Will suppressors ever be taken off the NFA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Macchina

Macchina

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
998
Many states now allow hunting with suppressors, it's clearly better for hearing to use one, they're required in some parts of Europe, and are becoming evermore popular.

Will suppressors every be able to be purchased over the counter? What would need to happen legally?
 
would make sense now they have states allowing hunting usage, but would .gov give up the revenue and control? I'm not optimistic.
 
I don't think so, first because of the climate, second, most people would use them for legitimate reasons, but there a group ( insert Gang Bangers and want a be gangbangers here ) who would misuse them in a big way. But that is just my personal observation and opinion.
 
The original reason for suppressors being put under the NFA was for 'poaching' concerns during the depression. I would imagine that a State Game Warden would be better off addressing 'poaching' concerns than the Federal Government.

http://www.qsmsilencers.com/hearing loss facts.htm

"During the Great Depression there was some concern on the part of the government that suppressed firearms would be used for poaching livestock by those in need during these trying years. Suppressors were thus included in the NFA Act of 1934 and subject to registration as well as a 200.00 transfer tax."

They should not even be in the NFA, they are not even an firearm. But rather an accessory. I hope they are taken off the NFA, but getting it done...well that is another matter.

Maybe OSHA will come to our rescue and declare that for hearing safety, suppressors must be used at all gun ranges.

.
 
Macchina Will suppressors every be able to be purchased over the counter? What would need to happen legally?
Click to expand...
Federal law would have to change. Silencers are restricted due to the National Firearms Act of 1934.




huntsman would make sense now they have states allowing hunting usage, but would .gov give up the revenue and control? I'm not optimistic.
Click to expand...
It ain't about "the revenue".;)



HexHead Probably not while 0bama's boy is running the place.
Click to expand...
"Obama's boy" couldn't change the law if he wanted to, neither could Obama.
Congress passed the law, only Congress or the Federal courts can change it.
 
Not in my lifetime. So many other gun issues being focused on. Although silencers are becoming popular it's still relatively rare.
 
After watching the amazing changes of the last 20 years, I'll go ahead and say YES, definitely in my lifetime. Probably in the next 10-20 years.

It wouldn't be all that hard to change the NFA. It will be a big hurdle, but I actually see this as much less a divisive thing than some of the AWB and registration issues that really tie up Congress.

It is A WHOLE LOT harder to explain to the folks at home why we don't want to allow any guns to be registered than it is to explain why noise reduction is a good idea.
 
It would be nice, but I doubt it in the near future. Silencers are becoming more and more popular, even for home defense use, but I think the lawmakers will always see other gun issues more important than someone trying to preserve their hearing when ear plugs are an option in their minds.

Besides, silencers still have a negative connotation to them, mostly for the illegal use of them in a crime like you see in the movies and that is the way most people still see them.

10336646_10152054775731875_24468321528729955_n.jpg
 
I think if we emphasize hearing protection and point out that countries in Europe not only allow, but encourage their uses....it might go a long way here...
.
 
I'd love to see something like 20mm cannons join the group of being taken off the NFA list. That would be so rad.
 
FAS1 said:
Besides, silencers still have a negative connotation to them, mostly for the illegal use of them in a crime like you see in the movies and that is the way most people still see them.
Click to expand...

There has been only ONE reported use of an NFA suppressor in a crime. That LAPD cop that went off the reservation about a year or so ago used one on his shooting spree. That's it.

Once again, perception has absolutely no bearing on reality.
 
Took them until 2006 take off the Federal telephone excise tax that was passed for the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Why would they move suppressors off the NFA and lose $200?
 
Why would they move suppressors off the NFA and lose $200?
Click to expand...
Because in 1934 $200 was really something, but these days $200 can't begin to cover the manpower costs to process the paperwork. In other words, by doing this and taking in $200, they're undoubtedly going into the budgetary "red" on every form.
 
I think if the "forbidden fruit" aspect of suppressors was removed, they wouldn't be all that popular. After all, they don't really "silence" a gun like you see in the movies.

What's needed is a root-and-branch reform of the NFA (and indeed the entire federal gun-law system). It's a patchwork of things that were incrementally added over the years, and the result is not rational. The polarization over the gun issue first has to subside, and then a commission of experts can be formed to do an in-depth study, and come up with recommendations that all stakeholders can agree to. (This probably won't happen for another century, and by then all "firearms" as we know them will be obsolete. They'll be talking about directed particle beams, and our firearms will be quaint antiques.)
 
AlexanderA said:
I think if the "forbidden fruit" aspect of suppressors was removed, they wouldn't be all that popular. After all, they don't really "silence" a gun like you see in the movies.

What's needed is a root-and-branch reform of the NFA (and indeed the entire federal gun-law system). It's a patchwork of things that were incrementally added over the years, and the result is not rational. The polarization over the gun issue first has to subside, and then a commission of experts can be formed to do an in-depth study, and come up with recommendations that all stakeholders can agree to. (This probably won't happen for another century, and by then all "firearms" as we know them will be obsolete. They'll be talking about directed particle beams, and our firearms will be quaint antiques.)
Click to expand...
Have you never used a suppressor before? There are currently whole cartridges and firearms being designed around suppressors (300 BO). On a gun like a 45 ACP they make a huge difference and actually allow (limited) shooting without hearing protection. On 22 rifle they make the action seem loud.
 
HexHead said:
There has been only ONE reported use of an NFA suppressor in a crime. That LAPD cop that went off the reservation about a year or so ago used one on his shooting spree. That's it.

Once again, perception has absolutely no bearing on reality.
Click to expand...

Exactly! The perception is changing among the gun owners as you see all the states that currently allow them for hunting, etc., so we are making progress.

But, for the people that are not gun owners, they still think when being shot you fly a few feet before you hit the wall and slide down to the floor.
 
Cesiumsponge said:
Took them until 2006 take off the Federal telephone excise tax that was passed for the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Why would they move suppressors off the NFA and lose $200?
Click to expand...
It was never repealed. Actually after loosing time and again in the courts, the government just gave up and admitted the law as written only applied to distance-based charged not time based charges. They are still collecting it on local only plans. They also declared they don't owe any refunds before 2003 and only refunded $20 per exemption on your 2006 tax return for those 3 years.

The Treasury Secretary actually asked Congress to repeal the tax completely in 2006, a bill was not introduced until 2011 and it went nowhere. Not even the Treasury Secretary can get Congress to repeal a tax!


This is one of those cases where litigants won on textural analysis of a law that had been "read wrong" by the government for nearly a century!

Mike
 
Last edited:
Deregulated completely? Probably not. But I see a very good potential to either formally move them off NFA-34, or change the background check requirements.

I'd be pushing for transferring them with a NICS check. Even if you still had to pay the $200 transfer tax, the speed improvement would be a tremendous help. Especially since I would not want to try to defend the current 10-12 month NFA wait in court.
 
God I hope so. I couldn't care less about the tax nor paperwork, but the wait times these days are hellacious.

P.S. To answer the question: I seriously doubt there will be any gun law changes during this administration. In a few years, who knows. Hope springs eternal. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Will Suppressors ever become legal and popular in the US?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
FullEffect1911
F
Flyboy73
  • Locked
Getting Suppressors off the NFA list
Replies
24
Views
2K
monotonous_iterancy
M
M
  • Locked
Oklahoma: Suppressor Bill Unanimously Passes Out of Committee
Replies
4
Views
1K
Midwest
M
Ryanxia
  • Locked
Putting suppressor in Trust before filing?
Replies
11
Views
1K
yugorpk
Y
rws_53
  • Locked
Ruger SR22 Twin Tech 4.5" threaded bbl with suppressor
Replies
5
Views
911
GarrettJ
GarrettJ
Back
Top