"silencer" in local trading post !!


PDA






steveracer
August 23, 2006, 09:52 AM
On page 13 of the Tidewater Trading Post is a H&K Socom pistol for sale. Not a problem. Good gun.
Also, in the same ad, is an Advanced Armament Corp. Evolution 45 "silencer".
It says, "valid driver's licence required".
I'm going to call him shortly and make sure he knows what kind of trouble he can get in if he transfers this without BATFE approval.

If you enjoyed reading about ""silencer" in local trading post !!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
the naked prophet
August 23, 2006, 10:36 AM
Be sure you don't mention anything about wanting to buy it, or he might have his buddies do a raid at your house... :uhoh:

orangelo
August 23, 2006, 11:02 AM
Just ask him what form it will transfer on. If he has no idea then run away. If he says form 3 or form 4 then he just forgot to put that info in his ad (honest mistake).

thebeastisbest
August 23, 2006, 01:08 PM
So what does it take to in order to get a suppressor? I have been considering one for my P22. I have heard everything from they are illegal everywhere to all you have to do is apply for the permit. I recall watching an episode of guns and ammo where they claimed they were legal in most states. I live in Texas, what's the deal?

steveracer
August 23, 2006, 01:16 PM
They are an NFA controlled item, just like a machine gun. One must apply with the BATFE and pay a $200 tax. After approved (months) one can purchase the supressor.
Paperless transfer is a felony, and lots of jail time ensues.

thebeastisbest
August 23, 2006, 01:19 PM
Once you are approved can you just purchased the one you applied for or many. In other words do you have to apply for each suppressor you purchase?

BigRobT
August 23, 2006, 01:38 PM
I'm thinking along the same lines as "the naked prophet".

I do miss the Tidewater area. Dunno why.:confused:

Car Knocker
August 23, 2006, 01:48 PM
In other words do you have to apply for each suppressor you purchase?

Yes.

Chipperman
August 23, 2006, 01:53 PM
Maybe the can is fake.

farscott
August 23, 2006, 01:53 PM
A Form 4 is required for each and every NFA weapon that is being purchased by an individual. Please note that a single weapon may require more than one tax stamp. Example: a full-auto rifle with an eighteen-inch integrally suppressed barrel requires two tax stamps, one for the suppressor and one for the full-auto feature. The tax is $400 in this case. If the barrel was fourteen inches, it would require three tax stamps.

The process for the Form 4 for an individual (not a corporation) goes something like this:

1) It is best to wait until your local dealer has the item on a Form 3 before you submit your Form 4. Believe it or not, the paperwork can really get fouled up if there are two transfers pending on the same item. Usually manufacturer to dealer transfers take only a few weeks, but my most recent transfer took four months. Pay your dealer for the item.

2) The Form 4 is completed in duplicate, and both copies need the CLEO signature. Two passport photos and two fingerprint cards are also part of the application.

3) The application is submitted to the BATF(E) with the transfer tax. Then the wait begins. Once the Form 4 is approved, the tax stamp comes back on one of the Form 4 copies, and the dealer can transfer the item to you.

4) Once the item is yours, taking it interstate may require filing another form with the BATFE. This is Form 5320.20, and it is required for a short-barreled shotgun but not for an AOW.

orangelo
August 23, 2006, 02:02 PM
If the barrel was fourteen inches, it would require three tax stamps.

Nope. A machinegun can have any length barrel. Full-auto trumps everything else. You can't have a Full auto AOW or SBR because it's just a plain machinegun.

Otherwise alot of MAC owners would be in jail for not having their guns also registered as SBRs.

So it'd still be 1 tax stamp for it being a MG and another one for the suppressor.

Chipperman
August 23, 2006, 02:18 PM
Full-auto trumps everything else.

Not quite. An MP5SD, for example, requires two stamps-- one for the MG and one for the integral suppressor.

orangelo
August 23, 2006, 02:28 PM
That's what I said. :D The suppressor takes another stamp because it is another device. Even if it's integral. Weird BATFE thinking going on.


You'd think a 9" barrel with 7" suppressor permanently attached wouldn't also need a SBR stamp, but nooooo... While you can weld a 5" flash hider on a 11" barrel and it'd be perfectly legal. Some laws just don't make sense.
:o

ChestyP
August 23, 2006, 02:44 PM
Then there's Washington, where possession of suppressors is perfectly legal (if possessed IAW federal law), but it's a gross misdemeanor to fire a shot through a suppressor (RCW 9.41.250(3)). A separate offense for each shot!

(And no exception for cops.)

farscott
August 23, 2006, 02:46 PM
A machinegun can have any length barrel.Really? Is this a recent change? A few years ago, I took a look at a suppressed short-barreled M16-variant that required three tax stamps. I thought the third stamp was for the short barrel. If not, what could require the third tax stamp?

AJ Dual
August 23, 2006, 02:54 PM
If it had a 40mm M203 grenade launcher, that would be a DD Destructive Device tax-stamp. (As would every 40mm grenade separately).

Or if it had one of those fore-end attachments where you can add a Glock or other pisto as a vertical grip for a pistol caliber option, that pistol counts as a second SBR.

The underbarrel door-breaching shotguns for M-16's are SBS's on a separate tax stamp too.

Otherwise, it was a mistake.

One stamp for MG, one for the suppressor. An "MG is an MG", SBR does not apply. It can have any BBL length.

orangelo
August 23, 2006, 02:55 PM
Some people register their guns also as SBR if the 'machinegun' is actually a registered sear or lightning link or other removeable device.

The instant you remove one of those conversion devices from a host gun (to use in a different gun for example), the host gun is no longer a MG. Then if it had a short barreled upper on it, it'd be a semi-auto SBR.

I think that might be how the M16 you saw got 3 stamps.

AJ Dual
August 23, 2006, 02:57 PM
Good point, that's the one exception I hadn't thought of.

farscott
August 23, 2006, 03:03 PM
My memory is cloudy, but the registered sear, SBR, and suppressor combo sounds familar. Thanks.

cavman
August 23, 2006, 03:05 PM
Is the tax yearly or one time?

wdlsguy
August 23, 2006, 03:21 PM
One time.

Bubbles
August 23, 2006, 03:22 PM
It's a one-time tax paid every time the NFA weapon is transferred to a non-dealer.

If you're really considering purchasing an NFA weapon, read James Bardwell's FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt) first.

If you're unfamiliar with the paperwork and procedures required to purchase an NFA weapon, and you have the cash to buy one, there's a recommended list of dealers (http://www.subguns.com/c2c3/c2c3.htm) who can walk you through the process.

TX1911fan
August 23, 2006, 03:56 PM
Suppressors ("Firearms Silencer") are legal in Texas if registered pursuant to the National Firearms Act. See Texas Penal Code Section 46.06(c). Actually, it is just a defense to prosecution, so you could still be brought up on charges, but then you could plead the defense. I hate when they write laws like that.

I don't know if we have some other stupid law like Washington that says you can have a suppressor but can't use it.

wdlsguy
August 23, 2006, 04:23 PM
Suppressors ("Firearms Silencer") are legal in Texas if registered pursuant to the National Firearms Act.
Correct.

See Texas Penal Code Section 46.06(c).
46.05(c).

Actually, it is just a defense to prosecution, so you could still be brought up on charges, but then you could plead the defense. I hate when they write laws like that.
Military and LEOs also depend upon a defense to prosecution. It really isn't an issue as long as you can produce a copy of your Form 4.

I don't know if we have some other stupid law like Washington that says you can have a suppressor but can't use it.
Nope.

Sistema1927
August 23, 2006, 05:47 PM
My head hurts.

If the government was looking for revenue, there are easier, more efficient ways.

If they are trying to control crime, then they failed.

So, it must be about CONTROL, and not about the guns.

wdlsguy
August 23, 2006, 06:02 PM
So, it must be about CONTROL, and not about the guns.

Russia had gone communist in 1917, America was in the middle of the Great Depression, and the ruling elites in Washington were getting very nervous about the possibility of a revolution. That what I was told anyhow. :(

orangelo
August 23, 2006, 06:04 PM
So, it must be about CONTROL, and not about the guns.

Wasn't that already obvious? One of the few kinds of guns that required the ultimate in 'common sense gun control' were machineguns. They were subject to heavy taxation. Owners had to be licensed and registered. They could not be taken out of state without government approval. Mere possession by a person not listed on the registration is grounds for imprisonment.

The gun grabbers all say they aren't out to ban guns, 'common sense' is all they want... but give them all that and what do they do? They ban them in 1986. Despite all the 'common sense gun control' measures already in place for 52 years and the fact that NFA registered devices are almost NEVER used in crimes. Dead poodles and hamburgers have been used in more violent crimes than all legally registered weapons in the past 72 years.

So the NRA is absolutely right, registration DOES lead to a complete ban. And that is why gun grabbers (aka democrats) must be opposed no matter what kind of 'hunter friendly' garbage they spew. They have only 1 thing in mind for guns and that's banning them outright.

They required registration of MGs. Then they stop registering them.
In DC they required registration of handguns. Then they stopped registering them.

Anyone see a pattern?

Wait til I share this little tidbit with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Pat Robertson. We can make sure no democrat ever wins any election ever again. Don't worry, registered voters can still cast their ballots for whoever they want. But districts that vote heavily democrat won't be allowed to register any voters. :scrutiny:

Chipperman
August 23, 2006, 06:05 PM
It was not about making money.

It was about making the fee so crazy ($200 in 1934 was A LOT), that very few people would actually register machine guns. When the 1980's came and $200 was not so much money anymore, they decided to stop taking the money altogether. :cuss:

mtnbkr
August 23, 2006, 06:10 PM
So, it must be about CONTROL,
And the light goes on above Sistema's head...

Chris

Father Knows Best
August 23, 2006, 06:13 PM
I believe it was about control. Russia had gone communist in 1917, America was in the middle of the Great Depression, and the ruling elites in Washington were getting very nervous about the possibility of a revolution.

Um, sorta. I don't know that fear of communism had much to do with it, but the National Firearms Act of 1934 was certainly about control. Remember that prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933, and with it came a huge increase in crime, particularly organized crime. Sawed-off shotguns were viewed as being popular with the criminal gangs, as were the newfangled submachine guns like the Thompson models of 1921 and 1928.

In the 1930s, however, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution still meant something. Accordingly, Congress didn't think it had the power to enact outright bans on automatic weapons, short barrel rifles and shotguns, or suppressors. It did have the power to regulate interstate commerce, and it had the power to tax commerce. Accordingly, Congress did what it knew it could do -- require a permit to obtain a machine gun, suppressor or short barrel rifle or shotgun, and impose a hefty tax on any such transaction. The tax was set at $200. That may not sound like a lot seeing that pistols and rifles typically sell new these days for $400 to $1,000, but that was a huge amount of money in 1934. Adjusting for inflation, $200 in 1934 equals $2,855 in 2005 Dollars. In other words, Congress effectively the ability for all but the extremely wealthy to own automatic weapons, suppressors and short barrel firearms by imposing ridiculously high taxes on them. It was indeed about control.

Father Knows Best
August 23, 2006, 06:17 PM
When the 1980's came and $200 was not so much money anymore, they decided to stop taking the money altogether.

Not quite. BATFE will still happily take your $200 to transfer a suppressor, machine gun or short barrel rifle or shotgun. New suppressors, and short barrel shotguns and rifles, are still being made, and each costs $200 in taxes each time it is transferred. In 1986, however, the registry was forever closed to new machine guns for private ownership. Existing ones can still be transferred at $200 a pop, but no new ones can be added to the registry.

cmidkiff
August 23, 2006, 06:25 PM
In my home state of Missouri, any NFA item is fine... EXCEPT mufflers. Can't have one, no way, no how, short of SOT or LE status.

I can't decide which one pisses me off more... MO's no muffler law, or the '86 ban on new MG's. Both are a total disgrace. Of course, we would have neither without the NFA '34 and the GCA '68. REPEAL THEM ALL!

:fire:

Father Knows Best
August 23, 2006, 06:27 PM
cmidkiff, I feel your pain. I lived in Tennessee for years, and thought about getting a suppressor or two. My dad lives in Georgia and has several, including a wicked cool integrally suppressed .44 mag rifle. I never got around to it.

Then I moved to Minnesota a few months ago. I had some funds, and thought it was time to finally buy that suppressor. Imagine my disappointment to learn that Minnesota bans them completely! :banghead:

Ridiculous.

HCfan
August 23, 2006, 07:53 PM
Not to go off the subject of the silencer being in a trades paper but I do have a question.

A silencer is considered a NFA weapon so you have to pay the $200 tax. From what I've seen, they go for $500+ for the cheap ones to over $1000.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

Chipperman
August 23, 2006, 08:35 PM
Father Knows Best-- Not quite. BATFE will still happily take your $200 to transfer

I was talking about new registration for machine guns. Yeah, they were more than happy to take my money for NFA transfers on MGs that were ALREADY in the registry.



Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

To make a tube that attaches to your gun, sure. But to make an effective suppressor that will last for many rounds is not a simple thing to do.

gezzer
August 23, 2006, 10:24 PM
A silencer is considered a NFA weapon so you have to pay the $200 tax. From what I've seen, they go for $500+ for the cheap ones to over $1000.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

I wouldn't call a Gem=Tec Outback II a cheap can at 300 smakers I call mine Top of the line and tec. Great warranty and built by a reliable company.


Make own? Sure if you have a machine shop and know what you are doing. For the average gun tinker I would spend the money on a well engineered item than a home built oldtime tec. Remember the TAX is 200 bucks no matter what.

wdlsguy
August 23, 2006, 11:22 PM
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

Can you build a .22 LR can for $235 (http://www.tacticalinc.com/22lr-models-c-21_24.html) or a .223 can for $375 (http://www.tacticalinc.com/223-ar15m16-c-21_25.html)?

Beren
August 24, 2006, 09:34 AM
If I tried to make a can myself on a Form 1, I would end up spearing my hand on a lathe or something. The medical bills would add up to more than just buying a can from a manufacturer. Now, short-barrel AR-15s - those are simple to do yourself on a Form 1. :D

If you have decent machining skills and the proper equipment, it probably wouldn't be too hard to make your own silencer on a Form 1. Me though, I need to stay away from spinning sharpies.

redneckdan
August 24, 2006, 06:23 PM
i have a question that kinda falls under this topic. Michigan doesn't yet allow supressors but if they do I would like to get one. Say I get a .22 rimfire muzzle can, is the can only allowed for one fire arm or can the same can be taken off one firearm and attached to another? Also, If I were to make a can, do the proper paper work, use it for a while and come up with a better design; can the original can with the serial number be destryoed and the serial number be assigned to a new can without paying another tax?

steveracer
August 24, 2006, 06:58 PM
You can take it off one weapon and add it to another. No problem.
Just be sure it's not an integrally supressed barrel you're swapping. May have different rules.

wdlsguy
August 24, 2006, 07:02 PM
You are free to move a suppressor from one firearm to another. No idea if you can destroy your old suppressor and replace it with a new one.

444
August 24, 2006, 07:06 PM
Did it ever occur to you that he advertised the suppressor for sale and expects people who know what they are doing to answer the ad ?

I have purchased a half dozen suppressors from ads on the internet from people who didn't feel the need to post any additional information. They know the law, I know the law. We didn't need anything else to be said and didn't need any third party calling us up to captivate us with his knowlege of firearms law. Why not leave the guy alone unless you want to buy the stuff he is selling ?



I have never tried to make a suppressor, but I would imagine that you would make the outside of the suppressor (suppressor body, suppressor tube ?, outside.. ?) and engrave the serial number on it. Then you would modify and play around with the internals. You wouldn't destroy the whole thing.

gezzer
August 24, 2006, 10:24 PM
Note: Jr. ATF agents jump in to help.

Some rights helper here.

Liberal Gun Nut
August 24, 2006, 10:28 PM
Then there's Washington, where possession of suppressors is perfectly legal (if possessed IAW federal law), but it's a gross misdemeanor to fire a shot through a suppressor (RCW 9.41.250(3)). A separate offense for each shot!

Yeah but how could they catch you? They wouldn't be able to hear it!

pete f
August 25, 2006, 04:38 AM
only way to possess a can on minnesota is to become a dealer or a manufacturer.

Even the popo and the DNR are statutorily limited to how many and when they can have cans.

Can you say stooooopid DFLers


The funny thing is, my cousins who still live in sweden are required to use cans at the range. There are only certain days of the year (and only a few) when they can shoot without them. As it is viewed as running open pipes on your car. I believe they hunt without them, if they want, but they are required to use them at the range I went to with them. They were shooting both their civil guard rifles and personal hunting rifles.
Not sure if this is a range rule or a local or national, but they just assumed it was the same here.

Zach S
August 25, 2006, 09:44 AM
I saw an add once for a full-auto Mac 10 in the Iwanna (local classifieds), which I found odd since they didnt allow ads for "semi-auto assault weapons as defined by the BATFE" (and AFAIK they still have that header in the guns and bows section). I always wondered how many wanna-be gangbangers called him.

A while later, I saw an add for something else title II, I think a RDIAS for an AR15, POR. The next week, it said "all NFA rules apply, if you dont know what that means, dont call." I bet he got a lot of calls that wasted his time...

Just be sure it's not an integrally supressed barrel you're swapping. May have different rules. Most integrally supressed barrels, take the 9mm upper from Gemtech or LRM for example, have barrels less than 16" long and must be used on rifles registered as SBRs.

Cans are easy on and easy off. I dont imagine that integrally supressed barrels would be, but I'm far from an expert.

VARifleman
August 25, 2006, 03:59 PM
To make a tube that attaches to your gun, sure. But to make an effective suppressor that will last for many rounds is not a simple thing to do.
A simple tube that attaches to the gun, while the ATF would probably accept money for it, is not an NFA item. It can have no baffles though (as then it would be a suppressor).

Search for Bloop Tubes.

If you enjoyed reading about ""silencer" in local trading post !!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!