Just wait till everything collapses, the we can shoot whatever we want!:DOriginally Posted by icedragonmx
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Just wait till everything collapses, the we can shoot whatever we want!:D
Silencer is a Prohibited Device, not a Prohibited Weapon.Speaking to a friend of mine at the CFO regarding the topic, the law states that " device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm" is a prohibited weapon. Two ways of looking at it he said, "TECHNICALLY" speaking, if the mock suppressor decreases the audible noise of a firearm by any amount, that is in direct violation of the law, however; because the mock suppressor has no baffles, and fits no common modern design for generic suppressors it is usually categorized in the same sense as a flash hider, compensator etc... So technically speaking it is not illegal, but like most firearm legality questions, it all depends on how they feel that given day with regards to what they want to do to you
The problem with taking advice from people who don't know the first thing they are talking about is their information is worth exactly what you paid for it .... ZIP!
There are several prominent silencer patents that feature models with no baffles. I can think of several quite different designs that don't use baffles in the conventional sense.
I have had several opportunities to unknowingly test an empty silencer tube and found them to be surprisingly good at reducing sound. You want to be VERY careful about fooling with a home brewed fakie. Not knowing what you are doing and assuming an empty can is not a suppressor cause it has no baffles is likely to get you into a lot of trouble.
The US has more stringent rules for what constitutes a fake suppressor so anything approved as such in the US should be more than fine here. Otherwise it would be best to build something that does not protrude forward of the muzzle. That way it would be blindingly obvious to anyone that the thing is a fake and cannot possibly result in a sound reduction.
More importantly at that point we can shoot whomever we want as well.Just wait till everything collapses, the we can shoot whatever we want!
You're absolutly correct suputin, you more or less corrected what I was trying to say, they are infact a prohibited device-typo
And by saying that they have no baffels, probably would have been better off saying no internal components- Trying to get exactly that point across that an empty tube could still muffle the sound.
I'm nowhere near old enough to own a suppressor in canada I am simply relaying the information, thanks for the corrections. I can only help but think you may be lucky enough to be a master of the silent art, certainly would value your thoughts about suppressors over a cfo any day, simply stating what he told me in regards to how mock suppressors could be interpreted by the liberal agenda goons.
Nobody is old enough to own silencers in Canada as they are totally prohibited. Even I can't own any .... however my company owns quite a few.I'm nowhere near old enough to own a suppressor in canada I am simply relaying the information, thanks for the corrections. I can only help but think you may be lucky enough to be a master of the silent art, certainly would value your thoughts about suppressors over a cfo any day, simply stating what he told me in regards to how mock suppressors could be interpreted by the liberal agenda goons.
Just to annoy, here are pics of a couple of real ones .... made in Canada and everything.
It is pretty well inconceivable that even an empty can attached to the muzzle will not reduce the sound by .0000000000001 decibel. A prosecutor could argue that the claims that the seized device was not intended nor designed to muffle are bogus. The only one who gets to decide if the device qualifies as a silencer is a judge at trial. Is the potential upside of having a gun with a cool/stupid 'cosmetic' muzzle attachment worth the potential downside?
PS. I would write more but I have to go browse the EE for gigantic codpieces. At least we know they're legal!
EOSC.ca
don't forget, the sound reduction has to be measurable. If they can't measure it, they can't show it reduces anything. And i'm fairly certain that if it reduces it by .0000000000001 decibel, no machine is able to detect that.It is pretty well inconceivable that even an empty can attached to the muzzle will not reduce the sound by .0000000000001 decibel. A prosecutor could argue that the claims that the seized device was not intended nor designed to muffle are bogus. The only one who gets to decide if the device qualifies as a silencer is a judge at trial. Is the potential upside of having a gun with a cool/stupid 'cosmetic' muzzle attachment worth the potential downside?
PS. I would write more but I have to go browse the EE for gigantic codpieces. At least we know they're legal!
Some fake suppressors are sold in Canada, which means they've already been cleared as not being silencers. So your answer is already there. Personally, i have ZERO interest in em, but for those who want them, they can very well do so legally and without worrying much about any legal downside.
My Krinker Plinker kit came with one. I quite like it. There is also a GSG pistol in .22LR that has a fake one too. They're okay, real one would be better. At least they give you a different looking gun.
"I like guns, I like the way they look,
I like the shiny steel and the polished wood.
I don´t care if they´re big or small,
if they´re for sale, hell, I want´em all!
I like guns, I like guns, I like guns!"
(Steve Lee)
Current measurement equipment can prob resolve 0.25 dB or so but not much better than that. Due to the unique nature of the event we are trying to measure it requires extremely specialized equipment that most people do not have access to .... not even government agencies.It is pretty well inconceivable that even an empty can attached to the muzzle will not reduce the sound by .0000000000001 decibel. A prosecutor could argue that the claims that the seized device was not intended nor designed to muffle are bogus. The only one who gets to decide if the device qualifies as a silencer is a judge at trial. Is the potential upside of having a gun with a cool/stupid 'cosmetic' muzzle attachment worth the potential downside?
One problem with measuring sound suppressor performance is that an average of 10 shots is usually used and performance can vary greatly from day to day and gun to gun. We who are routinely involved with these things learn to live with the uncertain nature of the sound measurement. I doubt lawyers and judges would understand this.
I've been wondering for awhile how to make a silencer-shaped device that actually makes a firearm louder ...
buddy was firing his GSG 1911 Tactial with and without can, it sems louder with the can.
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.
"It's only a rabbit" were his last words....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
