Quote:
Soc, that was an interesting read. I don't claim to be any sort of legal eagle. However, we're still where none of us know of a case where a lawfully owned and registered suppressor was used in a self-defense shooting.
Therefore, whomever does so first gets to be the test case.
Dunno 'bout y'all, but my mama didn't raise me to be a test case...
|
I suspect, judging from the % of cases criminal, in Kali, that go to trial, 3%, that if the situation ever came up, it would be plea bargained out to something minimal.
But, you never know. Since I'm already going a bit deaf, I would certainly consider having one around the house for target shooting if I could legally own one. I'd love to have a suppressor on a high powered rifle, and muzzle brake, at the same time.
Anyone have any information on how easy it is to get a Class III license now?
Mas, while you are around:
Do you have any actual chrono testing on 9mm out of a short barrel, like a Rohrburg?
I've noticed a BIG difference in ballistics, with some 9mm ammunition, when going from a 3.5"
barrel to a 3". Wondering if like the .357, there is a point where all you get is recoil, with reduced ballistics?
Thanks
Socrates
PS
One thing we CAN agree on is the mention of a silencer creates sheer terror in the hearts of legislators, and, certain federal judges. One must wonder what those legislators and judges have done that would create such an unreasoning fear of an inanimate object?
I gather this by the absurd laws written governing the issue, with no basis in fact, starting in 1934, and, after wading through a bunch of those cases, some of the comments by the sitting appellate judges...Usually such fear is reserved for the Mugabe's of this world, and, they have good reason to fear...