TexasCHLforum.com

HankB wrote:

srothstein wrote:I may be off, but I have never heard of a need in law enforcement for either a suppressor a class III as a defensive weapon.

I've read that suppressed weapons are popular when serving a warrant - particularly a no-knock warrant - when the object of the warrant has one or more dogs, especially those kept outside, either on a long tether or in a fenced yard. Pre-emptive use of the suppressed weapon on said canines has supposedly been referred to as "hush puppy."

You could be right, I had not thought of that. I don't remember ever using one on the raids I went on, but the use of dogs wasn't as popular then as it is now. And it has been years. I think I would go with tranquilizer darts over the suppressor, but I can see the arguments either way. To me, the dog isn't the criminal (or suspected criminal) and does not deserve to die for having a dumb owner.

Molon_labe wrote:Many LEO go this route in order to get their defense weapons

Its sad when the LEO cant get a pass from their own higher ups for firearms that could save their hineys!

I may be off, but I have never heard of a need in law enforcement for either a suppressor a class III as a defensive weapon.

I would think the chief is not signing off because the officer is claiming it is for defense when it is really because he just wants one. Of course, that is really not an excuse either. We need to do away with getting the police permission on these.