Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item

Signed it.

Petitioning the Whitehouse...to remove silencers from the NFA...

A couple thoughts:
-Logistically impossible because very few law makers are even aware of the issue, let alone the technical legal mess it has blossomed into. It will take a long time to make them aware, considering all the other more popular causes they are lobbied for.
-Politically impossible on two levels; one being our Prez (nor any other in the near future) would never go out on a limb for the few owners of the cans. The second level is that an easy super-majority of both houses, and both parties, would probably feel the same way.
-Legally impossible, since only congress would have the authority to rewrite the NFA as described. All POTUS could do is order the ATF to forgo all active investigations and enforcement of suppressor manufacture/sales --nope. As a side issue, I think this tactic is extremely corrupting and should be avoided on principle.
-Moot, since even if the POTUS did order non-enforcement of this area, the penalties --those massive, life-ruining, prison-timing penalties-- will still be hanging over the heads of buyers/builders/sellers. Not many would take the gamble that such a fragile truce would be lasting.
-Pointless, because all Whitehouse.gov petitions are just the laziest form of issue-polling combined with a healthy dose of democracy theatre. Petitions are for ballots and kings.

The same poll on the NRA website would inspire a lot more confidence in me that it might one day lead to anything.

TCB

Good thoughts barnbwt. I guess the one thing these petitions are good for is probing the gun-owning public and seeing how we feel about the issue. Perhaps if enough people pipe-up about it, the NRA and others will take note and get something going.

Is there a group already dedicated to lobbying for this specific cause?

Not the NRA, last I checked. At least they're not openly hostile or dismissive of the NFA crowd, but I don't think they're full-blown advocates, yet. I imagine they are trying to get state AWBs and carry laws normalized everywhere before tackling the federal laws head-on.

TCB

Probably too much of a hot button issue until we get to some point where any bad guy in TV and movies with any pretension of being a professional uses a suppressor to kill and generally demonstrate his/her general badness. The more this topic gets pushed into the limelight, I'm pretty sure the more energy the media will spend trying to whip it into a story of the day kind of issue.

Nobody pays the least bit of attention to on-line petitions. Far too easy to have false everything on 'em.
And as long as Hollywood keeps churning out movies depicting criminals using suppressors they'll never be de-regulated.

I'm in, # 24,616.

Hm

Doesn't hurt to sign does it?

I mean sure its unlikely. But it doesn't HURT to sign, And doesn't take up much time either.

I'm in.

Hm

deleted

hso said:

I can't agree. Whitehouse.gov petitions are so short and so unprofessional that it makes it difficult for the gun-owning public to decide whether to support them or not.

Click to expand...

Not to mention, a lot of gun owners are so paranoid/untrusting that they'll never sign up for anything on whitehouse.gov

It's a nice thought, but like others have said, Congress, not the President, has the authority to change this, and they've got "bigger" fish to fry.

xxjumbojimboxx said:

But it doesn't HURT to sign, And doesn't take up much time either.

Click to expand...

If signing a useless petition dissipates whatever will you had to undertake real activism, yes, it does hurt.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slacktivism

Good points everyone, I hadn't considered it that way.

Cade, you're right about slacktivism. It seems a lot of younger people like myself can be misguided by participating in online polls and comments-section debates; thinking we are accomplishing something.

I doubt many people leave their keyboards with changed hearts after debating in the comments!

Slightly off topic:
IMO, increased usage of suppressors and fighting at State level to remove laws restricting usage could set a foundation for removing them from NFA. No proof, but I'd suspect most people don't even know suppressors (silencers) are legal for civilian ownership. Most casual shooters I know did not know they're legal or at least had no understanding of how NFA works. Trying to fight this at the federal level is a nonstarter at this time, even if we had a pro 2A congress & president.

The more people see their use at the range by nice guys that may be willing to take a few minutes to discuss them and the laws pertaining to them, in-laws looking at your hunting picture with a suppressed rifle leaned up against the kill, simple stuff like that will, IMHO, take away from the image the weird-o's in Hollywood have been feeding the people for generations. If/when we can finally make a federal fight, I want aunt Margie to think about her nice little nephew hunting and not some super-assassin on some movie.

Signed it. It creates awareness if nothing else. We had to get many thousands of signatures to get a state constitutional amendment brought up for a referendum so we could have a legal argument to have concealed carry in Wisconsin. Incremental gun laws work both ways. But you have to get off the couch.

MtnCreek, you are correct. Just in my own state, not many people know that suppressors are legal for ownership/use. Last year's bill was a great step in the right direction (legalized use, whereas before you could only own one and not shoot through it ) and helped raise overall-awareness.

It does seem that the NFA crowd is limited. Unfortunately, gun-folk that participate in online discussions like these are the minority. Like you said, we must convince those in our immediate vicinity that suppressors are great tools before there is any hope of de-regulation.

Signed.

Signed -- not that it will do any good. We need to petition our Senators and Representatives.

While we're at it, we should also take shoulder stocks and short-barreled guns off the NFA. Shoulder stocks were put on the NFA because at the time Lugers and C96s with shoulder stocks were being advertised as "pocket machineguns."

Short barreled guns were put on the list because of a legend the Mafia used the "luparo" or short-barreled shotgun.

One of the best ways to go at it is to address it as a health / environmental issue. Reducing noise, prevent future medical costs due to hearing loss, quieter ranges....before you know it they'll make them mandatory. You should be able to pick one up at the hardware store for fifty bucks.

You won't get any argument from me on that.

I could make a shoulder stock for my Colt Woodsman out of scrap wood, a nylon strap and a cam buckle -- but I'd have to register it and pay $200.