Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item


July 14, 2014, 06:37 PM
Hey guys, looks like this petition is gonna need some help. I wasn't sure where to put this so I started here, im sure the mods will move it where possible.

Here's the premise.

"Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item would eliminate the $200 tax stamp, eliminate legality and travel issues between states, reduce hearing safety concerns related to discharging firearms, and would help people be courteous neighbors when discharging firearms."

If you enjoyed reading about "Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
July 14, 2014, 07:42 PM
Signed it.

July 14, 2014, 08:52 PM
Sorry, but petitions create a false sense that something might be accomplished while in fact they simply are petitions for the Whitehouse to consider an issue (not do anything about it).

If you want suppressors normalized you'll have to find a working group with the interest to move the issue forward and the politicians with the interest in doing so. Right now there is zero chance that suppressors will be removed from NFA since you'd have to get the legislation amended.

July 14, 2014, 09:03 PM
saw it on another site and signed it today.

July 14, 2014, 11:13 PM
Petitioning the remove silencers from the NFA...

A couple thoughts:
-Logistically impossible because very few law makers are even aware of the issue, let alone the technical legal mess it has blossomed into. It will take a long time to make them aware, considering all the other more popular causes they are lobbied for.
-Politically impossible on two levels; one being our Prez (nor any other in the near future) would never go out on a limb for the few owners of the cans. The second level is that an easy super-majority of both houses, and both parties, would probably feel the same way.
-Legally impossible, since only congress would have the authority to rewrite the NFA as described. All POTUS could do is order the ATF to forgo all active investigations and enforcement of suppressor manufacture/sales --nope. As a side issue, I think this tactic is extremely corrupting and should be avoided on principle.
-Moot, since even if the POTUS did order non-enforcement of this area, the penalties --those massive, life-ruining, prison-timing penalties-- will still be hanging over the heads of buyers/builders/sellers. Not many would take the gamble that such a fragile truce would be lasting.
-Pointless, because all petitions are just the laziest form of issue-polling combined with a healthy dose of democracy theatre. Petitions are for ballots and kings.

The same poll on the NRA website would inspire a lot more confidence in me that it might one day lead to anything.


July 14, 2014, 11:24 PM
Good thoughts barnbwt. I guess the one thing these petitions are good for is probing the gun-owning public and seeing how we feel about the issue. Perhaps if enough people pipe-up about it, the NRA and others will take note and get something going.

Is there a group already dedicated to lobbying for this specific cause?

July 14, 2014, 11:33 PM
Not the NRA, last I checked. At least they're not openly hostile or dismissive of the NFA crowd, but I don't think they're full-blown advocates, yet. I imagine they are trying to get state AWBs and carry laws normalized everywhere before tackling the federal laws head-on.


July 15, 2014, 03:13 AM
Probably too much of a hot button issue until we get to some point where any bad guy in TV and movies with any pretension of being a professional uses a suppressor to kill and generally demonstrate his/her general badness. The more this topic gets pushed into the limelight, I'm pretty sure the more energy the media will spend trying to whip it into a story of the day kind of issue.

July 15, 2014, 10:42 AM
There is a suppressor industry group.

"one thing these petitions are good for is probing the gun-owning public"

I can't agree. petitions are so short and so unprofessional that it makes it difficult for the gun-owning public to decide whether to support them or not. They need to be worded in such a way as to sell a clear argument to the reader and not just the Whitehouse so the average person would consider the request reasonable and agreeable and vote in favor by "signing". They typically don't meet even that criteria. OTOH, there are good petitions that have come out presenting good short arguments for our side, but they tend to be reactive instead of proactive (AWB, mag bans, etc.).

Any petition on NFA has to start from the understanding that the law has to be changed to remove any category from regulation. That requires a bill or amendment to amend the NFA and that's a political battle that no one right now is willing to take on since there is ZERO chance of winning it. It is a waste of time and energy to try to change NFA with this Congress and President and we have to bide our time and conserve our energy for those battles we can advance our side against the Antis.

July 15, 2014, 04:02 PM
Nobody pays the least bit of attention to on-line petitions. Far too easy to have false everything on 'em.
And as long as Hollywood keeps churning out movies depicting criminals using suppressors they'll never be de-regulated.

July 15, 2014, 04:44 PM
I'm in, # 24,616.

July 15, 2014, 05:40 PM
Doesn't hurt to sign does it?

I mean sure its unlikely. But it doesn't HURT to sign, And doesn't take up much time either.

I'm in.

July 15, 2014, 05:49 PM

Outlaw Man
July 15, 2014, 11:17 PM
I can't agree. petitions are so short and so unprofessional that it makes it difficult for the gun-owning public to decide whether to support them or not.
Not to mention, a lot of gun owners are so paranoid/untrusting that they'll never sign up for anything on

It's a nice thought, but like others have said, Congress, not the President, has the authority to change this, and they've got "bigger" fish to fry.

Sam Cade
July 15, 2014, 11:42 PM
But it doesn't HURT to sign, And doesn't take up much time either.

If signing a useless petition dissipates whatever will you had to undertake real activism, yes, it does hurt.

July 16, 2014, 12:11 AM
Good points everyone, I hadn't considered it that way.

Cade, you're right about slacktivism. It seems a lot of younger people like myself can be misguided by participating in online polls and comments-section debates; thinking we are accomplishing something.

I doubt many people leave their keyboards with changed hearts after debating in the comments!

July 16, 2014, 12:51 AM
There can be useful online petitions and groups (like the members who check Activism and Activism Discussion), but you have to put some effort into learning which have the potential to accomplish anything and which ones are just Soma to put the barely roused couch creatures back to dozing.

July 17, 2014, 10:34 AM
Slightly off topic:
IMO, increased usage of suppressors and fighting at State level to remove laws restricting usage could set a foundation for removing them from NFA. No proof, but I'd suspect most people don't even know suppressors (silencers) are legal for civilian ownership. Most casual shooters I know did not know they're legal or at least had no understanding of how NFA works. Trying to fight this at the federal level is a nonstarter at this time, even if we had a pro 2A congress & president.

The more people see their use at the range by nice guys that may be willing to take a few minutes to discuss them and the laws pertaining to them, in-laws looking at your hunting picture with a suppressed rifle leaned up against the kill, simple stuff like that will, IMHO, take away from the image the weird-o's in Hollywood have been feeding the people for generations. If/when we can finally make a federal fight, I want aunt Margie to think about her nice little nephew hunting and not some super-assassin on some movie.

July 17, 2014, 10:50 AM
Signed it. It creates awareness if nothing else. We had to get many thousands of signatures to get a state constitutional amendment brought up for a referendum so we could have a legal argument to have concealed carry in Wisconsin. Incremental gun laws work both ways. But you have to get off the couch. :scrutiny:

July 17, 2014, 11:36 AM
MtnCreek, you are correct. Just in my own state, not many people know that suppressors are legal for ownership/use. Last year's bill was a great step in the right direction (legalized use, whereas before you could only own one and not shoot through it :uhoh:) and helped raise overall-awareness.

It does seem that the NFA crowd is limited. Unfortunately, gun-folk that participate in online discussions like these are the minority. Like you said, we must convince those in our immediate vicinity that suppressors are great tools before there is any hope of de-regulation.

July 17, 2014, 11:42 AM

Vern Humphrey
July 18, 2014, 01:59 PM
Signed -- not that it will do any good. We need to petition our Senators and Representatives.

While we're at it, we should also take shoulder stocks and short-barreled guns off the NFA. Shoulder stocks were put on the NFA because at the time Lugers and C96s with shoulder stocks were being advertised as "pocket machineguns."

Short barreled guns were put on the list because of a legend the Mafia used the "luparo" or short-barreled shotgun.

July 18, 2014, 03:45 PM
One of the best ways to go at it is to address it as a health / environmental issue. Reducing noise, prevent future medical costs due to hearing loss, quieter ranges....before you know it they'll make them mandatory. You should be able to pick one up at the hardware store for fifty bucks.

Vern Humphrey
July 18, 2014, 04:45 PM
You won't get any argument from me on that.

I could make a shoulder stock for my Colt Woodsman out of scrap wood, a nylon strap and a cam buckle -- but I'd have to register it and pay $200.

If you enjoyed reading about "Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!