Re: ATTN: WYOMING SUPRESSOR OWNERS!!! UPDATE 08/01/12
Here is the reply I got from Mr. Madden:
"Mr. Hubbard:
I think if you can use a silencer for every other hunting or shooting opportunity except big game that you will be able to have a fulfilled and complete life. There is no merit to <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> of your arguments except that you are a no-compromise type of person.
Michael Madden
Dist. 40 Rep."
Here is my original text to him (and all the other reps):
"Dear Legislators,
Please vote to remove the Sommers amendment from SF 132. This amendment is not good legislation, it is the result of a lack of understanding of suppressors and basic physics.
As my original email stated (see below), suppressors will reduce the risk of hearing loss to the shooter and immediate bystanders, but they do NOT silence a shot. Suppressed shots can still be heard for miles. Using the "logic" of Mr. Sommers, archers should be required to shoot off an airhorn whenever they shoot and all mufflers should be removed from hunters' vehicles for the duration of the hunting season.
Let's not let ignorance of the worst kind, that is intentional ignorance, sway our lawmaking here in WY. Places like California already have shown where that will get us.
Please support SF 132 without amendment, which will allow suppressors to be used for hunting. This is a good piece of legislation that will not contribute to any increase in crime or poaching, if the experiences of the more than 25 states that allow big game hunting show anything. This critical legislation will allow hunters and shooters to protect their hearing while afield and clarify the current vague law."
*My email already posted elsewhere in this topic follows.
**I have asked him for clarification, and now I ask you, the reader, for same. I am not sure where the arguments lost merit. Or maybe my definition of merit and his aren't the same?
