Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NikatKimber" data-source="post: 1758400" data-attributes="member: 423">Here is what I just sent to the Chair:***************************************Dear Senator Richardson,While I am not a direct constituent of yours, as a member of the House Committee I believe you represent all Oklahomans in that capacity. As such I would like to voice my support of this bill.There are two main arguments in opposition to this bill, which I will attempt to address my reasoning against both here. Also, both are answered by the same logic.1)    Allowing legal use of suppressors will increase poaching &#8211; as this would decrease the ability of wardens to track poachers by sound.2)    Allowing legal use of suppressors will increase the danger to Oklahoma citizens &#8211; as this would reduce the awareness of other citizens that there may be hunters in the area.Both situations require gross irresponsibility and / or criminal action on the part of the hunter. Legal ownership of suppressors &#8211; and any other NFA regulated Class III items &#8211; are heavily regulated, and require extensive registration and background checks prior to ownership. There is also currently a $200 fee on top of cost of the suppressor. It is unlikely that someone who took the time, effort, and cost will commit such an act that could endanger that investment. As a group, owners of such NFA Class III items have proven to be an extremely law abiding, responsible group. As my wife, who also supports this bill, pointed out to me: it can be beneficial to hear the gunshots of hunters around the area, especially to those living in a rural setting, as that would give them a warning that there may be a hunter getting too close to their home. Returning again to the statement I made above, suppressor owners have shown themselves to be very responsible citizens; and one of the fundamental rules of a responsible hunter, or *any* firearms enthusiast, is to know your target, and what is behind it. Thus, those who would be using a legally owned suppressor to hunt legally, will almost certainly be the most responsible hunters afield. I would encourage you to research the number of legally owned suppressor owners who have illegally hunted with them. Or, expand that search to the number of any NFA Class III item owner who has committed any crime with or related to NFA Class III items. Finally, even now, there is nothing but the law keeping any individual from using a suppressor to hunt with. The point being, that those who will break the law will do so; and those who will be responsible and abide by the law, will be, and will follow the law regarding legal taking of game.As always, my personal opinion is that providing stiff penalties for the negligent or criminal action is superior to a blanket ban. In this application, that means impose and enforce harsh penalties against those who are negligent or criminal in their use of suppressors while hunting but allow the responsible and law abiding hunter to use them in a responsible and law abiding manner; rather than punishing the responsible by banning all suppressor use in the hopes of preventing the irresponsible and criminal.Thank you for your time!Respectfully,*NikatKimber*********************************************I'll be changing it up a little and sending it to more of them.Thanks for keeping us up to date vdub.</blockquote>

Verification