of you liberal tree huggers have ever shot at a deer, you may know that half the time a gun shot (if you miss) doesnt faze them. They usually look up and go back to what they were doing.
People just want silencers to say they have one. They are not silent but they do reduce noise. My neighbor had a 22 pistol that he got a suppressor for and sounded like a pellet gun when it went off. Calm down you Occupy freaks. If people are stupid enough to buy them, it results in tax revenue for the state. Isnt that what you want???? Additional dollars from the 1%? You hippies make me laugh
Gun Toting Liberal
January 12th, 2012
7:42 pm
@MrLiberty:
How did that whole States Rights thing work out for y’all last time? I forgot all the details; but didn’t some fellow named Sherman come to Atlanta to discuss the subject further?
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
7:56 pm
ricky
January 12th, 2012
7:37 pm
Besides, if any of you liberal tree huggers
Come up with better flames, that one is so 1990s.
Don't Tread
January 12th, 2012
8:21 pm
“watch the video of a guy wearing a “don’t tread on me” button shoving a young woman to the ground and holding her while another guy stands on her head — because they didn’t like her sign”
Liberals sure do like to blame people who had nothing to do with the crime and weren’t even there. (Like Holder blaming American gun owners for his very illegal actions regarding Fast and Furious. Leadership by example.)
Yes, how rude of you.
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
8:27 pm
Don’t Tread: don’t post.
Matt
January 12th, 2012
8:29 pm
First, Supressors are not illagel to own. They do require a tax stamp and a little Wait to get them. 200.00 to the ATF and the cost of the supressor. Many hunters like myself already have them but do not use them for hunting. I hunt on a lease that is 486 acres and even from one stand to another the sound of another rifle firing is above the safe levels. As for your hearing protection that amplifies normal sounds, I have not found a single one that helps when hunting a 120 acre field. Most of them allow some of the muzzle report as well. I have tinnitus in my left ear from the muzzle report while wearing the so called “hearing protection”. Our lease also backs up to a large lake where people fish and drive their boats. We don’t hunt within 300 yards of the lake and face away from it but I can garantee they here the shots as if their sitting in the stand with me. My 300ultra mag’s report is cut more than HALF with the supressor attached. There is only a benifit to allowing hunters to use what most already own. If your worried about night poaching or other illagel activities then your worried about people that most likely don’t care if the gun they are using is leagel or not. They already use suppressors and do these kinds of activities.
Darvocet spending
January 12th, 2012
8:33 pm
You’d would think a person would have the sense to give up a hobby that progressively destroys your own hearing, but this is the South sooooo I guess my point will fall on deaf ears, lol.
Geo
January 12th, 2012
8:33 pm
As for ownership, it’s all a matter of having a clean record and paying $200 for a Federal Tax Stamp then you can own most any Class III item such as a suppressor. But, when you crank a suppressor to the end of a long rifle and fire with regular ammunition, you still get a very loud boom [as with either of my McMillans and AWC cans].
Subsonic ammo and hunting just does not seem to make sense unless you are close enough to the target to overcome the ballistic difference.
Geo
January 12th, 2012
8:35 pm
Oh sorry – Matt beat me to the tax stamp…
who cares
January 12th, 2012
8:42 pm
Is this the important issues we sent these folks to Atlanta and pay them a salary to fork on? HELP ME RONDA!
who cares
January 12th, 2012
8:43 pm
work on….
CallMe 006
January 12th, 2012
8:47 pm
Pillows, Coke bottles, piano wire and sn3kers… all induce a quiet death. who needs to pay $600-plus for silencers??
George
January 12th, 2012
8:54 pm
Seriously with all the problems we have in the State how does this even make it any where for consideration. Pass legislation requiring all guns be registered. In fact if you make the process about 10 dollars per gun we could collect some much needed money. This reeks NRA pushing their agenda.
Unless they can guarantee that these same silencers will not be use for more sinister purposes which they can’t then no no no.
Don't Tread
January 12th, 2012
9:26 pm
Darvocet: Given your chosen screen name, your chosen “hobbies” are clear. Please go somewhere and OD.
old man
January 12th, 2012
9:31 pm
Mr. Liberty,
That’s about the most ignorant statement I’ve ever heard. The previous post is correct. Sherman settled that issue when he burned your ignorant ancestors plantation down. This sentiment from a 4th generation Georgian. I’m trying to drag Georgia into the twenty first century and you’re intent on dragging us back into the 18th century. I bet you moved here from Michigan.
Getaclue
January 12th, 2012
9:39 pm
I’m a hunter and want to know just what the heck these senators are doing with their time at the capital. Come on guys let’s work on something that is important! What a waste of time!
Anthony Soprano
January 12th, 2012
9:42 pm
“…would end the ban on silencers for hunting firearms.”
Now there’s a change in the law I could really get behind! Me’n the boys like the roscoes to be as silent as possible when we’re ‘hunting’ -if you smell what I’m cookin.
Jason
January 12th, 2012
9:44 pm
Who shoots with hearing protection? Seriously! If you can’t get that one small safety precaution right I worry about what other best practices of gun ownership you’re skipping.
Bowersville
January 12th, 2012
9:52 pm
A Silencer/Suppressor works for sub-sonic ammo only. Sub-sonic rounds do not produce a sonic crack/boom as the round does not travel above the speed of sound.
High powered ammo, as has been pointed out, travels above the speed of sound and by breaking the sound barrier produces a sonic crack/boom. No silencer/suppressor is able suppress the sonic boom. The silencer/suppressor by the law of physics can only abate the explosion of the gun powder and/or propellant.
Georgia Carry
January 12th, 2012
9:56 pm
George: “Pass legislation requiring all guns be registered.”
Why? Do you think that will reduce crime? What criminal will register a gun?
double
January 12th, 2012
9:56 pm
@6:06 can’t to do not own
stephen
January 12th, 2012
10:17 pm
In Europe silencers are extremely to possess and its considered bad form to not use them to keep from disturbing your neighbors. Not to mention the ability of not needing hearing protection to target shoot etc
Lee
January 12th, 2012
11:36 pm
Bottom line, if this law removes a restriction on a Constitutional right, no matter how impractical, I’m all for it.
BTW, I’ve been around guns and hunting all my life and have never felt the need for a sound suppressor. My guess, there might be 50 people statewide who would take advantage of this.
gunSmoker
January 13th, 2012
12:19 am
Silencers are legal in Georgia if federally registered. Thousands of Georgians own them AND USE THEM. I see them at shooting ranges all the time. I have one myself. All you people who argue that silencers will increase murders– don’t you realize that the proposed law is just about HUNTING with silencers? Again, silencers (AKA “suppressors” AKA “moderators” AKA “cans”) are legal and not at all uncommon among gun collectors and serious firearms enthusiasts. And I don’t hear of people being murdered with them in Georgia these days. (pun intended)
Silencers for Georgia hunters – so’s not to bother the neighbors | Hearing Aid Test
January 13th, 2012
6:56 am
[...] Article source: http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/01/12/silencers-for-georgia-hunters-%E2%80%... [...]
Raz
January 13th, 2012
10:36 am
As an ethical honest hunter I am totally opposed to this bill, Silencers are fine for what they’re made for but allowing hunters to use them only empowers the poacher and night hunter, Plus a silencer does indeed give off a report however muffled and echoed. Vote this bill down !!
ethical honest hunter
January 13th, 2012
11:47 am
Raz, here you go, fixed that for you:
As an ethical honest hunter I am totally supportive of this bill, Suppressors are fine for what they’re made for and allowing hunters to use them only protects the hearing of the hunters, as it already does now for shooters. Indeed, a suppressor does muffle or quiet a firearm’s report. Vote for this bill!!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, eerrr, legislation!
BretJ
January 13th, 2012
1:18 pm
First, why in the world would someone with a legally owned suppressor use it for poaching??!!?? Poaching without a suppressor simply gets you a state imposed ticket/fine/loss of the firearm. No real loss. Poaching with a suppressor gets you a federal felony charge/loss of investment in your suppressor/a possible trip to federal prison/a much larger fine/loss of the right to ever own a firearm…the conseqences are even greater if the suppressor was not obtained legally. Second, while I was stationed in europe, if you owned a firearm, it was practically accepted that you would use a suppressor while hunting or target shooting. Many states here in the U.S. already allow it so what is the issue short of simply in-informed, short sighted paranoia? As a side note, there is a supersonic crack when using supersonic ammunition. The benefit of using a suppressor is that the target cannot determine where the shot originated as there is no muzzle report. They only hear sonic boom as the bullet passes. As far as they are concerned, the shot came from their left or right (based on which side the bullet passed) regardless of where the round originated. With subsonic ammunition, this is a mute point. Hunting feral hogs with a suppressed firearm and subsonic ammunition is a great combo.
BretJ
January 13th, 2012
1:22 pm
Should read “Many states here in the U.S. already allow it so what is the issue short of simply UN-informed, short sighted paranoia?” Proof read twice….submit once….
Georgia Carry
January 13th, 2012
1:32 pm
“As an ethical honest hunter I am totally opposed to this bill, Silencers are fine for what they’re made for but allowing hunters to use them only empowers the poacher and night hunter, Plus a silencer does indeed give off a report however muffled and echoed. Vote this bill down !!”
What about bow hunters? They don’t make any noise. Should we make that illegal too?
Joe
January 13th, 2012
1:52 pm
I suppose this would be the neighborly thing to do and I don’t really have a problem with the proposal but after 8 months out of session that could have been used to ponder solutions to Georgia’s problems is this the best you can come up with. Come on Bullock, what about education, health care, the homeless, job creation, budget deficits, transportation, highways? After you get suppressors approved you should introduce a measure to name a highway after someone. You can then go home proud of what you accomplished this year.
Country Girl
January 13th, 2012
3:37 pm
I don’t know about all of you but two things stick out to this country girl. 1. if someone is firing a gun so close to your house that it hurts your ears, you have a bigger problem. 2. if someone is firing that close to my house, i want to know!
Raise in country and served miltary. Not new to guns. Silencer is not the answer for hunters.
BretJ
January 13th, 2012
4:09 pm
It seems to be the “answer” in numerous other states that allow it already…it also seems to be the “answer” in every country I have been to that allows personal ownership of firearms….while in the military, I practically had to use a suppressor while hunting overseas (UK, Germany)…so why is it such a big deal? Why do people assign so much mystery and paranoia to suppressors? They absolutely have a valid use in hunting and target sports.
Garandguy
January 13th, 2012
4:53 pm
They are NOT illegal. You have to go thru a background check, fingerprints and pay the $200 transfer “tax”:
TomP
January 13th, 2012
7:54 pm
Why in the world are these idiots even considering this. It is plain stupid. I hunt, on my land.
Where is the money in this bill. Follow the money, there is no bill passed with the $ advantage/profit figured for someone.