Suppressor language in HB60

[Bear44]

Typical lawyer jumbo jumbo

It's hard to tell exactly what it means

Not really. You need land owner permission regardless of who owns the land. Privately owned=land owner. Publicly owned=government agency.

 

[roundhouse]

Does it mean you have to have verifiable permission. From the owner to HUNT ?

Or you have to have verifiable permission to HUNT WITH A SUPRESSOR ?

It's unclear which permission you're required to have

It's my understanding that you currently are required to possess written permission from the landowner anyway.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I am 100% opposed to any 'additional' penalites for a hunting violation with a supressor for the same reasons I'm opposed to 'hate crimes'. Is an illegally killed deer, shot with a supressor 'more dead' than one shot without? The added penalty was simply there to appease those who don't take two seconds to think about the 'logic' (or lack thereof) of what it really means.
How many of you would be in FAVOR of stiffer penalites for armed robberies but ONLY if the weapon was a semi automatic?

But the WORST thing about this legislation... I have an 11 year son who is HYPER SENSITIVE to noise and as such does NOT enjoy shooting. I can't tell you how much I was looking forward to having a full time hunting buddy. Now.... I'm going to have to educate myself on supressors and .... go get some and some hosts!

 

[GeauxLSU]

Does it mean you have to have verifiable permission. From the owner to HUNT ?

Or you have to have verifiable permission to HUNT WITH A SUPRESSOR ?

It's unclear which permission you're required to have

It's my understanding that you currently are required to possess written permission from the landowner anyway.

Bolded one.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Anyway...do you really think this law is going to make a poacher go oh look! I can commit a crime with a suppressor now! If they were going to poach with suppressors they've already been doing it, most likely with homemade cans.

Exactly... it's just another "feel good" provision.

 

[Adeste]

You still need your class three weapons permit and that's a process and not cheap as well. We should be happy as hell this Bill is on the governors desk. It ain't law yet though. This has taken four years and comes at a time where prohibitionists have been winning most of the battles. Huge Victory when and if(the fat lady has not sung yet) it gets signed in.

 

[Jack O A T]

Bolded one.

I don't read it that way. I want to hear from the lawmakers here as to their intent, but it would seem that the intent of the language is to address concerns of poaching on private land. It doesn't specifically say "permission to use said suppressor" so I would think, if you had a signed lease, suppressor language or not, you would be ok. Certainly room for your defense lawyer to argue. Keeping my ears open.

 

[BIKER13]

I dont have one.so it wont effect where I hunt.

 

[Laxguy59]

You still need your class three weapons permit and that's a process and not cheap as well. We should be happy as hell this Bill is on the governors desk. It ain't law yet though. This has taken four years and comes at a time where prohibitionists have been winning most of the battles. Huge Victory when and if(the fat lady has not sung yet) it gets signed in.

What in gods name is a class 3 weapons permit?

We pay a $200 tax per item, there is no permit.

 

[Laxguy59]

The "permissions" are to hunt, not the permission to suppress. So says a rep I asked