Information: Industry News - September 3, 2015
News Archives rsr

Read Friday's News...

Read Thursday's News...

Read Wednesday's News...

Read Tuesday's News...

Read Monday's News...


New Hampshire Suppressor Law Expansion Advances

A bill that would allow the use of suppressors in hunting in the Granite State has passed out of a House subcommittee and is moving forward.

The measure, backed by Republican lawmakers, would legalize the use of federally registered sound moderating devices for hunting and, if it becomes law, would make New Hampshire the 38th state to lift such restrictions. The proposal advanced to the full House Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee after a positive vote from a subcommittee work session last week.

“The main reason I put HB 500 in was to protect hunters hearing, ” Rep. John Burt, R-Goffstown, sponsor of the legislation, told “There are several good side effects that have been brought up from others that support HB 500.  Reduces gunshot noise for the homes nearby, reduces the high pitch noise which causes hear loss and many others benefits.”

Burt’s legislation, the Hunter’s Hearing Protection Act, filed as HB 500, repeals provisions in state law that that prohibit the use of silencers and suppressors while taking game. The devices, regulated by the National Firearms Act, are already legal in the state, and according to the latest data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, over 7,200 are registered in New Hampshire.

Burt explains in bill findings the use of the devices in hunting will help lessen the hearing damage many sportsmen suffer from as they lessen the report of a firearm greatly. This in turn will help new and inexperienced hunters hear directions in the field from mentors who are hunting alongside them, which could help bring more into the sport.

Burt is hopeful that state conservation commissioners, at their upcoming meeting on Sept. 9, will back the legislation.

“At first, sadly, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department was against HB 500,” the lawmaker said. “The Director said it would increase deer poaching. The supporters of HB 500 have proven that is not the case. I have talked to fish and game people in other states and they told me that is not the case. Sadly, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department was the only fish and game department in the country that was against suppressors being used during hunting in the states that allow suppressors use.  Suppressors are allowed in New Hampshire but not during hunting.  HB 500 will change that.”

The measure has the backing of the National Rifle Association as well as suppressor industry trade groups, who say the state has been a tough nut to crack.

“The legalization of suppressor hunting in New Hampshire has been a multi-year effort which is finally starting to pay off,” Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association told Wednesday. “Last week’s subcommittee vote marked the first time that we’ve seen positive movement by the legislature on HB 500.”

For Williams, it all boils down to safety. “Hunters in the Granite State deserve the opportunity to enjoy their time in the field without risking their hearing. We are extremely confident that we will be able to legalize their use in 2016,” he said.

The traction in New Hampshire is further sign that use of suppressors is becoming more mainstream in recent years as states ranging from Florida and Louisiana to Minnesota have legalized their use in hunting.

Nationwide suppressor registration figures through February, released last month, show an unprecedented 39 percent rise in the number of silencers on the books to nearly 800,000 currently held on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

A committee vote in New Hampshire is expected in coming weeks.

By Chris Eger,

California Bill to Allow Sheriffs, Chiefs to Ignore Recent Gun Rights Win Advances

The Senate gave its stamp of approval Wednesday to an Assembly bill to allow police agencies to circumvent a recent win in the courts on how sheriffs consider carry permit applications.

The proposal, which passed the Assembly 51-26 in April and the Senate 23-16 this week, would allow county sheriffs to establish agreements with local police chiefs to process carry license applications.

The practice, which gun rights advocates paint as an unofficial ban on issuing permits by sheriffs, was found illegal by a state court last January in the case of Lu v. Baca.

Supporters of the measure, backed by gun control organizations and police lobby groups, paint it as one to add better local control over who gets permits.

“I agree with the California State Sheriffs’ Association in that the police chief, whose department may be more familiar with city residents than a county sheriff, can be better positioned to make a determination that a person should be granted a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit,” said Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, in a statement to lawmakers.

Stone’s bill, AB 1134, allows a sheriff to make a deal with the chief of a local police department to process all of the area’s CCW applications. A similar agreement in Los Angeles County in 2012 was at the center of the lawsuit decided by a California Superior Court.

Gun rights advocates contend the measure is a way to legally circumvent the Lu victory and add an additional hoop for would-be concealed carriers to jump through, especially in cases where a city police chief is disinclined to grant a permit under the state’s controversial may-issue practices.

“If enacted into law, AB 1134 would only increase the red tape and costs associated with CCW issuance and not allow Californians in their jurisdictions the ability to apply for CCW permits to every agency they can legally apply to,” reads a statement from the California Rifle and Pistol Association emailed to

Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition and executive director of the Calguns Foundation, told previously that 1134 is an escape hatch for sheriffs to avoid their statutory duty to accept and process carry license applications.

“If sheriffs don’t like the responsibility of processing carry license applications, they should just support a bill to consolidate the entire system at the state level like armed guard permits are,” Combs said.

AB 1134 is now back in the Assembly waiting on concurrence, which is seen as being likely. After that, it’s on to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

By Chris Eger,