Damn it, I want a suppressor!!!

kthomas said:
I don't really see how that is rubbing it in. He still can't use them all the time, anywhere he wants. If he could take that rig out plinking in the forest or hunt coyotes with a suppressed rifle legally, then I would consider that rubbing it in ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact he can. The RCMP might not like it but he can...
 
locke it said:
Yes, in fact he can. The RCMP might not like it but he can...
Click to expand...

No...no he can't. If it's just an AR and it's registered to the business, then he's under the same restrictions that you and I have for its use but under the cover of his firearms business license. He can't take out in the forest or anything like that. The only freedom that he enjoys as per se, is the ability to move it from one place or another without having to get a ATT like you or I would have to, however, it has to be during the regular operating hours of the business as reported to his CFO.

If the carbine is FA, then he's restricted to ranges that have been approved by his province's CFO for FA use and must abide by the terms and conditions of his firearms business license. Since most CFO's do not regularly approve FA use for civilian ranges, he has no other choice than to shoot it at DND ranges that will authorize a civilian to do so. In other words, fat chance. Even if he were given DND permission, it would be an exceptional circumstance - something that wouldn't happen routinely.

He can use the supressor at civilian ranges under his business license on a firearm that is registered to his business. He can't install this supressor on any firearm that he owns himself as an individual because it's deemed as personal use and not under the auspices of his firearms business license. If he did so, he'd likely be at risk of losing his business license and charged with posession of a prohibited device.
 
shot the c 14 and c15 surpressed.very nice. the mp 5 sounds louder than a pellet gun. think how much nicer hunting would be if you werent deaf everytime you pulled the trigger?
 
Actually I can't shoot it at all.

I can sell it, store it, transport it, show it, but not use it. That's another addition to the lic.

I feel like I own an Aston Martin dealership and I see and meet with potential clients weekly, but when they ask to take it for a test drive I have to say nope, you can buy it based on our advertising.

however, it has to be during the regular operating hours of the business as reported to his CFO.
Click to expand...

If that were the case it would make it very hard to do trade shows or drive up and back to Pet/Ottawa/Orillia etc. for meetings.
 
KevinB said:
Everyone needs cans!

yes I'm holding one as I type this...
Click to expand...

It makes me wonder if I had the opportunity would I just bail on Canada and live in the states at times still. The ball is moving really slow forward up here, I would bail on the fight though regardless.
 
I want the choice to use a muffler too.

Noise pollution and hearing loss are real problems. It's mandatory for cars, but outlawed for firearms? weird.
 
It really should be that simple too.

Many European countries mandate the use of sound suppressors, and many US LE entities are going suppressed simply due to OSHA, and the fact that the pension payouts for hearing loss are much greater than the expense of buying everyone a suppressor.

Most European Armies are looking at fully suppressing their small arms fleet not so much for combat enablers, but to reduce hearing pension compensation.
 
In the UK, you needed an addition to your FAC to buy a suppressor, which was easily obtained as soon as you mentioned H&S on your paperwork. I got a couple of BR Tuote cans from Guy (Savage) before things went south with SDI.

In South Africa, I can (fondly) remember just walking into a gun shop, laying down cash (without even showing my licence) and walking out with the suppressor of my choice. I had them on just about every gun I owned.

Regards.

Mark
 
Let's be careful what we wish for...
I'd far rather have the OPTION to use a suppressor, than to have the use of one mandated by the same brand of clueless politicians that prohibit them in the first place.
 
Farmboy said:
Actually I can't shoot it at all.

I can sell it, store it, transport it, show it, but not use it. That's another addition to the lic.

I feel like I own an Aston Martin dealership and I see and meet with potential clients weekly, but when they ask to take it for a test drive I have to say nope, you can buy it based on our advertising.



If that were the case it would make it very hard to do trade shows or drive up and back to Pet/Ottawa/Orillia etc. for meetings.
Click to expand...

You're taking what I said out of context. I was referring to the actual use of a FA firearm, not attending gun shows.

And yes, you are permitted to use it on properly designated ranges. I do know this for fact. You should look into it.
 
00Buck said:
They are fun. I know from experience. However, I have not tried one with sub-sonic ammo. You can really hear the steel in that video.
Click to expand...

Suppressed subsonic you can hear the "tick" of a big bullet going through a paper target. Now THAT is fun. :)

Kevin: both hands on the keyboard ..... otherwise that's a serious YUCK factor strokin your can while typing. :p
 
KevinB said:
It really should be that simple too.

Many European countries mandate the use of sound suppressors, and many US LE entities are going suppressed simply due to OSHA, and the fact that the pension payouts for hearing loss are much greater than the expense of buying everyone a suppressor.

Most European Armies are looking at fully suppressing their small arms fleet not so much for combat enablers, but to reduce hearing pension compensation.
Click to expand...

True and makes me sick. Got a good friend in Europe, his 14 year old boy got an issued rifle from their government and 1000 rounds, FREE btw and YES this same rifle and goods CAME WITH SUPPRESSOR" in fact they are NOT legally allowed to shoot at their ranges without a suppressor. How A$$ backwards is that ????? Makes me sick actually, it makes more sense to encourage suppression IMO.
 
OICU812 said:
True and makes me sick. Got a good friend in Europe, his 14 year old boy got an issued rifle from their government and 1000 rounds, FREE btw and YES this same rifle and goods CAME WITH SUPPRESSOR" in fact they are NOT legally allowed to shoot at their ranges without a suppressor. How A$$ backwards is that ????? Makes me sick actually, it makes more sense to encourage suppression IMO.
Click to expand...

It would suck to ONLY have to use a supressor as well though.

I want the choice.

People arguing for their use should watch how they argue or there may be unintended consequenses.
 
Well I agree 100% on choice, just saying in a country now where they are continuously pushing noise rules in metro areas and pollution and all this, to me it is very odd that suppressors are not allowed and deemed to be well.. evil it seems. Just makes no sense that there is not option?

I should have clarified, that suppressors he "friend in Europe" stated was use near large population area shooting range, STILL allowed NON Suppresed in country or areas known as.

I have never researched too much into "why" we are not, what in fact was the main reason as to why they are in fact "illegal" here in Canada? Or was it just a "scary looking" decision?
 
OICU812 said:
I have never researched too much into "why" we are not, what in fact was the main reason as to why they are in fact "illegal" here in Canada? Or was it just a "scary looking" decision?
Click to expand...

The decision was made a very long time ago, before they were used in movies.
 
Kevin M. said:
People arguing for their use should watch how they argue or there may be unintended consequenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah...no...Can you honestly see the feds going 180 deg. in the opposite direction of where their stance is now? Not gonna happen. Even if they were legalized you're not going to see situations where the provinces would allow them for hunting use in a game habitat. If anything, spressors would be restricted to range use only.
 
Yep, BADLY want one :(

I have an HK Mark23 handgun and USC/UMP conversion in .45 ACP both BEGGING for a nice can. It's like having a Ferrari but not being allowed to have the wheels on it!

2bad4u2 said:
Yeah...no...Can you honestly see the feds going 180 deg. in the opposite direction of where their stance is now? Not gonna happen. Even if they were legalized you're not going to see situations where the provinces would allow them for hunting use in a game habitat. If anything, spressors would be restricted to range use only.
Click to expand...

I don't see why they couldn't become common. England (with some of the MOST restrictive gun laws in europe) allow suppressors and in fact ENCOURAGE (they are almost always approved by the police) their use for hearing safety and "politeness" AKA less noise pollution.

England, France, Denmark, Finland, germany, Norway, Poland, and Sweden all allow suppressors (many for hunting) with some or no regulations.

I believe that Turkey also recently overturned the ban on suppressors on the grounds of hearing protection. Think about it, many people are complaining about noise from shooting ranges, and when hunting you have the choice of being able to hear other people/prey and going deaf (or missing a shot trying to scramble your muffs on) or not being able to hear very well, and potentially mistaking movement from an animal to a person wearing camo. Not to mention any home defense situation completely deafening you and family members.

Suppressors ARE the most likely thing to be un-prohibited if we use these arguments. But we need to push it. It's been stated before (in a news article in fact, the toronto sun IIRC) that firearms owners as a GROUP are 10 times LESS likely to commit crimes than ordinary people, so if you go around and pay 1-2000 dollars on a suppressor for a hearing safety device, I can say without hesitation that a gun owner isn't going to use it to harm anyone or "assassinate" anybody, that's absurd.


Criminals on the other hand, can jerry-rig a pop bottle over a gun muzzle and have a one or two shot suppressor. They don't follow laws ANYWAYS, so why would they care about the legality of getting a suppressor?





If I remember correctly, the whole prohibition on suppressors was done with an extreme lack of understanding on what they were initially designed for - reducing the signature of the blast so it didn't deafen people, since back then hearing protection wasn't as easy or anywhere as effective as the ear plugs and ear muffs we take for granted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom