[Flyboy73]

Just wondering if there has been any efforts to have suppressors removed from the NFA laws. Be able to buy them the same way you buy a title 1 firearm.

I think there many good reasons to have them more available and not have to spend the extra $200. Be able to buy them the same way as countries in Europe.

Brion

[Giterboosted]

This would be wonderful but it may be simply a pipe dream

[Prince Yamato]

I think the American Silencer Association may be working on it. It's a long term goal, iirc.

[MtnCreek]

IMHO, we need to focus on this in our local areas before we’ll have any traction at the national level. Several States have, or are discussing, allowing suppressors for hunting. The selling points have been hearing protection of the hunters and reduced nuisance for the neighbors; this goes a long ways in normalizing them for what they are. If we’re successful, more and more people will have heard the arguments for and against and any rational person (yea, I know) can see right through the arguments against. One side of the isle has been pretty successful at normalizing disgusting, perverse acts; I don’t see why we can’t use the same methods to reduce the stigma from a device that just lessens the noise of a firearm…

[AlexanderA]

Hollywood is to blame for demonizing "silencers." Hollywood never portrays the truth about suppressors, which is that they don't totally "silence" but rather reduce, to a greater or lesser extent, the sound signature of the discharge. (This truth doesn't serve the dramatic needs of the typical Hollywood story.) Therefore the first step is to educate the public on the true nature of suppressors. A good start has been made on this.

Not only "silencers," but also short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, and AOWs, should be removed from the purview of the NFA. There's no rational basis for regulating them. Then the NFA Branch would be able to process transfers of machine guns and destructive devices in a timely manner.

[JustinJ]

IMHO, we need to focus on this in our local areas before we’ll have any traction at the national level.

Why? They are perfectly legal to own in most states already. No state laws will affect the federal regulation of them. If it is a matter of educating people that effort should be nationwide.

My only concern with easing regulations of silencers is the impact that could occur if one were then used in the commission of a heinous crime. Not that i support regulating them to prevent use in crime but i fear that if a widely publicized event occurred it would be used as an excuse to ban them outright.

And let's be honest. They would allow criminals to use firearms with a reduced chance of detection. A subsonic round with a good suppressor can be extremely quiet. If this would become relatively common if they became widely available is hard to say.

[MtnCreek]

There’re parts of this Country where suppressors have a better chance of getting a foothold into mainstream use. These areas will serve as an example of legitimate use of suppressors and the more they’re used in, for example hunting, the less they’ll be viewed as some evil tool of assassins or whatever other negatives pop into the uneducated minds. Over time, it could become normal to have a hunting rifle with a suppressor. I use hunting as an example because most folks around here can relate to that.

Try to take that argument to the Congress and President. Federal legislation??? Aint gonna happen right now. Now if you’re talking about ‘national education’, then sure.

Just to add another reason to focus on local: In certain parts of the Country, there’s a default position of “I don’t give a crap how they do it in _______”.

[Steve2md]

It is now legal to hunt in AZ with a suppressor. Which is huge for me and my .300 win mag. Now all I have to worry about is the sonic crack!

[Flyboy73]

Getting alot more states to allow suppressor hunting would be a good start, including my own (MI). Just able to finally buy them last fall. Seems like there is a trend in the gun mags and gun TV shows to talk about and to educate about them.

[zignal_zero]

I notice u say buying a silencer should be the same as buying a title 1 firearm. I disagree :( I think it should be the same as buying a muffler for yer car or a pair of ear muffs :D

[Flyboy73]

I think it should be the same as buying a muffler for yer car or a pair of ear muffs

I agree, but one step at a time.

[a-sheepdog]

It is now legal to use suppressors for hunting in Texas as well, a great idea. In the current political climate and with hollywoods portrayal of suppressors as so quiet that a shot can't be heard, it is doubtful they will get any easier to purchase. The government seldom if ever gives up control of something once they get it and even though I doubt that the revenue generated from Title II sales is significant. that would also be an issue. The government loves our money.

[JEB]

I notice u say buying a silencer should be the same as buying a title 1 firearm. I disagree I think it should be the same as buying a muffler for yer car or a pair of ear muffs

i absolutly agree. after all, all it is is a muffler for your gun. in reality it is nothing more than a bolt on accessory.

[unspellable]

I think the local approach first might be the way to go. Here in Iowa the mere possession is illegal. Changing the federal law won't affect that. But f they become legal in most states, and better yet for hunting, then the odds of changing the federal regulation are better.

[Brockak47]

it would be nice, especially at the range

[crazy-mp]

The vast majority of gun owners are completely ignorant on NFA laws and suppressors in general

1. You have to be a class 3 dealer to own one
2. Its a 500 dollar tax every year to get one
3. They are illegal
4. They don't work
5. Only hit-men use them
6. The ATF will kick your door in at 3 AM and demand to see it
7. You will be on a government "list" (people to be watched)
8. You surrender all your constitutional rights to own one
9. It voids the firearms manufacturers warranty
10. it destroys accuracy and slows the bullet down

I have had several customers that are genuinely interested in suppressors who have made the effort to either visit me and shoot one or they speak with me to find one that will best suit their needs.

On the other side of that coin I also go to gun shows and get the local crack heads who will "let somebody else do the paperwork and get it from them," yes the wait time and 200 dollar tax stamp sucks out loud, but it is keeping people who are either too lazy, too much of self appointed gun expert on gun laws, the gubberment paranoid freak and the meth head from getting them, I do like that part of the current laws.

I would like to see a balance somewhere in the middle, move suppressors, AOW's and SBS's to the 5 dollar tax stamp and put everybody on a 3-5 year background check system, meaning that if you buy one today and go through the wait time for the next 3-5 years you don't have to do the full background check again, just do a NICS check (same as when you buy a gun from a dealer) and it just gets added on to you list of items in your name.

I know this will most likely not be the most popular opinion, but trying to go from something has been regulated since 1934 to unregulated, not going to happen, don't look to European gun laws for guiding wisdom, if they see that laws they are likely to look at some of their other laws, and those will scare you.

Oh and the idea of deregulating them and driving the cost down, well it may open the door for cheaper suppressors, but they are just like optics, if you buy a 400 dollar Leupold and your buddy buys a 29.99 Tacso.... well you get what you pay for. The companies that are making suppressors on CNC machines that cost half a million dollars are not going to sell .22 suppressors for 19.99 at Wal-Mart. Especially if they had 5 people working on a design for 3 years, R&D drives cost up, if you want cheap buy cheap if you want top shelf, bring your check book.

[ApplePie]

What was the rationale for putting sound suppressors into the NFA restrictions to begin with? I would think that in 1934, Hollywood had not demonized them yet.

[MtnCreek]

I would think that in 1934, Hollywood had not demonized them yet.
Hollywood probably played a role, but I’d imagine the front pages of the big city newspapers also had an impact. After more than a decade of prohibition, there were plenty of people in on the now lucrative business of supplying alcohol. Anytime you outlaw a product that’s in demand, the price goes up and criminals will fill that demand. The result was violence and from the little reading I’ve done (OK, mostly History Channel :D ) it seemed the ordinary folks of this country wanted it stopped. The only time anyone saw a Thompson SMG or silencer was either a picture in the paper where a cop was holding one at a crime scene with dead gangsters in the background or in a gangster movie…

[Ranb]

I think going in steps would work best. I hear the CLEO sig is going away soon. Get the tax changed to $5 to make them more avaiable. Streamline the application process to make it nearly as fast as a NICS check for title i guns. When silencers become mainstream, remove them from the US code.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt
The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter
gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm
silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include
an antique firearm.

Ranb

[Jim K]

In 1934, Hollywood had not "demonized" suppressors, but the bootleggers had. Further, like other NFA items, they were thought to be "sneaky" and "un-American" (like the drug cartels today, the bootleg gangs were considered "foreign" (illegal drugs = Mexican or Colombian, illegal booze = Italian) and Americans at that time were intensely xenophobic - anyone not a WASP was suspect.

The main thrust of the law was against machineguns. The same argument was used that is being used against "assault rifles"; war weapons that have no place in America, killing machines, etc.

I have seen a diatribe against "rapid firing weapons of war that should not be available to civilians." The date - 1865; the weapons - Spencers and Henrys. It never ends.

Jim

[AlexanderA]

Jim K wrote:

The main thrust of the law was against machineguns. The same argument was used that is being used against "assault rifles"; war weapons that have no place in America, killing machines, etc.

Yet, in the 1939 case of Miller v. U.S. (that upheld the NFA), the Supreme Court ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon of war (no evidence to the contrary had been presented in the case), and therefore it was not protected under the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment. I wonder whether, if the weapon in question had been a belt-fed Maxim or Browning, the result might have been different.

Of course, the Militia Clause has been rendered moot by Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case.

[Capybara]

I live in California. We would be happy here is we just get to keep or ARs and AKs, suppressors are just a dream for us. It's a shame, if I could, I would have about a dozen of them.

[tomrkba]

I live in California. We would be happy here is we just get to keep or ARs and AKs, suppressors are just a dream for us. It's a shame, if I could, I would have about a dozen of them.

There is no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution. As such, you have firearms at the will of the legislature. You certainly may not carry a gun off your property without state permission. All open carry is now banned.

You need to get the right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution first. Once you have accomplished that, you can then start working on other stuff.

[crazy-mp]

What was the rationale for putting sound suppressors into the NFA restrictions to begin with? I would think that in 1934, Hollywood had not demonized them yet.

Hollywood was starting to, movies about gangsters were becoming popular and there were people that were really using them along with machine guns, sawed off shotguns and hand grenades.

At the time a brand new Thompson cost around 200.00, a B.A.R. cost 300.00, a new Maxim silencer cost less than 3.00, a brand new Ford car would set you back 400.00, a gallon of gas was around .10 cents a gallon, a new house cost about 6,000, and the average man made 1,600.00 a year.

The FBI had considerable success ending the careers with celebrity criminals and John Dillinger , Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson.

FDR was president and the depression was happening from coast to coast, many people also believed that if the average man was allowed to own a suppressor he might be tempted to hunt and kill animals illegally, the government wanted everybody to depend on them, not themselves.

So by putting a 200.00 dollar tax on a item that cost nearly that much basically did ban the item for several decades. Only good thing about the NFA is that is has not kept up with inflation, if it would have the tax stamps would be over 3,000 dollars today.

[monotonous_iterancy]

So criminals actually were using silencers? Doesn't that give weight to the argument that by deregulating them, criminals will just use them again?