Have suppressor laws changed recently?

UrbanHermit said:

I've noticed over the past few years that suppressors seem to be more popular, every YouTube gun guy seems to have one now, and they are sometimes on display at gun stores. Are they somehow easier to obtain now, or do you still have to pay a $200 fee and wait a year?

Apologies if this is covered in a sticky, I found them too complicated to understand.

Click to expand...

I too would like to know.

Federally, no. If anything, 41F made them harder to get (and no "pro gun" administration revoked that ruling, hmmm) but I'll say a few states have. No, not the Make-Your-Own laws, but until a few years ago Kansas (where I live) banned all NFA devices. Now I can get SBRs and suppressors. So, I do. A few others have also done so.

And... I dunno. Not sure why they took off, but they just did. Maybe the wars, seriously. Lots more call for suppressors so more people making them and coming back from even reasonably specialist unit deployments knowing that's the next thing, so more companies started up than the few that have been around a long time.

A few more might have popped up because of the push for the HPA, and the belief that we'd get them removed from the NFA. That never went anywhere but MAY have given some more boost to the manufacturing side at least, to start companies, and push them.

But overall, not sure what drove it. Happy it did. Easy to buy, not that expensive, really neat. Makes shooting (rifles) much more pleasant.

There was talk a few years ago (2015) about taking silencers off the NFA so that you would be able to buy one without paying the $200 tax. That bill never got pasted but it brought silencers to a lot of people's attention including myself. I now have two silencers in NFA Jail and should have them before the end of this year if ATF does not find something wrong. As a person that likes to make things, it is possible that I may do a form 1 silencer in the near future. Would like to have the two form 4 silencers in my possession so that they can be used to make a copy.

Oklahoma had a Bill "The Hearing Conservation Act" that allows the use of suppressors to hunt small game. Other States also allow, I believe.

There have been attempts to remove the NFA tax, but we know how the is with removing taxes.

Write your Rep and Sen. Push this to happen

Should have never been listed. Hollyweird myth and ignorant fear caused it. Let's end it.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I think I saw an article about Texas, where they were rebelling and a silencer made in Texas, and used in Texas - they were not going to participate in a Federal Tax stamp for those devices, but maybe that was fake news. I'd have several, but the tax stamps are prohibitive. I'm sure anyone around when we're shooting up at the property would appreciate a little less noise, but - oh well.

The law didn’t change but they are far easier to obtain. Silencershop.com has made it super easy to buy one, and it gets people into the hobby of stamp collecting. You can pick what you want online and they guide you step by step through the process and have a whole network of transfer dealers where you can do the paperwork/prints and pick it up.

Years ago there just wasn’t the knowledge base. It would require a buyer, seller, and a transfer dealer to be knowledgeable about NFA transactions and trust each other. Not many gunstores stocked NFA weapons, if they did it was an over priced display item — and they would screw your in transfers. Once silencershop streamlined the process, suppressors really took off. There are pictures circulating online of silencershop taking a truckload of form 4s to the post office right before 41f - that truckload was equal to a all NFA transfers nationwide a few years before that. Because of this surge, people are more comfortable with NFA transfers. The cost near me for an NFA transfer has gone from $200 to $25 in about 10 years.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...hop-sends-2m-worth-of-nfa-stamp-applications/

I used Silencer Central and they processed everything. However, the wait is still the wait. Five months now and at least two more.

No, the law (federal) hasn't changed, but people have become more aware of silencers. Since MG ownership has been foreclosed to many (because of high prices), silencer ownership is a consolation prize to give people NFA bragging rights. In themselves, silencers are overrated. It's the paperwork that people are after. At least that's my theory.

UrbanHermit said:

It's really incredible to pay $1000 and wait a year for a tube with baffling in it. You can buy a nice rifle for half that these days.

Click to expand...

I take it that you are one of those people who also feel that there is a certain correct cost ratio of scope-to-rifle?

You can buy a $300 trigger for a $500 rifle, right? Or, you could get an $800 daylight scope for $9000 thermal scope for it as well.

As noted, federal laws have not changed, but many states have changed laws in the last decade allowing suppressors for hunting that didn't previously allow for it. As of 2019, 39 states allowed for it.

Suppressors are safety gear, plain and simple. Plus, they make shooting more enjoyable. And for those that for some odd reason don't want to wear hearing protection while they shoot/hunt/etc., suppressed gunshots are much less damaging to their ears.

Silencers don't silence. They attenuate the noise. It's not like in the movies.

If more people were aware of this fact, there would be less interest in them, both pro and con.

Rules haven't really changed, however silencer shop has changed the way things are done, kiosks are much more affordable for dealers then they first were, and honestly with inflation and what not $200.00 for a tax stamp isnt as big of a wallet hit as it used to be.

AlexanderA said:

Silencers don't silence. They attenuate the noise. It's not like in the movies.

If more people were aware of this fact, there would be less interest in them, both pro and con.

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone unhappy their silencer is not hollywood quiet. They are expensive and hard enough to get that everyone has done their research.

It's also harder to be pedantic about "suppressor" vs "silencer" (in the way we are about clip, etc) as the least-bad USC defined term is "silencer." We call SBRs that because it's an abbreviation of the legal term.

18 USC § 921(a)(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Click to expand...

shoobe01 said:

I don't know of anyone unhappy their silencer is not hollywood quiet. They are expensive and hard enough to get that everyone has done their research.

It's also harder to be pedantic about "suppressor" vs "silencer" (in the way we are about clip, etc) as the least-bad USC defined term is "silencer." We call SBRs that because it's an abbreviation of the legal term.

Click to expand...

Plus, the first one patented (1909) was by Hiram Percy Maxim (not his father who did the machinegun) who called it a 'silencer' in the patent and sold units with that name since 1902. By invention, original convention, and legal code, it is a silencer. See...
Maxim Silencer Patent 958935

I think it's a mix of things.
$200 isn't too bad now adays. Back in 1934 it was closer to "$5,000 in today money".
Silencer Shop has made it easy. What before seemed confusing is now easy thanks to them.
Some of us were waiting out on the hearing protection act happening, which it didn't.
Election is what really drove me to pull the trigger in the end.

AlexanderA said:

Silencers don't silence. They attenuate the noise. It's not like in the movies.

If more people were aware of this fact, there would be less interest in them, both pro and con.

Click to expand...

And oddly people that buy a silencer.........buy more silencers. How on earth can that be possible, they are obviously not aware that silencer don't silence, they "attenuate".

Good grief. The nonsense never ends.

AlexanderA said:

No, the law (federal) hasn't changed, but people have become more aware of silencers. Since MG ownership has been foreclosed to many (because of high prices), silencer ownership is a consolation prize to give people NFA bragging rights. In themselves, silencers are overrated. It's the paperwork that people are after. At least that's my theory.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It's true that MG ownership has been priced nearly out of the reach of many people, but suppressors always appealed to a different market. They're NFA for people who aren't into NFA...or at least not into the mag dump aspects of it. But if you're a precision-oriented shooter, a suppressor is an interesting accessory.

Most people would probably be surprised that this handgun safe has been my top seller the last two years.

The people that have no interest in silencers don’t have a clue how many are out there. More and more people are keeping them handy for their primary home defense gun.

RockRat64 said:

I think it's a mix of things.
$200 isn't too bad now adays. Back in 1934 it was closer to "$5,000 in today money".

Click to expand...

People are cheap and have weird values. They will spend $200 on cigarettes or beer in a month, spend more than that on dining out on junk fast food, but will balk at the $200 fee for a suppressor. Apparently, it is okay to splurge on harmful garbage but is an abomination to spend money on something beneficial to you.

I do get it. Suppressors are not inexpensive, but then again, their cost to own and operate is practically nil after the initial investment and if you don't abuse them, they should last for years and year and years.

FAS1 said:

The people that have no interest in silencers don’t have a clue how many are out there. More and more people are keeping them handy for their primary home defense gun.

Click to expand...

This raises the issue of self defense with a silenced gun. That does not look good in front of a jury. The prosecution will try to say you were "lying in wait" or "spoiling for a shooting." It's the same issue as over-preparedness in general, such as using particularly lethal handloads.

UrbanHermit said:

It's really incredible to pay $1000 and wait a year for a tube with baffling in it. You can buy a nice rifle for half that these days.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole and oversimplification, anyone?

First, what "nice rifle" are you finding for $500? That's the price range of budget rifles with wood stocks. You're average premium sporter these days is in the $750-$1,200 range.

$1k is also not the median cost of a can. There are scores of rifle and pistol suppressors in the $500-$700 range, and rimfire are more in the $250-$400 range.

They're more expensive here than abroad because they're NFA, because we build them like the lifetime investments that they are. In European countries, you see a lot of large aluminum or 300 series stainless monocores that sell pretty cheap. There are several reasons we can get into if you're curious, but bottom line is we (mostly) don't make them that way in the US. We have the best suppressor here, both in terms of materials and designs. It's possible to build cheap cans, sure, but most would rather "buy once, cry once" with them. A lot of the folks who did get a cheapie end up sending them to people like me to make them real performers at an acceptable weight. Because of the stamp and wait, it's worthwhile to many to spend several hundred dollars updating & upgrading a heavy, poor performing suppressor.

If you don't see the value in them, that's fine, but literally millions of American shooters do now. The increase in popularity has helped remove much of the stigma of perhaps the most practical & useful firearm accessory extant.

AlexanderA said:

This raises the issue of self defense with a silenced gun. That does not look good in front of a jury. The prosecution will try to say you were "lying in wait" or "spoiling for a shooting." It's the same issue as over-preparedness in general, such as using particularly lethal handloads.

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous.

One, home defense is not the same as using lethal force in public. Not even close. If you end up explaining yourself to a Jury for having shot a home invader, it's not going to be because of the weapon you used.

A prosecutor who tried to use that to get a conviction would be a fool, and any attorney who couldn't make the jury laugh over such an attempt is worthless. "So, counselor, your contention is that my client should have to suffer hearing loss to defend his life and the lives of his family members from a violent home intruder?"

We keep cans on all the HD weapons. I don't want to blow my ears out if I'm ever forced to use them. I'm not remotely concerned about landing in hot water for it.

AlexanderA said:

This raises the issue of self defense with a silenced gun. That does not look good in front of a jury. The prosecution will try to say you were "lying in wait" or "spoiling for a shooting." It's the same issue as over-preparedness in general, such as using particularly lethal handloads.

Click to expand...

Well, then you better not own a gun in the first place.

You wouldn't mind citing the specific cases where 'lethal handloads' were used against the defender in court, would you?

MachIVshooter said:

That's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Just as ridiculous as worrying about hearing loss in a once-in-a-lifetime defensive shooting. Or, are you making a regular practice of this?