[dcdalton]

Interesting bill to say the least:

To amend section 2923.17 and to enact section 1533.04 of the Revised Code to allow a person to use a noise suppressor attached to a gun while hunting game birds or wild quadrupeds.

Proposed Ohio Gun Law HB234 - American Gun Owners Alliance

 

[Mike1956]

Ohio has many screwed-up hunting regs, none of which have anything to do with suppressors.

 

[atctimmy]

How do you suppress a shotgun? Does it even work?

 

[HotGuns]

How do you suppress a shotgun? Does it even work?

You can. Its pretty common in Europe.

Problem is, they are long and cumbersome.

 

[atctimmy]

You can. Its pretty common in Europe.

Problem is, they are long and cumbersome.

Is there a problem with the shot cone hitting the baffles? Or are we just talking slugs?

 

[HotGuns]

Nope. We are talking shot. There is an inner tube that is perforated with holes small enough to allow the shot column to pass without being impeded. It bleeds off the gas, thus reducing the sound.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/overunder_2-tfb-tm.jpg

 

[StormRhydr]

That is exactly what I was thinking.

For bird hunters, I can pretty much say with authority, that they will not want some tin can thing messing up the balance and profiles of their weapons.

How do you suppress a shotgun? Does it even work?

 

[IndianaSig]

I don't know any responsible hunters who would want to use a suppressor. Not a good idea.

 

[Mike1956]

Another bill which purports to address an issue, but in reality does nothing.

 

[OutWestSystems]

I don't know any responsible hunters who would want to use a suppressor. Not a good idea.

Just wondering, why you think it is not a good idea?

 

[StormRhydr]

I pretty much agree with you. The only use I could think of, was if you were hunting in a legal area, but one in which the residents would get stirred up over the sound of gunfire in the area.

Other than that, yeah, I cant see a use for it.

I don't know any responsible hunters who would want to use a suppressor. Not a good idea.

 

[OutWestSystems]

I pretty much agree with you. The only use I could think of, was if you were hunting in a legal area, but one in which the residents would get stirred up over the sound of gunfire in the area.

Other than that, yeah, I cant see a use for it.

It doesn't frighten all the animals in a large area. You can hunt without heading protection thus can hear what is going on around you better.

 

[atctimmy]

I don't know any responsible hunters who would want to use a suppressor. Not a good idea.

I can think of a number of reasons. First, off the top of my head, would be high volume varmint hunting with a semi auto. Be it wood chucks or coyotes the animals would be less likely to spook when you pop their friend. Also with woodchucks you can do a lot of shooting in a day and not damaging your ears would be quite nice.

Nope. We are talking shot. There is an inner tube that is perforated with holes small enough to allow the shot column to pass without being impeded. It bleeds off the gas, thus reducing the sound.

Thanks HG. Interesting photo too.

 

[HotGuns]

I don't know any responsible hunters who would want to use a suppressor. Not a good idea.

You're way behind the times brother. Its catching on like wildfire. Three states last year allowed hunting, three more allowed ownership.

Here we've always been able to hunt with them. You don't alert the game for a 2 mile radius when you shoot and you'll see more critters than you ever though possible.

It's better for your ears. Young kids love em. There are no downsides to a suppressor other than the tax stamp and the wait.

Responsible hunters? On the contrary. With urban encroachment happening everywhere you can hunt without upsetting the transplants that come from up north. If they cant hear you they cant pitch a fit, whine, moan or groan about hunting.

Did you know that the largest suppressor manufacturer of .22 cans comes from Fort Wayne, Indiana?


For you guys that cant see the use of it, its obvious you have never shot one. I've heard every argument made against them by people that ended up buying one once they shot one. Its the same mindframe as the anti-gunners. They don't shoot so that don't like them, so they are anti...right up until the time they shoot and then they become shooting fanatics.

 

[mprp]

That was well said HG. You touched on the first thing that popped into my mind, which was the crybabies and overzealous cop-callers, (that just so happens to be one of my neighbors, although distant but within earshot of guns from my property...that's another thread though) that hit the floor if they hear a gun go off a half mile away. My knee jerk would probably be to leave my shotgun alone but for a varmint I think it would be great. That's just a personal thought. I do think that whatever the preference, people should be allowed to have any of 'em. The main reason, is that if HB 234 passes it will be another freedom gained for the people of Ohio.

 

[gtfoxy]

I don't know any responsible hunters who would want to use a suppressor. Not a good idea.

I would have to say I have a dissenting view of this statement.

I am of the mind of minimalist intrusion into Gods nature.

I much prefer to bow hunt. So using a gun without a suppressor is like using a bow with a loud speaker that would produce a loud "BANG" when releasing an arrow. Something you won't talk a single bow hunter into using.

It is legal in my state of WI & I appreciate it.

Now, as far as someone mis-using this is a misnomer. It is only applicable if you have the federal tax stamp to go along with it. As such you have been delegated the assertion of ones civil liberty to use it, Federaly, so then a state law that prohibits its use in a hunting application is against the Right to use it.

So in the end, your assertion that no responsible hunter would use it is a round about way of saying you judge those who have a legal opportunity to do so. Again, that would benan infringement of a given liberty and is therefore Unconstitutional.