Skip to comments.Wauwatosa lawyer challenges state's gun silencer law
Posted on 07/23/2012 5:31:43 AM PDT by rellimpank
In the movies, silencers afford guns that ominous "thwip, thwip" sound that makes spies and assassins so stealthy and efficient.
In real-life Wisconsin, however, possession of a silencer makes you a lawbreaker unless you're a police officer or soldier on duty, or have completed extensive federal paperwork to register the item.
But now a Wauwatosa lawyer charged with having a silencer has challenged the state's law against them as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.
"Tens of thousands of Americans each year use suppressors for perfectly harmless activities," like target shooting and animal control, according to Thomas M. Barrett's motion to dismiss his pending felony charge.
The motion, filed by Barrett's attorney Allison Ritter, calls the silencer law "an unreasoned Act of the 1991 Wisconsin Legislature," hidden in the final pages of a 700-page budget bill.
Since then, the state has amended its constitution to recognize specifically the right to have guns for "security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose," the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gun rights advocates in two major cases, and Wisconsin has adopted a concealed carry law.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Wisconsin gun law ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
We had a former customer who spent about 7 years in prison for violating this law. He left us holding the bag for some of his manufactured goods.
I read the article, then read the comments,which were all negative. Interestingly, the comments had a sidebar of Milwaukee’s Most Wanted homocidal killers - all Hispanic.
Re#4: When writing from jail (Oxford, I think) he said he’d never been happier. He had 3 meals a day and time to take guitar lessons. Go figure! I guess Wisconsin prisons are pretty cushy if you can avoid being Dahmerized.
The law sounds fairly irrelevant to me given that there’s a federal ban already. Not like you can just run out and buy a silencer without the federal paperwork, and the law permits them if you have all that.
I do admit the guy might have a point about clarifying the definition of silencer since ambiguous laws are just traps.
I’ve never understood why silencers are banned.
They should actually be encouraged. Hunting season is noisy and the constant bark of weapons in the woods, spooks farm animals, pets and young children who may be a mile or more from the noise source.
If a silencer makes it difficult for the gov’t to hear a tree falling in the forest, is a Constitutional law broken?
" Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission has voted unanimously to allow hunting with silencers in the Lone Star state."
In some parts of Europe I believe they are mandatory for hunting.
Most hunters do mot wear hearing protection in order to hear the animal they are hunting. This results in serious hearing loss and tinnitus. While “silencers” may or may not bring the sound level down to safe levels, they would be very beneficial to the hunter.
As I understand it (and I could be wrong) the federal law allows people to own silencers if they make their own. According to a gunsmith I used to know, they’re pretty easy to make.
Anyone here have experience with that?
They are NFA "firearms," and, as such, the making and transfer of them is controlled by the NFA branch of ATF. Forms are submitted (Form 1 to make, Form 4 to transfer), and a $200 tax paid for each occurrence.
Never heard that you could make your own without federal licensing. I rather doubt it actually.
Did a cursory search and it appears that you need federal approval to manufacture them.