Republicans push gun silencer bill

If I had bought them way back..... I would hear better this day. I did finally buy one last year, the wait is too long. Hope it passes.

I think it will go through. When the time comes for it to hit the floor enough people will write their reps to urge them to support it and not enough people on the other side care enough to do the same (in the same number of people I mean).

The SHARE Act which is pro 2A legislature intended to provide more rights when traveling between states with different gun laws, allows more liberties on federal lands, and calls for suppressors to be purchased in the same manner as title 1 firearms made it out of committee this past week. The next step is a vote by Congress which may take play in as little as 2-3 weeks. The time to write to reps in now! Hopefully, this will pave the way for more pro 2A legislation. Write to your reps!

Should have no problem in the House.
But, will face a rocky road in the Senate, where far too many (r)s are RINOs.

Against that, SHARE has some carve-outs specifically aimed at shooters in the 2% & 3% (which encompasses our political class).

I want it to happen. My Congressman and Senators want it to happen; but, will still take tough sledding.

Particularly so that it's not a "victory" for "our side" like FOPA was (where all "we" got was elimination of the requirement to log ammo sales in a a Bound Book).

There's no such thing as silencers, only suppressors. If fox is advertising this as a silencer bill that could be serious trouble.

There's no such thing as silencers, only suppressors. If fox is advertising this as a silencer bill that could be serious trouble.

Click to expand...

Good grief. Can we PLEASE stop saying this stuff? Hiram Maxim called them SILENCERS when he invented them. The exact degree of silencing isn't what matters. Stop apologizing to the anti-gun crowd by telling them, essentially, "Oh don't worry, these things don't really WORK!"


(Borrowed from Ian's site at Forgotten Weapons, hopefully with his approval!)

We need to call them Brady checks; makes it harder for them to claim NICS is too inadequate if their name is attached.

TCB

...as though NFRTR is somehow more capable. A buddy went to register a bare receiver on Form 1 for a build, finds out it had been registered by the original manufacturer about a decade ago & never transferred on Form 3/etc subsequently. As far as owners, I understand the ATF sees the same stuff as NICS, it just takes them a year to run the instant check because of an intentionally antiquated paper-based system.

TCB

Fingers and toes crossed

"(Gun control advocate) Chipman said the bill “would make silencers more readily available to criminals because for the first time in 80 years private parties could sell these guns without background checks on the internet and in gun shows and this has never been the case before."

So now a silencer/suppressor is a gun?

Looks like the bill would still require a background form. Wonder how this will shake out for homemade ones?

“There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” Kristin Brown, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year." Really? I'd love her to stand next to me when I fire off a .357 and hear her quote then.

Don't worry about it or make issues about the details. Get something passed now! improve it later.

Bingo Wally! Let's take what we can get because you know the gun grabbers will take every single thing they can.

I would imagine if it passes, silencers could also be constructed under the same provisions as title I firearms. However, I'll worry about that if Christmas comes and the it passes.

Speedo66 said:

So now a silencer/suppressor is a gun?

Click to expand...

No, but certain Congressmen are still dumb as a bag of rocks, and therein lies the problem.

Everyone needs to write to theirs, and include this: https://americansuppressorassociati.../09/Subcommittee-SHARE-Testimony-09-12-17.pdf

Speedo66 said:

So now a silencer/suppressor is a gun?

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, they are firearms under federal law. But yeah, I know what you mean here.

To me, my silencers are simply accessories, so I sometimes find myself forgetting that they're legally firearms. And being Title II firearms, they're even more regulated than normal Title I firearms are.

Man, I hope this law gets passed. I'm not holding my breath, though...

Speedo66 said:

Really? I'd love her to stand next to me when I fire off a .357 and hear her quote then.

Click to expand...

You stand on one side, and I'll stand on the other with an LE6920 with plain-jane 55gr fmj (total sound impulse is actually higher than a .44mag).

She also probably has no idea how much hearing loss she already has from concerts and headphones and the like.

Sam1911 said:

Good grief. Can we PLEASE stop saying this stuff? Hiram Maxim called them SILENCERS when he invented them. The exact degree of silencing isn't what matters. Stop apologizing to the anti-gun crowd by telling them, essentially, "Oh don't worry, these things don't really WORK!"

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of room between calling them ineffective and letting the uninitiated believe that Hollywood's representation is accurate.

I explain that they generally make the weapon hearing safe and far more pleasant to shoot, but that .22 rimfire aside, you'll absolutely hear a suppressed firearm discharge from a decent distance, including within a structure.

I had some family out a couple of weeks ago from NY, NY. My uncle had shot many, many years ago, but his wife and my cousin never. I had cans on just about everything, and they were rather shocked out how loud a gun still is, especially rifles. They were expecting the movie quiet whisper. It definitively removed their impression of being able to stealthily execute someone in the next room or a restaurant booth with nobody hearing the shot. I also had one of our shop post sample M16s with us and was able to demonstrate that full auto from shoulder fired weapon in real life is quite different from the silver screen depictions.

I hope this passes, its hard to say if it has a chance or not. Bills get introduced all the time for show and go nowhere. Id love to have a 22 supressor for dispatching squirrels and vermin without ear plugs, and without bothering the neighbors. It isnt worth a $200 tax to me, but if i could just buy one with an ncis check, id do it in a heartbeat.

Theohazard said:

Well, to be fair, they are firearms under federal law. But yeah, I know what you mean here.

To me, my silencers are simply accessories, so I sometimes find myself forgetting that they're legally firearms. And being Title II firearms, they're even more regulated than normal Title I firearms are.

Man, I hope this law gets passed. I'm not holding my breath, though...

Click to expand...

I don't feel that strongly about the semantics one way or another, but legally arent they just a class 3 item that happens to be a firearm accessory? That would be like saying a class 5 item.. ie C4 is a firearm. Everyone knows class 5 items are explosives. Title 2 should be renamed as NFA Firearms AND ACCESSORIES or something to the effect.
However I dont really care one way or another.

I don't feel that strongly about the semantics one way or another, but legally arent they just a class 3 item that happens to be a firearm accessory? That would be like saying a class 5 item.. ie C4 is a firearm. Everyone knows class 5 items are explosives. Title 2 should be renamed as NFA Firearms AND ACCESSORIES or something to the effect.
However I dont really care one way or another.

Click to expand...

Huh?

The "Class" thing has to do with the Special Occupational Tax which a dealer or manufacturer has to pay in order to register to sell or make those items.

Hence a firearms importer (Type 8 or 11) can pay the Special Occupational Tax Class 1 to import machine guns and such.
An FFL type 1 or 2 dealer can pay the SOT Class 3 and then sell National Firearms Act (or GCA Title II if you prefer) items.
A licensed manufacturer (FFL Type 7 or 10) can pay the SOT Class 2 in order to make NFA items.

There are no "Class 3" guns, though lots of guys mistakenly call them that. There are "Title II" firearms, which is just another way of saying NFA stuff like SBR, SBS, and machine guns.

I don't know where the concept of "Class 5" came from or that it would cover explosives. I've not heard that before.

Explosives like hand grenades are NFA items under the heading of "Destructive Devices." They can be made Type 20 FFLs (high explosives) who've also paid their SOT Class 2 tax. And sold by licensed explosives dealers who also pay the SOT 3 tax as an NFA dealer.

Klint Beastwood said:

I don't feel that strongly about the semantics one way or another, but legally arent they just a class 3 item that happens to be a firearm accessory?

Click to expand...

No, legally they're firearms. Here's the definition of "firearm" under federal law (emphasis added):

18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(3):

"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."

Klint Beastwood said:

That would be like saying a class 5 item.. ie C4 is a firearm. Everyone knows class 5 items are explosives.

Click to expand...

Actually, explosives are firearms under federal law. Explosives are classified by federal law as destructive devices, and destructive devices are considered firearms.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

And like Sam, I've also never heard of a "Class 5" item. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing in federal firearms law. If I'm wrong and federal firearms laws mention "Class 5" firearms anywhere, I'd be curious to see a link.

Haha no you guys are right.
When i said class 5 i was thinking of the military's classification for them, not NFA items...id just got done with some expenditure reports so, it was on my head. I didn't think to clarify or that it wasnt common knowledge to the crowd. My bad guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_supply
Nothing to do with the convo, and nothing to really do with federal law although there are some (a lot) ATF guidelines.

Besides that, for sure. I'm not disputing the litigation of what suppressors, or even explosives are considered. I'm just saying, that "I", a nobody, thinks that its silly because, say a suppressor, is an all actuality a accessory and not an actual a firearm. What I was saying in the beginning was basically saying that it doesn't "bother me" that they are classified as such, but maybe they could have...reinvented the classification a little differently. Maybe.

Yeah...it is nonsensical from any physical understanding. Only in the sense of legal terms of art does it halfway make sense. However, changing the law to align the legal terms with physical reality is probably too large a hill to climb, relative to the benefits even we would get out of it. At least for now, the government isn't going to give up the ability to regulate silencers, and to make them NOT "firearms" would require building a new regulatory scheme for an item that isn't a firearm, and it's just easier to go with the status quo.

I have some money sitting on the side just in case the bill passes. I know two Manufactures here in LA. and will most likely get a great deal from one or both of them.