Suppressors?
- Thread starter logan1080
- Start date
I would love to have a compact supressor on all my hunting firearms (minus shotguns) if it were permitted. I still believe the firearms that were manufactured with an integral suppressor defeats the criminal code but they would still require an FRT number.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Probably one of the best suggestions in this thread...
Adding a suppressed barrel to a firearm I agree, IE adding an integrally suppresed 10/22 barrel would be a device added to reduce the report.
Now there are a number of firearm producers making NEW complete rifles which include an integral suppressor. I have seen them in a number of magazines but my google foo sucks today. These rifles are manufactured with a lower report than another comparable caliber rifle but they were manufactured that way.
I agree adding a suppressed barrel to a firearm is prohibited. The fact that a firearm was designed and manufatured without using or modifiy an existing firearm should be permitted.
Now there are a number of firearm producers making NEW complete rifles which include an integral suppressor. I have seen them in a number of magazines but my google foo sucks today. These rifles are manufactured with a lower report than another comparable caliber rifle but they were manufactured that way.
I agree adding a suppressed barrel to a firearm is prohibited. The fact that a firearm was designed and manufatured without using or modifiy an existing firearm should be permitted.
- Location
- Peace River, Alberta
What needs to happen is a multi sided attack here. Business needs to speak up as well ranges and shooters and organizations such as NFA, CSSA and any hearing orgs. We need to unite and put the pressure on to the government to enact change.
Matt_dal123
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
there is not ball to roll unfortunately. it has been tried many times and the same thing happens. nothing. its a sad fact and a shame we cannot use suppressors
Really? Who tried it and when? What argument did they use and why did they lose? .......................... See the anti's make stuff up out of thin air, we should try NOT to do that.
I do not know of a single concerted effort to sue the government to allow the use of sound suppressors in Canada. I do know that the Brits did it and were successful using the OH&S laws against the silencer ban.
Well from Health Canada.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/index-eng.php
And
6. Noise Effects
Health Canada does not have noise guidelines or enforceable noise thresholds or standards. Responsible authorities (and/or provincial/territorial authorities) are encouraged to consult with provincial and municipal authorities to determine which standards or regulations exist for the location of the proposed project, as differences may exist in their respective approaches to limiting noise impacts.
Health Canada's approach to noise assessment is to consider a variety of internationally recognized standards for acoustics (i.e. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1974), CAN/CSA ISO standards). Health Canada considers the following noise-induced endpoints as health effects: noise-induced hearing loss, sleep disturbance, interference with speech comprehension, complaints, and change in percent highly annoyed (%HA). The approach advised by Health Canada to noise assessment is based on the best possible characterization of baseline and project-related noise and its impact on potential noise-sensitive receptors. To obtain the highest quality data, Health Canada advises that acoustical assessments be completed by professional and properly trained consultants using methods that are recognized as the industry standard.
It is advisable that an assessment of noise exposure on human receptors located near the project site considers the following:
The identification of all potential noise-sensitive receptors and their locations relative to the project area, and the identification of areas in which receptors could be considered to have a reasonable expectation of "peace and quiet" (i.e. "quiet rural areas"). The identification of sensitive receptors may include residences, daycares, school, hospitals, places of worship, nursing homes, and First Nations and Inuit communities.
A delineation of the distance of the project to potential receptors using maps that indicate noise levels at various distances from the project site and identify all affected receptors. If any potential receptors are excluded from the assessment, provide a justification.
The identification/assessment of baseline sound levels (measured or estimated) for both daytime (Ld) and nighttime (Ln) at the receptor locations.
The identification of all potential noise sources during construction, operation and decommissioning (e.g. blasting, traffic, heavy equipment or transformers), and the identification of any tonal (e.g. sirens), low-frequency (e.g. wind turbines), impulsive (e.g. quarry or mining explosions), and highly impulsive (e.g. hammering, pile driving or pavement breaking) types of noise.
A description of the methods (i.e. measured or estimated) used to obtain the baseline and predicted noise levels, including detailed information on how the noise assessment was conducted.
A comparison of baseline noise levels with predicted noise levels at sensitive receptor locations during construction, operation, and/or decommissioning (during daytime and nighttime, and after mitigation, if warranted).
The expected duration of noise due to construction activities (and, if applicable, operation and/or decommissioning activities). Note that Health Canada uses the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Noise Control Directive 038 (2007) for guidance on whether construction noise should be considered short-term with regard to the prediction of complaint levels.
If construction noise lasts for less than two months at receptors, it may be considered temporary, and community consultation is advised.
For construction noise at receptors with durations of less than one year (i.e. short-term), Health Canada advises that mitigation be proposed if the resulting levels are predicted to result in widespread complaints or a stronger community reaction, based on the U.S. EPA method (U.S. EPA 1974, Michaud et al. 2008).
For construction noise at receptors with durations of more than one year (i.e. long-term), for operational noise, and where noise levels are in the range of 45-75 dB, Health Canada advises that health impact endpoints be evaluated on the change in the percentage of the population (at a specific receptor location) who become highly annoyed (%HA). Health Canada suggests that mitigation be proposed if the predicted change in %HA at a specific receptor is greater than 6.5% between project and baseline noise environments, or when the baseline-plus-project-related noise is in excess of 75 dB.
An evaluation of the severity of predicted changes in noise levels and how they may affect human health.
When health effects due to noise are predicted, Health Canada advises the identification of mitigation measures to limit noise, which typically include community consultation programs. In some situations where a specific type of mitigation is not technically or economically feasible, community consultation has achieved success in limiting the number of noise-related complaints.
management and noise monitoring plans, including complaint resolution, if applicable.
Another great link.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/hearing_loss-perte_audition-eng.php
There is a prohibited limit to childrens toys??? Are kids not allowed to use firearms?
10. Toys, equipment and other products for use by a child in learning or play that
make or emit noise exceeding one hundred decibels measured at the distance that the product ordinarily would be from the ear of the child using it;
contain plant seeds as pellets for making noise, where the product is intended for use by a child of less than three years of age; or
contain plant seeds as stuffing material.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/index-eng.php
And
6. Noise Effects
Health Canada does not have noise guidelines or enforceable noise thresholds or standards. Responsible authorities (and/or provincial/territorial authorities) are encouraged to consult with provincial and municipal authorities to determine which standards or regulations exist for the location of the proposed project, as differences may exist in their respective approaches to limiting noise impacts.
Health Canada's approach to noise assessment is to consider a variety of internationally recognized standards for acoustics (i.e. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1974), CAN/CSA ISO standards). Health Canada considers the following noise-induced endpoints as health effects: noise-induced hearing loss, sleep disturbance, interference with speech comprehension, complaints, and change in percent highly annoyed (%HA). The approach advised by Health Canada to noise assessment is based on the best possible characterization of baseline and project-related noise and its impact on potential noise-sensitive receptors. To obtain the highest quality data, Health Canada advises that acoustical assessments be completed by professional and properly trained consultants using methods that are recognized as the industry standard.
It is advisable that an assessment of noise exposure on human receptors located near the project site considers the following:
The identification of all potential noise-sensitive receptors and their locations relative to the project area, and the identification of areas in which receptors could be considered to have a reasonable expectation of "peace and quiet" (i.e. "quiet rural areas"). The identification of sensitive receptors may include residences, daycares, school, hospitals, places of worship, nursing homes, and First Nations and Inuit communities.
A delineation of the distance of the project to potential receptors using maps that indicate noise levels at various distances from the project site and identify all affected receptors. If any potential receptors are excluded from the assessment, provide a justification.
The identification/assessment of baseline sound levels (measured or estimated) for both daytime (Ld) and nighttime (Ln) at the receptor locations.
The identification of all potential noise sources during construction, operation and decommissioning (e.g. blasting, traffic, heavy equipment or transformers), and the identification of any tonal (e.g. sirens), low-frequency (e.g. wind turbines), impulsive (e.g. quarry or mining explosions), and highly impulsive (e.g. hammering, pile driving or pavement breaking) types of noise.
A description of the methods (i.e. measured or estimated) used to obtain the baseline and predicted noise levels, including detailed information on how the noise assessment was conducted.
A comparison of baseline noise levels with predicted noise levels at sensitive receptor locations during construction, operation, and/or decommissioning (during daytime and nighttime, and after mitigation, if warranted).
The expected duration of noise due to construction activities (and, if applicable, operation and/or decommissioning activities). Note that Health Canada uses the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Noise Control Directive 038 (2007) for guidance on whether construction noise should be considered short-term with regard to the prediction of complaint levels.
If construction noise lasts for less than two months at receptors, it may be considered temporary, and community consultation is advised.
For construction noise at receptors with durations of less than one year (i.e. short-term), Health Canada advises that mitigation be proposed if the resulting levels are predicted to result in widespread complaints or a stronger community reaction, based on the U.S. EPA method (U.S. EPA 1974, Michaud et al. 2008).
For construction noise at receptors with durations of more than one year (i.e. long-term), for operational noise, and where noise levels are in the range of 45-75 dB, Health Canada advises that health impact endpoints be evaluated on the change in the percentage of the population (at a specific receptor location) who become highly annoyed (%HA). Health Canada suggests that mitigation be proposed if the predicted change in %HA at a specific receptor is greater than 6.5% between project and baseline noise environments, or when the baseline-plus-project-related noise is in excess of 75 dB.
An evaluation of the severity of predicted changes in noise levels and how they may affect human health.
When health effects due to noise are predicted, Health Canada advises the identification of mitigation measures to limit noise, which typically include community consultation programs. In some situations where a specific type of mitigation is not technically or economically feasible, community consultation has achieved success in limiting the number of noise-related complaints.
management and noise monitoring plans, including complaint resolution, if applicable.
Another great link.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/hearing_loss-perte_audition-eng.php
There is a prohibited limit to childrens toys??? Are kids not allowed to use firearms?
10. Toys, equipment and other products for use by a child in learning or play that
make or emit noise exceeding one hundred decibels measured at the distance that the product ordinarily would be from the ear of the child using it;
contain plant seeds as pellets for making noise, where the product is intended for use by a child of less than three years of age; or
contain plant seeds as stuffing material.
I want to be able to hunt with a suppressor so that when I am not wearing hearing protection to I can actually hear the game I am not damaging my hearing. There is no reason (other than existing laws) why I shouldn't be allowed to protect my hearing when hunting. On a range I wear ear pro but hunting I don't so that I can hear what is going on around me. I don't even pull my touque down over my ears so that I can hear. I think that suppressors should not be prohibited (as many here do) and I think they should be treated like the tool that they are and completely non-restricted. That might be a hard sell but I don't want to see an ATT for a suppressor on my NR rifle to go hunting. I would be happy to register the suppressor and transfer if I were to sell it but I would be pushing hard to treat them just like flash suppressors are now.
How is a change like this started?
I don't know and why I am asking? Does it require a petition to start, money? What? I don't think letters to our MP's (including Cheryl Gallant) will do. I think a combined attack against the criminal code itself as the laws reguarding suppressors are not "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
". So I am asking who, what, how do we get this started. Lets stop the in fighting and start an actual attack on the unjustifed laws currently in place.
I don't know and why I am asking? Does it require a petition to start, money? What? I don't think letters to our MP's (including Cheryl Gallant) will do. I think a combined attack against the criminal code itself as the laws reguarding suppressors are not "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
". So I am asking who, what, how do we get this started. Lets stop the in fighting and start an actual attack on the unjustifed laws currently in place.
The problem is North American mentality. The masses watch far too many movies and associate suppressors with assassins and whatever other bs their imaginations dream up. You would have a hell of a time convincing people here that their purpose is to curb noise pollution like it is in Europe. Europeans live in far closer proximity and in more congested areas than we do so to them cutting down on noise from the gun ranges makes sense. The first word that will pop into the average lefty drones brain when this is mentioned is sniper.
The best way to try would be to get copy's of the British legislation and rules regarding these devices. Leftys love Britain, its a big muliticultural rainbow that poops lollypops and hugs so it must be good.
The best way to try would be to get copy's of the British legislation and rules regarding these devices. Leftys love Britain, its a big muliticultural rainbow that poops lollypops and hugs so it must be good.
Last edited:
- Location
- Peace River, Alberta
Really? How about someone else help out here? Suputin has done a lot already towards this cause. I wouldn't abuse him too much as he is a wealth of knowledge in this subject. We need to keep moving for this. I for one am willing to help out. I am willing to start a forward movement and organize. What are others willing to do?
Greg
Greg
Last edited by a moderator:
