Could buy a suppressor/silencer but haven't? Why not?

Though you have the financial and legal ability, why do you now own a suppressor?

  • The paperwork seems complicated and a hassle

    Votes: 20 12.9%

  • Even though it's not too much, the $200 tax just annoys me

    Votes: 16 10.3%

  • At any given moment, I have guns I'd rather spend $500ish on

    Votes: 46 29.7%

  • I haven't shot a suppressed gun, and am not sure if I'd like it enough

    Votes: 5 3.2%

  • I feel that owning an NFA item would bring me undue federal attention

    Votes: 27 17.4%

  • Other (explained in post)

    Votes: 41 26.5%
  • Total voters
    155
Status
Not open for further replies.
Im wating on a form 4. I shot a friends suppresed ruger MkIII and his FAL using subsonic loads. That was all it took.
 
Last edited:
It's on the list of things to get, if not this year, than next. I've shot several suppressed firearms in calibers ranging from .22 LR to .50 BMG and have absolutely fallen in love with the notion of shooting guns quietly.

A rimfire suppressor on a .17 prairie dog gun would just be awesome.


As an aside, I always find it amusing that whenever a thread pops up regarding suppressors, there are always two or three guys who chime in and say that they see no use for suppressors because they aren't good for hunting, or only useful for crime, or other such inane claptrap, and then never actually see fit to respond to any of the posts deconstructing their arguments.
 
I'm very interested in suppressors, and while I can afford one and live in a state where its legal and in a county where the CLEO is very pro-class III, I'm waiting until I'm done with grad school and have a real job. I'd love to stay in the area and have a very good chance at doing so, but its not a guarantee, and I'd hate to have a whole pile of class III goodies and end up with a job in a non-class III state.
 
I live in Washington and here you can own them but not use them so there is really no point in having one. Its basically just a very expensive paper weight.
 
The tax is complete BS. I have no problem paying a bit of $$ for a suppressor, but giving the government $200 for doing absolutely nothing? B.S.

All the paperwork is unbelievably stupid as well. It's a freaking peice of metal.
 
I got a 22LR can last year. The noise reduction helps my son with his shooting, they are good for varmint hunting. They are just a lot of fun. I'm already trying to decide on the caliber for the next one.
 
+1 on the fun of .22 silenced rifle.

I have neighbors that are close enough to hear a .22, but I have a safe area to shot towards...a silenced savage w a cheapo scope makes a TON of fun smashing potatoes, apples, etc...off my back deck. Great to teach kids on, great shooting with new shooters, etc..

WAY worth the $200 tax stamp.




Savageclass3.jpg
 
I live in Washington and here you can own them but not use them so there is really no point in having one. Its basically just a very expensive paper weight.
Click to expand...

There's a solution to that: WA House Bill 1604.

"AN ACT Relating to firearm noise suppressors; and amending RCW 9.41.250. "

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=423471


If you're a WA resident with any interest at all in expanding firearms rights, I'd encourage you to contact your reps about this bill. I would, but moved to TX in 2005. I'd certainly like to be able to use a suppressor if I move back.
 
ABCMWM3,

I understand how you feel. I live in WA and make my own silencers. But I take them with anytime I travel to one of the 36 states that allow me to use them. It is lots of fun to shoot suppressed.

Ranb
 
Is it legal to own in Texas?
Click to expand...

Most definitely. All NFA is good in Texas. My city Chief of Police won't sign off, but the County Sheriff will. Anyway, I got a trust for my 2d and later NFA items, so I don't even need local permission, fingerprints, or photos anymore.

The only states where suppressors aren't legal are: California, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Washington allows ownership but not use, through an apparent legal error.

If you're in WA, please check out this thread on current legislation to legalize suppressors http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=423471

If your state doesn't allow suppressors, take heart from the examples of Kansas and Missouri, both of which changed their laws to allow suppressors in 2008. So, despite naysayers, these laws certainly can be changed with enough grassroots organizing. Loosening silencer laws in CA and IL might be a pipe dream, but it's probably totally doable in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and especially Vermont. I really need to go track down some details as to how the legislation was so surprisingly successful in MO and KS.
 
I feel that owning an NFA item would bring me undue federal attention
Click to expand...

This was my vote. A silencer will not work for concealed carry, and I have to wear ear protection at the range anyway for all of the other non-suppressed guns there. So if I can't carry it, and I have to wear ear protection at the range, why subject myself to all of that federal scrutiny?... piles of paperwork... $200 tax... $400+ for a suppressor.

Don't get me wrong... I would love to have one (particularly a suppressed Remmy 700 in 308), but it just doesn't make sense for me.
 
Legal to own but not to use in my state. Otherwise would love to have one for my XD and SIG.
Click to expand...
Write your reps. HB1604 would legalize their use.

Don't get me wrong... I would love to have one (particularly a suppressed Remmy 700 in 308), but it just doesn't make sense for me.
Click to expand...
That's why I got one.
That's why my girlfriend wasn't thrilled with that decision.

She'll come around once my paperwork is complete and she gets to shoot it. I hope.
 
piles of paperwork
Click to expand...

this is a common misconception. I used to think there were piles of paperwork. When I sent in the forms for my first one I thought I must have missed something, because I had heard that there were piles of paperwork.

It is:

2 copies of the form 4 (2 pieces of paper)
2 fingerprint cards (2 pieces of paper)
1 certificate of compliance form (1 piece of paper)
1 check (1 piece of paper)

That is 6 total pieces of paper you have to send in.

While I wish suppressor ownership was easier, it isn't nearly the ordeal that it is often made out to be.
 
this is a common misconception. I used to think there were piles of paperwork. When I sent in the forms for my first one I thought I must have missed something, because I had heard that there were piles of paperwork.

It is:

2 copies of the form 4 (2 pieces of paper)
2 fingerprint cards (2 pieces of paper)
1 certificate of compliance form (1 piece of paper)
1 check (1 piece of paper)

That is 6 total pieces of paper you have to send in.

While I wish suppressor ownership was easier, it isn't nearly the ordeal that it is often made out to be.
Click to expand...
Mine wasn't even that much paperwork because it was on a trust. I had a form similar to buying a gun, and then I had to sign the paper for the trust. There might have been something I am forgetting. No fingerprinting involved at all.
 
In Arizona I can own a suppressor, and have friends that do so. But frankly on a personal basis I haven't any need for one. For the same reason I don't have a pistol with a rail on it, nor do I own any gadgets to mount on the rail I haven't got... :confused: :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MatthewVanitas
  • Locked
Trends in suppressor (silencer) ownership?
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
SwearNoAllegiance
S
A
  • Locked
What Guns and Suppressors do you plan on buying if the HPA passes?
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
Deus Machina
D
MatthewVanitas
  • Locked
Hill-Country roadtrip to buy a suppressor
Replies
24
Views
1K
ctdonath
C
R
  • Locked
Suppressor question
Replies
12
Views
945
Lupinus
L
U
  • Locked
Minnesota Bill to allow Suppressors/Silencers on Gov. Dayton's desk
Replies
18
Views
2K
Ranb
Ranb
Back
Top