Silencers/suppressors

[ΙεΙίος1]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: New one.

What law do you wish to add:
7.? Silencers and Suppressors
The manufacture, possess, sell, transport and/or usage of silencers and suppressors is illegal.


Infraction - liable to $2,500 maximum fine and asset forfeiture. (The price should be adjusted according to the crafting price of the silencer(s).)


Why should this addition be made: Silencers are being used in weapons to make them... silent. The last thing the police would want to, is people being able to kill others silently without the police getting alerted to catch the criminal and/or to save a life.

What is the aim of this addition: Make silencers illegal so criminals do not get away easily (also with the new update I thought this was needed as silencers can be attached to almost every gun).

Additional Information: The suppressors aren't that much of a deal (there won't be any in the game anyways) but still, I find it nice to be a law against them as well.

 

[blobvis 2.0]

No, here are Some reasons why:
- Parts of guns are not illegal
-they become illegal when attached to guns And you fire it
-you can be gundealer And sell suppressed weaponry as it is not a crime, it is what you prefer
-they are just more quite so area is not scared off

Overal I don't think it Should be there as it Will also clash with THE weapon permit And other Things, again on it self it is not illegal, when it is connected it is.

 

[ΙεΙίος1]

Parts of guns are not illegal

So? This is why I am making this suggestion, so the silencers become illegal.

they become illegal when attached to guns And you fire it

What does this have to do with anything?

-you can be gundealer And sell suppressed weaponry as it is not a crime, it is what you prefer

It is not a crime yet, but with this law it would be one. Why would you have a silenced weapon if you are going to use it legally? You would want the cops to come and would already called 911. Silencers would be used for illegal things were attention is not wanted.

they are just more quite so area is not scared off

"scared off". You mean that they are quiet enough for people to hope that cops won't come cause they heard gunshots during a raid or be called by other people.

Overal I don't think it Should be there as it Will also clash with THE weapon permit And other Things, again on it self it is not illegal, when it is connected it is.

Not really understanding what you mean by that. How would it clash with the weapon permit as the silencer would be the one getting confiscated, not the gun.

 

[Walker]

Pretty sure that I heard someone say that someone spoke to @Jordan and confirmed nothing was being done with attachments law wise? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[joR]

Pretty sure that I heard someone say that someone spoke to @Jordan and confirmed nothing was being done with attachments law wise? Correct me if I am wrong.

Nah, I've been pretty open minded about it, at the moment nothing is planned but I'm open for any suggestions.

 

[Eviction Notice]

I do believe, law wise, this makes sense, as you're basically trying to hide the fact you've shot a weapon and/or murdered someone from others. This, in turn, could mean that you're actively trying to hide a crime and not report it to law enforcement.

 

[Imperial Watch]

I am all for regulation on suppressors. While I don't think they should be outright illegal, certain bars can be put in place to prevent known felons to walk around with suppressed weapons. This could for example be not allowing convicted felons of being in possession of silenced weapons. If a citizen is "law abiding" to a certain degree, i.e not convicted of a felony, then it should be alright for them to be in possession of silenced gats.

It's not like citizens would need an m82 anyway unless the russians were invading, but it's still perfectly fine to be in possession of such a powerful weapon.

 

[Sgt.James]

While I don't think they should be outright illegal, certain bars can be put in place to prevent known felons to walk around with suppressed weapons. This could for example be not allowing convicted felons of being in possession of silenced weapons. If a citizen is "law abiding" to a certain degree, i.e not convicted of a felony, then it should be alright for them to be in possession of silenced gats.

How about; In order for you to be allowed to have a suppressor in your possession, you must have the CCW Permit. Or have different permit, specifically for suppressors...

 

[Imperial Watch]

How about; In order for you to be allowed to have a suppressor in your possession, you must have the CCW Permit. Or have different permit, specifically for suppressors...

I though about that as well when writing my opinion on this suggestion. I just think that until the CCW Permit is actually implemented (if it ever is going to be) just having a law that states silencers aren't allowed for for example felons, that it was some sort of intermediary as it's easy for an officer to just look up in the police computer if a person has actually commited a felony until the permit system is put in place. (if it's ever going to be)

 

[Allen Kennedy]

I'll be honest, this makes perfect sense to me, as, in Paralake, there is very little licit need for a silenced firearm, legally, the only reason you would have a firearm is if you need to defend yourself, or your property, therefore, there is no legal reason to require one. Suppressors are only really needed by criminals, to stay quiet, or SWAT teams, to possibly breach a property silently if need be.

I have some ideas for if someone is caught with one, also.

Fine: $1,000 - $2,000 + Confiscation of the suppressor, and maybe the firearm itself.

 

[Deleted member 27]

In my opinion, only the usage of surpressors (when attached to a firearm).
Why? Because as @blobvis 2.0 said, weapon attachments are not illegal. They only become illegal when attached.
Everything else you've said: I agree.

 

[Walker]

I think it would be better to see something along the lines of "When questioned by a LEO you must provide a reasonable excuse for possession/use of a suppressor."

 

[M]

PARALAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICING AND POLICY​

Thank you for your input! This feedback is currently being considered further by the Policing and Policy department.

After this review is complete, the Chiefs of Department will consider the options available such as implementation, community feedback, etc. and you will be informed of any progress here.

Feel free to continue posting your views.

 

[Sam]

PARALAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICING AND POLICY
​

Hello,

A law suggestion for this have been submitted to the Chiefs of Department for review. Feel free to discuss it and suggest changes

Suggested Law:
7.7 Suppressors
Any person who is in possession of a suppressor or several suppressors commits an offence, any person manufacturing, transporting or distributing suppressors also commits an offence.

Misdemeanor - liable $2,500 maximum fine and asset forfeiture.​

 

[Generic Twat]

Personally, I highly disagree. Supressors are parts of guns, like stocks and scopes so It would be very in-effitiant to limit them.

If your aim is to prevent users from being too accurate durring shoot-outs or too silent, believe me that limiting them wouldn't do much.

1. If a user has a silencer, the gun is still pretty loud to be caught in the ear of a civilian (or can be identified by the sound of bullet casings)
2. Rifle markamanship, the sights and the stock in a weapon also dictate effitiency of the user wielding the gun.

If your aim was to limit all attatchments, then I would understand but I don't understand why you would limit such a thing that doesn't really change anything in the favour of officers.

 

[Walker]

Personally, I highly disagree. Supressors are parts of guns, like stocks and scopes so It would be very in-effitiant to limit them.

If your aim is to prevent users from being too accurate durring shoot-outs or too silent, believe me that limiting them wouldn't do much.

1. If a user has a silencer, the gun is still pretty loud to be caught in the ear of a civilian (or can be identified by the sound of bullet casings)
2. Rifle markamanship, the sights and the stock in a weapon also dictate effitiency of the user wielding the gun.

If your aim was to limit all attatchments, then I would understand but I don't understand why you would limit such a thing that doesn't really change anything in the favour of officers.

What will you be doing with a suppressor thats legal? Nothing.


//phone

 

[ErmakDimon]

Really the purpose of a suppressor is to not kill your ears when you shoot a gun, so it makes sense even to prohibit using weapons without suppressors

 

[Bnjemann]

I think it should be illegal to transport a weapon whilst a suppressor is attached, as this implies illegal intentions.

 

[Chrissy]

Do the Policing and Policy department actually do anything @Chris

PARALAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICING AND POLICY​

Thank you for your input! This feedback is currently being considered further by the Policing and Policy department.

After this review is complete, the Chiefs of Department will consider the options available such as implementation, community feedback, etc. and you will be informed of any progress here.

Feel free to continue posting your views.

[DOUBLEPOST=1498407164,1493375494][/DOUBLEPOST]Accepted for consideration by the council.

 

[Skudist]

This law suggestion has been denied at the re-meeting for the 5th City Council meeting.