Would you support a suppressor compromise...?


PDA






berettaprofessor
October 15, 2013, 02:40 PM
Fellow THRer's, I understand and count myself with the no-compromise faction, knowing that the lessons of 1934, 1968, and 1986 are that gun supporters always lose in a "compromise."

But I've been driven by a pet peeve lately, namely the restrictions on suppressors here in the US. Which makes me wonder how many would support the following deal (and for those who wouldn't, please state why so I can learn from you):

Yes or no...would you support a deal that traded over-the-counter availability of suppressors, no restrictions, and no waiting periods, for the "universal" background checks the gun control crowd wants?

I want to be able to buy additional suppressors without tax stamps and 6 month waiting periods, even if it meant that every purchase, personal or gun show or FFL, had to go through a NICS check as it now exists. And I'd especially go for it if, as an alternative to a NICS check, the buyer just had to show evidence of a background check within the past 5 years; of course, I'm from a state where I merely show my valid CCW and the NICS check is waived. That deal, if done correctly, wouldn't lead to registration and in fact, if it all fell under a valid CCW that most of us had, wouldn't even enable illicit keeping of NICS records. Right now I'm a yes. What do you say? And if I'm wrong, tell me why.

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you support a suppressor compromise...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bartholomew Roberts
October 15, 2013, 02:43 PM
I don't think that is a good deal for RKBA unless you totally rewrite the system of background checks to do away with the underlying 1968 GCA structure they use. Suppressors are just not so useful that I would want the government to have a list of who owns every gun in the U.S.

Baron_Null
October 15, 2013, 02:52 PM
To me, making suppressors unrestricted while making UBCs law is a tiny step forward and a massive step back.

Personally, I really don't like the idea of giving up a right in order to gain another.

wally
October 15, 2013, 02:52 PM
More divide and conquer anti-strategy.

Suppressors are already banned in a lot of states and this does nothing to change things in those states.

At the end of the day the $200 tax in states where they are legal is not the problem, its the 9+ month wait!

Now if it was re-opening the machine gun registry it'd be different! :)

Universal background checks will drive up the cost of guns and make the process even more cumbersome. If voterID is too much for them, universial background checks should surely be too much for us!

fastbolt
October 15, 2013, 02:52 PM
You're dreaming. Bored?

Why on Earth would the sale/possession of suppressors ever be linked to negotiating universal background checks? (Outside of your personal dream and desire to own suppressors, at any rate. ;) )

You really expect some group of politicians would ever even remotely consider undoing some older, established law just to obtain an agreement on "universal background checks"? Even if the feds were to consider undoing some previous law, any number of states are going to keep their statures regarding them.

They have the one, and they're eventually going to get the other one in some form or another.

Walkalong
October 15, 2013, 02:55 PM
Absolutely not, but I understand the frustration. :)

MErl
October 15, 2013, 03:00 PM
At least the question is a real compromise instead of the "We'll take half of what we initially wanted to take, see we compromised."

I'd counter with fully repeal NFA and AWB nonsense in exchange for UBC. Use Federal preemption to invalidate all state level bans, allow ownership and sale of any/all firearms (and mags of course, no evil features lists).

That trade I'd take for UBC.

Outlaw Man
October 15, 2013, 03:15 PM
Would I trade? No.

Would I consider us better off if the series of events and legislation had led us to that instead of what we have now? Maybe.

I wholeheartedly agree suppressors should be available for completely unrestricted, over-the-counter sales. I also don't think I should have to pay a dealer to run a background check on my Dad before I give him a gun.

Justin
October 15, 2013, 03:23 PM
Here's the compromise I would like to see.

Suppressors should be available as a cash-and carry purchase.

I'm willing to compromise on a solution that treats buying a can like buying a pistol.

In other words, you fill out a 4473 and do a background check to get a can rather than having to go through the NFA process.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4

Arizona_Mike
October 15, 2013, 03:28 PM
"Universal background checks" would violate federalism. The Federal government has no right to regulate private non-commercial resale whether it is guns, cars, books, clothes, etc.

Mike

mooner
October 15, 2013, 03:35 PM
I think Justin nailed the only compromise that I would be willing to make.

CoRoMo
October 15, 2013, 03:42 PM
Would you allow your daughter to be raped as long as your wife was left alone?

Nope.

wally
October 15, 2013, 03:45 PM
I think Justin nailed the only compromise that I would be willing to make.

Doesn't do anything for states that already ban suppressors. Like I said, it would be a divide and conquer gambit

MErl's idea would really get something in exchanging for giving up something, but its a pipe dream.

Old Dog
October 15, 2013, 03:53 PM
I simply believe that at this point, we should give up nothing.

There are ALWAYS unintended consequences, almost always bad, whenever new regulation is devised.

Zardaia
October 15, 2013, 04:07 PM
Gain an inch and lose a mile. Plus, a few years after they become non-nfa there'll be some big crime or series of crimes commited with them and they'll either go back to nfa or outlawed altogether, but the UBC's will stay.

MinnesotaFats
October 15, 2013, 04:09 PM
i would love a suppressor, but we need to stand up as gunowners a not give up a damn thing. ridiculous trade anyways.

GJSchulze
October 15, 2013, 04:32 PM
The only way I would consider a trade for UBC would be for national reciprocity and a method of background check that would ensure no record keeping.

Give up something that affects us all just so a few people can have a suppressor? That's pretty selfish thinking.

Arkansas Paul
October 15, 2013, 04:32 PM
NO!
Universal background checks would effect WAY more people than the current rules on suppressors do. People who use suppressors are a minority in the gun community. Now this doesn't make it okay to restrict their rights, I'm not saying that. But we shouldn't agree to making it harder on the majority so a small percentage can get some benefit. That's not a win in our cause as far as the big picture is concerned. I certainly wish that suppressors were more easily attained but I think the scenario you asked about would be a step backwards for the majority of gun owners.

I would certainly support what Justin mentioned because that makes it less restrictive without subjecting the others to stricter regulations.

Midwest
October 15, 2013, 04:39 PM
No way to Universal NICS Background Checks under ANY circumstances.


Suppressors aren't even a firearm. IMO they should not even be considered an NFA item much less need a background check. It was made an NFA item because of a possible problem of 'poaching' during the depression. Poaching laws are usually enforced by the Game Warden not the Feds.

grimjaw
October 15, 2013, 05:33 PM
Ditto to #9, Justin's suggestion; especially since in countries with more restrictive legislation, suppressors are more widely available with less red tape.

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 06:17 PM
Here's the compromise I would like to see.

Suppressors should be available as a cash-and carry purchase.

I'm willing to compromise on a solution that treats buying a can like buying a pistol.

In other words, you fill out a 4473 and do a background check to get a can rather than having to go through the NFA process.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4
Echo that. Paying so much for something and waiting a year for it is getting old fast.

wow6599
October 15, 2013, 06:19 PM
No. I live in America...........

evan price
October 15, 2013, 06:29 PM
Howdabout they repeal NFA-34, then we talk compromise.

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 06:30 PM
All - I get our tried and true slippery slope and RKBA arguments but we already get the anal probe when filing a Form 1, 4, etc. for this type of item. Is there an "on the ground today" practical argument against the logistics of the suggestion? Having trouble coming up with one so please enlighten me!

AlexanderA
October 15, 2013, 06:31 PM
Why single out suppressors? I've owned suppressors in the past, and as far as I'm concerned, they're no big deal. They don't "silence" a weapon like in the movies. They might have specific uses, but these don't particularly have mainstream appeal.

Repeal the entire NFA -- or at least reopen the machine gun registry -- and I might be willing to listen to such a "compromise."

Of course such a thing would never happen. To the antis, gun control is a one-way street. They'll never agree to anything that helps gun owners, even a little bit.

Captains1911
October 15, 2013, 06:33 PM
I misread the question and mistakingly voted yes.

No, I don't believe in that "compromise" at all.

berettaprofessor
October 15, 2013, 06:38 PM
Suppressors are already banned in a lot of states and this does nothing to change things in those states

I did consider this Wally, but figured federal law would trump state law, like it does in most instances.

Grassman
October 15, 2013, 06:44 PM
Then in the end we would have given up the chance to ever own a suppressor, and the gun grabbers in the end will have given up nothing. No thanks.

Sam1911
October 15, 2013, 06:57 PM
Is there an "on the ground today" practical argument against the logistics of the suggestion? Having trouble coming up with one so please enlighten me!The "logistics" of it? There aren't any logistics of it because it isn't even being suggested by anyone in a position to even begin to make it happen. Sort of like arguing for or against the "logistics" of every American citizen being given a 1-lb gold brick. What's the point of discussing HOW?

I find these "compromise" threads curious because for the life of me I can't ever remember being offered the opportunity to trade one gun right for another. Don't even recall something like that being on the table federally or in any state.

Literally, "you give up this and we'll give you that?" Nope, that's just not how any of these things work. The primary reason is most likely because that would be to tacitly recognize that there is nothing particularly WRONG with citizens having the right they're holding back to bargain with. Once they acknowledge that the right would be acceptable for citizens to have then there's no way they can keep up the facade of just how dangerous and evil it is. Once that's gone, they'd be shown in their naked glory as merely holding back natural rights as bargaining chips. That's a little too much like showing how the sausage is made for public to be allowed to see it.

The only way they have the power/authority to hold gun rights in check is if they maintain the public hue and cry that all guns are dangerous and gun rights need to be severely limited. Once they admit publicly that there are any rights that people don't have NOW which would be "safe" enough to grant them, all that fear power goes "poof."

Twiki357
October 15, 2013, 07:40 PM
NO COMPROMISE. I don’t have a suppressor, but probably would if it weren’t for the cost and hassle. NO to universal background checks. First; it would drive up the cost of a firearm due to all the transfer fees that would be imposed. Second; it would never be even reasonably effective without total registration of all firearms, and then only a maybe after years and years of transactions. And how many otherwise lawful gun owners would become criminals for FTF sales?

Midwest
October 15, 2013, 08:03 PM
NO COMPROMISE. I don’t have a suppressor, but probably would if it weren’t for the cost and hassle. NO to universal background checks. First; it would drive up the cost of a firearm due to all the transfer fees that would be imposed. Second; it would never be even reasonably effective without total registration of all firearms, and then only a maybe after years and years of transactions. And how many otherwise lawful gun owners would become criminals for FTF sales?
That would be the next STEP they will use if there were "Universal Background Checks".

The next step will be "Universal Registration" after "Universal Background Checks", because the anti's will cry that the only way "UBC" could be effective would be if there were "Universal Registration".

Imagine if there were a 'glitch' in the NICS if "Universal Background Checks" was in effect? No one would be able to legally obtain a firearm.

I could see people being thrown in jail because they cannot "prove" that the firearm they have in their possession was obtained before or after the "Universal Background Checks" took effect...unless of course everything was registered ...for their 'protection' (from prosecution against obtaining a firearm without a "Universal Background Check...because they had it registered with the government and all the papers were in order).

People forget quickly what happened in Calgary just a scant couple of months ago when there was a flood and the government CONFISCATED peoples firearms...for their 'protection'. How did the government know which houses to go to? They had a database...

deadin
October 15, 2013, 08:05 PM
As of the time I'm responding the vote is about 15% for and 85% against.
I wonder what the percentages of gun owners that would like to have a suppressor vs. those that don't give a hoot about them. Maybe about the same?? I know I don't want to give anything just so you can have a cheap suppressor.

mljdeckard
October 15, 2013, 08:08 PM
I don't need to read past posts 2 and 3. That says it all.

Texan Scott
October 15, 2013, 08:17 PM
What good will your suppressors be when they demand the surrender of the registered firearms you attach them to?

Neo-Luddite
October 15, 2013, 08:27 PM
:evil:A deal with the Devil is a deal with the Devil is a deal with the Devil.....:evil:

taraquian
October 15, 2013, 08:39 PM
I say no way, my main reason is that having to register the can is what keeps me from buying one. UBC is or will quickly become a registry.

Also, there is no amendment for the right to keep and bear silencers. Or bipods, or scopes, etc. I would not EVER give a fraction of my 2A rights for the right to keep and bear 'accessories'

22-rimfire
October 15, 2013, 08:49 PM
Nobody in the legislature is purposing such, so it's a mute point. It would never happen.

FROGO207
October 15, 2013, 09:24 PM
In order for me to even CONSIDER any type of compromise the other side will actually HAVE to compromise on some EQUAL point. So far it has been all TAKE and no give since the start of regulating any firearms stuff. SO that would be a NO!!

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 09:57 PM
The "logistics" of it? There aren't any logistics of it because it isn't even being suggested by anyone in a position to even begin to make it happen. Sort of like arguing for or against the "logistics" of every American citizen being given a 1-lb gold brick. What's the point of discussing HOW?

I find these "compromise" threads curious because for the life of me I can't ever remember being offered the opportunity to trade one gun right for another. Don't even recall something like that being on the table federally or in any state.

Literally, "you give up this and we'll give you that?" Nope, that's just not how any of these things work. The primary reason is most likely because that would be to tacitly recognize that there is nothing particularly WRONG with citizens having the right they're holding back to bargain with. Once they acknowledge that the right would be acceptable for citizens to have then there's no way they can keep up the facade of just how dangerous and evil it is. Once that's gone, they'd be shown in their naked glory as merely holding back natural rights as bargaining chips. That's a little too much like showing how the sausage is made for public to be allowed to see it.

The only way they have the power/authority to hold gun rights in check is if they maintain the public hue and cry that all guns are dangerous and gun rights need to be severely limited. Once they admit publicly that there are any rights that people don't have NOW which would be "safe" enough to grant them, all that fear power goes "poof."

Thanks Sam - good perspective. IMHO, the point of discussing "how" is what I interpreted as the question of the OP: would we be in favor of it if the "how" were acceptable (agreed there are many varying interpretations of what "how" means and the related and realistic ultimate culmination of such logistics), so that's why it's being suggested - it's hypothetical to generate thoughtful discussion.

To me, the point of discussing "how" is just that: we are here to discuss, debate, etc. RKBA matters and this is one that is personal to some of us because we wait a year or more (not 6 mos. as the OP suggests) for a rather expensive purchase that carries no additional perceived threat than the firearm itself. If I could fill out a 4473 for a suppressor and not have to bother with the NFA trust (my CLEO is a non-starter), BATFE forms, $200 additional, etc. I would do it in a heartbeat. There is no real, grounded or logical reason that a suppressor is any more of a sensitive purchase than any other firearm or accessory - it isn't even a firearm (we can debate the SBR, et al items of course but the OP suggested a suppressor).

"You give this and I'll give you that" is EXACTLY how many things in life work - in fact it's precisely the challenge that faces our beloved Republic as we speak. Drawing a red line/line in the sand is successful in a minority of circumstances. Every business (or otherwise) deal I have ever made involves some level of negotiation: I'll give you a 4473 for a suppressor if you let me have it today and I do not have pay an extra $200 for an otherwise innocuous item, plus wait until my kids are in college to take possession. Where is the harm in making it the exact same as every gun I purchase?

I am not asking to trade a RKBA right, I am agreeing that the OP may be suggesting something better than we have now. The BATFE process candidly sucks, and for no valid "logistical" reason except a couple of laws that at least make it legal for us to own them (NO, I do NOT condone the restriction, but it is the law of the land and I am one of those who actually believes our laws should prevail - if we don't like it, take it to SCOTUS now while we have some support on the bench). If I can't pass a 4473 legitimately and without any perceived bias, then I wouldn't get the firearm to begin with...to which I wouldn't be able to attach that suppressor acquired through a "compromised" process.

Please tell me where I'm off base here - always willing to listen. Thanks!

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 10:06 PM
Thanks Sam - good perspective. IMHO, the point of discussing "how" is what I interpreted as the question of the OP: would we be in favor of it if the "how" were acceptable (agreed there are many varying interpretations of what "how" means and the related and realistic ultimate culmination of such logistics), so that's why it's being suggested - it's hypothetical to generate thoughtful discussion.

To me, the point of discussing "how" is just that: we are here to discuss, debate, etc. RKBA matters and this is one that is personal to some of us because we wait a year or more (not 6 mos. as the OP suggests) for a rather expensive purchase that carries no additional perceived threat than the firearm itself. If I could fill out a 4473 for a suppressor and not have to bother with the NFA trust (my CLEO is a non-starter), BATFE forms, $200 additional, etc. I would do it in a heartbeat. There is no real, grounded or logical reason that a suppressor is any more of a sensitive purchase than any other firearm or accessory - it isn't even a firearm (we can debate the SBR, et al items of course but the OP suggested a suppressor).

"You give this and I'll give you that" is EXACTLY how many things in life work - in fact it's precisely the challenge that faces our beloved Republic as we speak. Drawing a red line/line in the sand is successful in a minority of circumstances. Every business (or otherwise) deal I have ever made involves some level of negotiation: I'll give you a 4473 for a suppressor if you let me have it today and I do not have pay an extra $200 for an otherwise innocuous item, plus wait until my kids are in college to take possession. Where is the harm in making it the exact same as every gun I purchase?

I am not asking to trade a RKBA right, I am agreeing that the OP may be suggesting something better than we have now. The BATFE process candidly sucks, and for no valid "logistical" reason except a couple of laws that at least make it legal for us to own them (NO, I do NOT condone the restriction, but it is the law of the land and I am one of those who actually believes our laws should prevail - if we don't like it, take it to SCOTUS now while we have some support on the bench). If I can't pass a 4473 legitimately and without any perceived bias, then I wouldn't get the firearm to begin with...to which I wouldn't be able to attach that suppressor acquired through a "compromised" process.

Please tell me where I'm off base here - always willing to listen. Thanks!
BTW, I make my own sausage.

Sam1911
October 15, 2013, 10:45 PM
: I'll give you a 4473 for a suppressor if you let me have it today and I do not have pay an extra $200 for an otherwise innocuous item, plus wait until my kids are in college to take possession. Where is the harm in making it the exact same as every gun I purchase?

Wait...did you perhaps misunderstand the original poster's suggested "compromise?"

He wasn't suggesting 4473s for SILENCERS. He was suggesting we accept the "UBC" -- Universal Background Check for ALL FIREARMS. That's the big push the opposition has failed to jam through Congress all this year.

The question is would you accept not being legally able to sell firearms "privately," i.e. without government paperwork, in exchange for removing Silencers from registration under Title II of the National Firearms Act. Is having cheaper, easier access to silencers worth not being allowed to sell a gun to a resident of your state at a gun show? Or to your neighbor? Or to give one to your brother or son?

jrmiddleton425
October 15, 2013, 11:08 PM
I've posted something like this before. If they want universal NICS, here's what I want:

*Age to buy a handgun from an FFL lowered to 18.
*Carry in any state on a permit from your home state.
*Buy any Title I firearm over the counter, in any state, with NICS check.
*Suppressors over the counter with a NICS check, and make them legal in any state.

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 11:09 PM
OP: "Yes or no...would you support a deal that traded over-the-counter availability of suppressors, no restrictions, and no waiting periods, for the "universal" background checks the gun control crowd wants?"

As always, great clarification point Sam to note the points I did not address in my post (apologies THR brethren and sistren).

NO, I am NOT suggesting that UBC as a blanket is acceptable. I am suggesting that current BATFE rules using the current NFA system are not acceptable, AS LONG as (in the spirit of the OP) the UBC system is specifically used for NFA items, AND is more efficient logistically than the current nightmare.

We tend to overreact on private sales (good luck tracking them). An EMPHATIC NO to your last paragraph. Revert to my original material post on the matter for my position - ZERO reference to private sales…but good luck with that one.

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 11:25 PM
I've posted something like this before. If they want universal NICS, here's what I want:

*Age to buy a handgun from an FFL lowered to 18.
*Carry in any state on a permit from your home state.
*Buy any Title I firearm over the counter, in any state, with NICS check.
*Suppressors over the counter with a NICS check, and make them legal in any state.
roger that jr: you said it better than I did. For NFA I'm willing to go a bit further based on experience to date.

hso
October 15, 2013, 11:40 PM
No

The desires of the few don't outweigh the needs of the many.

Akita1
October 15, 2013, 11:44 PM
No

The desires of the few don't outweigh the needs of the many.
Is that a statistical reply?

Lucky Derby
October 16, 2013, 01:37 AM
Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.

556by45guy
October 16, 2013, 02:37 AM
No.

Why? Because there is nothing in the US Constitution which "grants" the federal govt the power to regulate guns (and many many other things). The (gun) laws we live under are an unconstitutionally asserted power.

Texan Scott
October 16, 2013, 02:50 AM
556x45: ABSOLUTELY right, and thank you. Preemption of States' rights is a poor substitute for reasonable and proper restrictions on federal authority.

JohnKSa
October 16, 2013, 02:53 AM
"Universal background checks" would violate federalism. The Federal government has no right to regulate INTRASTATE private non-commercial resale whether it is guns, cars, books, clothes, etc.After adding the word in red, I agree entirely.

I'm never going to be ok with "universal background checks" for that reason.

RetiredUSNChief
October 16, 2013, 04:26 AM
With respect...what's there to "compromise" on?

Seems to me that there are already sufficient laws...even MORE than sufficient laws...already in place.

Which means that "compromise" is probably another code word for "more unnecessary restrictions".

Midwest
October 16, 2013, 05:34 AM
Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.
^^^^^
The best answer yet!

Deanimator
October 16, 2013, 05:34 AM
"Universal" background checks are just a stalking horse for registration.

Registration is a means to facilitate BANS and CONFISCATION.

My answer, as it has been all along:

NO, I REFUSE.

Kuyong_Chuin
October 16, 2013, 05:51 AM
How about taking a play out of their book that they are using now with the debt ceiling and budget, give us everything we want then we will sit down and negotiate. Then after it is passes tell them hey we got what we wanted so why should we compromise on anything. It is wrong for they to do this but they still are doing it and bad to say but probably the only way to get them to stop is to do it back to them to see how the other half feels.

bannockburn
October 16, 2013, 06:42 AM
No, it's a bad idea because it's a very bad compromise that you're offering to the politicians whose ultimate goal is to ban all guns anyways. All your proposal does is give them a means (universal background checks and registration), to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and open the door for increased restrictions and more bureaucratic meddling with our Right to Bear Arms.

jbrown50
October 16, 2013, 07:35 AM
NO.

The anti-gun folks don't compromise. Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens is detrimental to their goal of total control. Their idea of "compromise" is that they'll do us a favor by just taking another portion of our rights for now.

Since they want UBCs so badly it must mean that the other laws aren't working.

Repeal the entire NFA or don't talk.

tommy.duncan
October 16, 2013, 07:58 AM
Registration = Confiscation
Plain and simple

kimbernut
October 16, 2013, 08:00 AM
NO MORE COMPROMISES EVER!!! "The Second amendment is my concealed carry permit. Period!..." Nuge

Gregaw
October 16, 2013, 08:32 AM
NO! Trading one right away to get another back is a loosing plan. If you start offer up one right in exchange for another you cheapen everything that we consider to be rights. They are not negotiable rights they're inalienable rights.

Ryanxia
October 16, 2013, 08:40 AM
I don't think that is a good deal for RKBA unless you totally rewrite the system of background checks to do away with the underlying 1968 GCA structure they use. Suppressors are just not so useful that I would want the government to have a list of who owns every gun in the U.S.
Couldn't have said it better. A complete list cannot happen. In free states where private sales are legal it's impossible to track and that's the way it needs to stay.

alsaqr
October 16, 2013, 08:52 AM
Absolutely not!!!!

Universal background steps are one step from total gun registration.

Fremmer
October 16, 2013, 09:05 AM
Yeah, every time I hear the word "compromise", I know I'm about to get screwed.

jonkit
October 16, 2013, 09:28 AM
Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.
this. there can be no compromise. Any more compromise and we just get our rights wittled a little more each time.

Prince Yamato
October 16, 2013, 09:59 AM
Not a chance.

deadin
October 16, 2013, 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by Lucky Derby View Post
Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.

You forgot to add "and the government will issue the latest technology firearms to everyone in the nation.":rolleyes:

cerberus65
October 16, 2013, 11:23 AM
There is _nothing_ they could offer which would cause me to consider accepting universal background checks - nothing.

UBC is a registry and history provides ample evidence that registries lead to confiscations. I'll leave as an exercise for the OP the sketching out of how a confiscation would go down in this country...

yzguy87
October 16, 2013, 12:14 PM
I personally don't believe a compromise would be wise. To me, that would be a major loss for a minor victory. Becoming a criminal because I sold some of my personal property without first notifying the government and getting permission rubs me the wrong way. Further more I believe registration leads to confiscation.

herrwalther
October 16, 2013, 12:53 PM
No. The Gun Control act of 1968 was enough of a compromise anyway. Why should we give up more ground, not necessarily rights, to appease politicians who don't know muzzle from buttstock? Supressors are not all that great anyway. Hard to find holsters for them and they are still relatively easy to acquire even with the current loopholes. Assuming one lives in a state where they are legal.

Warp
October 16, 2013, 05:23 PM
HELL no.

ktmmudd
October 16, 2013, 07:12 PM
By definition, compromise means we give up some ( less than the other side asks for ) and they give up something. I feel we have given up way too much and the anti-gunners have yet to give us anything. Like someone else said, repeal the NFA, 1968 and 1986 and we won't file a massive civil rights suit. Until then, the Brady bunch can pound sand!

Godsgunman
October 16, 2013, 07:48 PM
Duh no thanks. Tell me what good are suppressors if they eventually take away the firearms they suppress? They are "neat" gizmos that serve no real purpose except for the "cool" factor. I don't even see police or military using them unless its some kind of black-ops or something. Why have what "shall not be infringed upon" be infringed upon for something so trivial?

Warp
October 16, 2013, 08:41 PM
Duh no thanks. Tell me what good are suppressors if they eventually take away the firearms they suppress? They are "neat" gizmos that serve no real purpose except for the "cool" factor. I don't even see police or military using them unless its some kind of black-ops or something. Why have what "shall not be infringed upon" be infringed upon for something so trivial?

You are wrong.

Akita1
October 16, 2013, 09:02 PM
Duh no thanks. Tell me what good are suppressors if they eventually take away the firearms they suppress? They are "neat" gizmos that serve no real purpose except for the "cool" factor. I don't even see police or military using them unless its some kind of black-ops or something. Why have what "shall not be infringed upon" be infringed upon for something so trivial?
Maybe, but some of us use them frequently. I use one on my .300 BO to shoot hogs, and it significantly lessens the impact (with subsonic rounds) on my already partially-fried eardrums. Also use one when I hunt varmints with my kids for .22 LR.

No doubt it's a luxury as you insinuate, but the cost is commensurate with such luxury and waiting so long to take possession of something for which you have already paid (handsomely) is simply inequitable. Even if they suspend the shutdown this evening, I still won't see my three pending stamps for months (if not longer - one has been in since March). Treasury cashes the $200 check right away, and the one BATFE employee who handles my entire region of the country simply can't handle the volume. Further, it's not just suppressors - I have one in for an SBR lower that necessitates me to store any SBR uppers in separate locations until I get the stamp. Yes, I have a pistol lower for the interim but I can't store any SBR uppers the same place as other ARs because they have rifle lowers.

I like to believe that efficiency is the mother of necessity, except of course where the govt is concerned! And…no one is taking away my firearms. Look at the landscape - not happening. We like to espouse, mitigate, act, etc. on the great risk to our RKBA here, but candidly I don't see it happening.

kimberkid
October 16, 2013, 09:51 PM
Here's the compromise I would like to see.

Suppressors should be available as a cash-and carry purchase.

I'm willing to compromise on a solution that treats buying a can like buying a pistol.

In other words, you fill out a 4473 and do a background check to get a can rather than having to go through the NFA process.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4
This is the compromise I thought the o.p. was talking about ... and I'm ok with this!

I've been waiting on 2 stamps since February ... in August I called to check on them and was told it would be November but now with the shutdown and all, it'll probably be December/January

rdhood
October 17, 2013, 12:25 PM
This question supposes that the antis want one or the other (UC or suppressor), or one more than the other, and that we might gain an advantage by using this knowledge. But the premise is faulty.

Anti's want both. Period. Any "compromise" involving two things that the antis want will ultimately result in us losing both... and much more (they would also have the ability to create a defacto gun registry).

These kinds of compromises are for suckers.

Arkansas Paul
October 17, 2013, 12:35 PM
You are wrong.

Warp, the statement that you made bold may indeed be wrong, but the statement he made just previous to it is 100% spot on.

wally
October 17, 2013, 01:41 PM
Man 1 in 5 willing to accept this "compromise", now I understand how we got shafted by the "Gun Owners Protection Act" compromise. :(

Godsgunman
October 17, 2013, 03:43 PM
Akita1,
As you said it is definitely a luxury and I do understand their purpose for hunters and such. Again though why are people willing to exchange a Constitutional Right for a convenience. We all know what any form of registration leads to, just look at history. As Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little freedom (liberty) for a little security (luxury) deserve neither and will lose both." If anyone believes differently then I have ocean front property here in Kansas I would love to sell you.

madFive
October 17, 2013, 04:18 PM
I'd be willing to make a compromise on this issue: we toss out all of the NFA statutes since 1934, and in exchange we don't impeach any of the top supporters of recent gun-regulation agendas. But honestly I am wary of making even a compromise on this level.

Seriously, the American people have compromised on the 2A to such an extent we can't really afford to give another inch without it going away all-together. It's time to start taking the ground back.

hso
October 17, 2013, 05:49 PM
I do understand their purpose for hunters and such

That's easy to explain if you understand that firearms produce noise levels that can injure your hearing and that sound suppressors or moderators reduce the noise levels significantly. With the right combination of firearm, ammunition, and suppressor you can even safely forego ear plugs and muffs and not annoy any annoying neighbors that don't find the sound of target practice to be music to their ears.

Nice Surefire video on why you should listen to people advocating suppressor use. Replace soldier/officer with shooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3_jyCnuG0

Also, there's a nice explanation in Wiki (yes, I know it isn't a citable source).

There are many advantages in using a suppressor that are not related to the sound.
Hunters using centerfire rifles find suppressors bring various important benefits that outweigh the extra weight and resulting change in the firearm's center of gravity. The most important advantage of a suppressor is the hearing protection for the shooter as well as his/her companions. There are many hunters who have suffered permanent hearing damage due to someone else firing a high-caliber gun too closely without a warning. By reducing noise, recoil and muzzle-blast, it also enables the firer to follow through calmly on his first shot and fire a further carefully aimed shot without delay if necessary. Wildlife of all kinds are often confused as to the direction of the source of a well-suppressed shot. In the field, however, the comparatively large size of a centerfire rifle suppressor can cause unwanted noise if it bumps or rubs against vegetation or rocks, and many users cover them with neoprene sleeves.
Suppressors reduce firing recoil significantly, primarily by diverting and trapping the propellant gas. Propellant gas is generally a fraction of the projectile mass, but it exits the muzzle at multiples of the projectile velocity, and since recoil energy is a function of mass times velocity squared the elimination of the propellant recoil can be significant. Paulson et al., discussing low-velocity pistol calibers, suggest the recoil reduction is around 15%.[1] With high-velocity calibers recoil reduction runs in the range of 20–30%.[21] The added weight of the suppressor—normally 300 to 500 grams—also contributes to the reduction of the recoil. Further, the pressure against the face of each baffle is higher than the pressure on its reverse side, making each baffle a miniature "pneumatic ram" which pulls the suppressor forward on the weapon, contributing a counter recoil force.
A suppressor also cools the hot gases coming out of the barrel enough that most of the lead-laced vapor that leaves the barrel condenses inside the suppressor, reducing the amount of lead that might be inhaled by the shooter and others around them. However, in auto-loading actions this might be offset by increased back pressure which results in propellant gas blowing back into a shooter's face through the chamber during case ejection.

One of the easiest ways to do it is to point to a Finnish ad pointing out the benefits of a suppressor. http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/Reflex.html

Godsgunman
October 17, 2013, 06:15 PM
A good video hso. If a compromise would be along the lines of removing the taxation and wait period for suppressors in exchange for anti gunners not being prosecuted for treason then I am all for it. If its at the cost of registration or the slightest bit of further infringement then no thanks.

Akita1
October 17, 2013, 07:28 PM
Akita1,
As you said it is definitely a luxury and I do understand their purpose for hunters and such. Again though why are people willing to exchange a Constitutional Right for a convenience. We all know what any form of registration leads to, just look at history. As Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little freedom (liberty) for a little security (luxury) deserve neither and will lose both." If anyone believes differently then I have ocean front property here in Kansas I would love to sell you.

GG - the idealist in me is with you 100%. Not sure I'm exchanging a right because I have to either get CLEO signoff or use an NFA trust to own one anyway, so why the heck do I have to wait a year? None of this is acceptable or reasonable at all, but this is the prevailing law of the land so not much of a choice. Would prefer to carry Uriel's flaming sword, but guns with suppressors will do for now.

And they're all registered; every suppressor or SBR I own has passed through BATFE - that's registration.

Franklin is one of my favorites, btw.

Akita1
October 17, 2013, 08:00 PM
Not sure why many of us think this is a compromise (yes, I know the word is used in the thread title and the OP). The OP is suggesting something that's better than what we have now. In my small mind, that's called progress.

Sam1911
October 17, 2013, 10:17 PM
The OP is suggesting something that's better than what we have now. In my small mind, that's called progress.

The OP is suggesting one thing that's a small benefit for a few shooters and a LARGE harm to ALL Americans.

I don't think it's a compromise, either. At least not a good one.

W.E.G.
October 17, 2013, 10:28 PM
I used to have a suppressor for the AR.

After the novelty of it wore off, I had no use for it whatsoever.

Everybody else at the range shoots without suppressors - so I still have to wear ear protection, even if I have a suppressor. In fact, I shot a few rounds with the suppressor, and without ear protection when I was the only one at the range. It was still too loud to tolerate.

Plus the suppressor got so hot that I had to let the gun sit for 15-20 minutes before I could put it back in the gun case - which was not at all convenient.

Then there was the whole added mess (quite a lot of it) issue.

A suppressor seems like probably a good idea if you are part of an "entry team."
I have no use for one otherwise.

AKElroy
October 17, 2013, 10:34 PM
The OP is suggesting one thing that's a small benefit for a few shooters and a LARGE harm to ALL Americans.

I don't think it's a compromise, either. At least not a good one.

Amen! I am not going to sacrifice ANY freedom in order to purchase a simple SAFETY DEVICE. Regulating a device that saves hearing is ludicrous on its face. Instituting additional restrictions on gun ownership will not change that fact. This is a stupid restriction. More stupidity does not mitigate current stupidity.

Warp
October 17, 2013, 10:56 PM
I used to have a suppressor for the AR.

After the novelty of it wore off, I had no use for it whatsoever.

Everybody else at the range shoots without suppressors - so I still have to wear ear protection, even if I have a suppressor. In fact, I shot a few rounds with the suppressor, and without ear protection when I was the only one at the range. It was still too loud to tolerate.

Plus the suppressor got so hot that I had to let the gun sit for 15-20 minutes before I could put it back in the gun case - which was not at all convenient.

Then there was the whole added mess (quite a lot of it) issue.

A suppressor seems like probably a good idea if you are part of an "entry team."
I have no use for one otherwise.

I take it your AR is not something you would use for defense (home or otherwise).

AlexanderA
October 17, 2013, 11:36 PM
I think a large part of the appeal of suppressors -- in fact, of all items regulated by the NFA -- is the "forbidden fruit" factor. That is, people want these items precisely because they're so highly regulated. This gives their owners "bragging rights" among their friends. I'll bet that if the NFA were repealed tomorrow, demand for suppressors, SBR's, MG's, etc., wouldn't be as great as you would expect.

Furthermore, suppressors and SBR's are the relatively inexpensive way to get into the NFA game, since they're not affected by the Hughes Amendment MG freeze.

The growing interest in suppressors and SBR's, which has occurred because of the above factors, in tandem with the growing use of trusts, has caused the processing backlog at the ATF. In turn, the processing backlog (we're fast approaching 1-year waits), along with stratospheric prices, is killing the machine gun market. Nobody in his right mind is going to want to tie up $20,000 or $30,000 for a year with no ultimate assurance that he'll eventually get his gun (sellers or buyers die, people abscond with the money, etc., etc.).

This chain of events has caused a spike in interest in semiautomatic clones of FA weapons. For example, who would have imagined that people would be paying north of $4,000 for a semiautomatic BAR? Yet Ohio Ordnance Works is selling as many as they can make. Semiautomatic beltfeds (which otherwise would make no sense) are in the same category. Even nonfiring replicas of Thompsons (built on 80%-completed receivers with Russian Lend-Lease parts kits) can fetch $2,000 or more.

This crazy state of affairs cries out for sane people in Congress to take a look at reforming and streamlining the NFA. This is a law that has long outlived its usefulness (if it ever had one in the first place).

barnbwt
October 17, 2013, 11:57 PM
Careful, if suppressors get common/accepted, they will become mandatory as a public health issue. Then BAM, all gun ownership is under the purview of NFA.

Think hard about what you wish for. This is why NFA/GCA needs to be uprooted before we try to reconfigure the gun laws of the country.

And we probably have no "right" to suppressors in the first place, at least compared to open-bolt guns ;)

TCB

Armed 24/7
October 20, 2013, 01:11 AM
Dang fumble fingers! I meant to hit No, but missed on my phone screen. I wish there was a way to re vote.
On topic, I wish that suppressors could be sold over the counter. Either with or without a NICS check.

FenderTK421
October 20, 2013, 06:19 AM
No. Suppressors need to be recognized as the safety devices they are and decriminalized as is. No compromise.

ApacheCoTodd
October 21, 2013, 10:37 PM
They would take the good faith compromise and still return to the original suppressor regulations or worse yet - outlaw them all-together the next time the option came up based upon a crime or suspect ownership. Once any fluidity or discussion is begun, it only ever stops after they get part of what they want and several parts is often all it takes.


No compromises... ever... AT ALL!

I, you and that guy over there have had far more compromises perpetrated upon our original second amendment than we should already stand.

A right is a right is a right.

Or - it's not!

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you support a suppressor compromise...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!