BigBendFishing.Net

Its on the agenda for the FWC meetingSeptember 10th in Kissimmee
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-b ... 0065.story
This could be great for Urban deer squirrel harvesting.

I'm sure there are some downsides that I have not thought of...

Georgia is considering this as well. I noticed that there is a newly developed shotgun silencer. Looks like it would add a lot of weight to the end of the barrel, but it sure would be sweet in the duck blind!

I'm all for it.

Problem is you are still going to have to pay the extortion of the Fed $200 and wait a year or so to get the Tax Stamp for one.


Dubble

Count me in for night varmint hunting. Though most city folks think silencers are like in the movies, where it makes little to no noise.

fireant21 wrote:Count me in for night varmint hunting. Though most city folks think silencers are like in the movies, where it makes little to no noise.

Amen bud! Mud ducker made mention of a shotgun silencer. On the subject of movies and silencers, if yall haven't seen the movie, No country for old men, its a must watch! Caution though, this movie is not for most women, children, or the weak of heart! As far as the silencer issue, I'm open minded.

1. depending on the ammo used, silencers can be extremely effective. My .22 with subsonics is quieter than a pellet rifle, and it makes the most amazing sound when it hits a squirrel.

2. The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 and the $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,526 in 2014). I, for one, am grateful that the ATF did not have the forethought to automatically adjust the tax for inflation each year. $200 is a pittance compared to what it SHOULD be in order to be prohibitive.

Dubble Trubble wrote:Problem is you are still going to have to pay the extortion of the Fed $200 and wait a year or so to get the Tax Stamp for one.


Dubble

Yes, there is this bummer. We all need to get working on our elected federal representatives (you can forget contacting the whitehouse) to get this law changed!

You need to read the book "Unintended Consequences" to find out how this law was allowed to survive. Pretty lame and a sorry bunch in the US Supreme Court at that time. There is NO WAY this law does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

lonesouth wrote: 2. The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 and the $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,526 in 2014). I, for one, am grateful that the ATF did not have the forethought to automatically adjust the tax for inflation each year. $200 is a pittance compared to what it SHOULD be in order to be prohibitive.

Shhhh, don't give them any ideas.

You are correct about subsonic rounds, though I bet most folks in the US have no idea what they are.