National CCW reciprocity would be nice, and certainly a worthy goal.
However, I'd like to float an idea. For a moment, put yourself in the mindset of a politically and idealogically neutral fence-sitter with an open mind- not one of us, but not a raving, slobbering at the mouth gun-grabbing anti.
_____
Ok, ready?
Would you support repealing a law that could help to reduce significant medical costs in the United States at no cost to the taxpayers?
How about a law that would help to foster good will between rural sportsmen and those who are now living in suburbs that are continually expanding into formerly rural areas?
Do I have your attention?
Good.
_______
I propose that the regulations on sound suppressors as embodied in the National Firearms Act of 1934 should be repealed, and that suppressors should be just as legal to put on a firearm as a telescopic scope is on a hunting rifle, or custom grips on a dedicated target pistol.
After all, federal law mandates that you must have a muffler on your car, so why should putting one on a firearm be any different?
There are no statistics that show that criminals used suppressors before they were banned in 1934 as part of the media-hyped, governmental over-reaction to the violence that erupted as a result of the Volstead Act and Prohibition.
I submit that this regulation is a relic of a bygone era- the time of Prohibition, Jim Crow, and a distinct knowledge gap with regard to scientific understanding of the causes of permanent hearing loss.
In the 1930's no one knew that loud sounds caused permanent, irreversible hearing damage. Nowadays such ignorance is laughable. Research has shown that repeated exposure to sounds louder than 85 decibels cause irreversible damage to the delicate structure of the inner ear. Gunshots regularly exceed 100 decibels. America has a rich heritage of hunting and competitive shooting that is not about to go away. Why should those who choose to engage in these activities be unfairly penalized with hearing loss? Why should the public be expected to, in many cases, pick up the tab? Certainly there are forms of hearing protection available such as ear plugs and muffs, but why should the American sports enthusiast be denied the use of yet another tool to protect his or her hearing?
Beyond the hearing safety of the firearms user is the standard of living of those around him or her. The American population is growing at a prodigious rate. The resulting urban sprawl has seen the rapid development of much land that was once nearly unpopulated countryside. This has given rise to many contentious and unpleasant confrontations between formerly rural residents and their newly arrived suburbanized neighbors. In nearly every state in the nation, private shooting clubs as well as individuals who safely and legally shoot on their own private property have come under fire for annoying their neighbors. This gives rise to a prickly situation: whose rights are more important? Those of shooting clubs or land owners who were there before urban sprawl brought new neighbors to them, or the neighbors who simply wish to live without being continually submitted to the sound of nearby gunfire? The authors of the 1934 law could hardly have forseen such a development, and it is a travesty that we in the early 21st century must deal with the unintended consequences of their shortsightedness.
An argument could be made that criminals would choose to use suppressors in order to gain an advantage. However this is unlikely. Suppressors are much more prevalent and available in many European nations and they don't seem to have a problem with it. Besides, criminals tend to spend as little on their weapons as possible. It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to pay several hundred dollars on the modifications needed to mount a sound suppressor as well as the suppressor itself. On top of this, even the most compact suppressors are several inches long, which renders the weapon nearly impossible to conceal for criminal purposes.
Deregulating firearm sound suppressors is a wise idea both as a public health issue and one of general civility.
While this ban may have had some legitimacy in the early 20th century, times have changed. We now know that extremely loud sounds can cause permanent hearing damage. Urban sprawl has led to confrontations between newly arrived residents and those who were there first, and chose to use the land for sporting purposes. Many countries in Europe such as Norway do not regulate suppressors, and their use is encouraged as a form of good manners. Criminals are unlikely to use them because they are bulky and costly. Mufflers are required on many machines used by us every day. Why should their use on firearms be omitted because of an antiquated law?
_______
Ok, I typed all of that off the top of my head, and it ended up a lot longer than I anticipated. However, I'd be curious to know if my arguments come across as logical to someone who is only a passively interested third party? Do the points I have made seem rational to the average person, or do they come across as yet another crazy idea from a gun-toting redneck psychopath? I deliberately avoided making references to the use of suppressors in self-defense and lethal force encounters because it's too easy to then accuse the pro-rights person of being a Rambo-wannabe. (This, of course, does not change the fact that I don't think we should have to trade our hearing for the right to defend our homes and loved ones with the most effective means available.)
I believe that if presented in a modest, middle of the road fashion, the arguments for the deregulation of sound suppressors are far and away much more compelling than the arguments against them. Personally, I think we are unlikely to repeal the requirement to fill out a 4473 or possess a post-'86 machinegun, but that if presented as a public health issue to the right legislators we could get this part of the NFA repealed.
Thoughts?
