Changing suppressor regulations?

[Chain Smoker]

I'm wondering if there is any effort currently underway to reduce or eliminate the regulations on suppressors.

It's my understanding that current procedures for acquiring a suppressor were established many decades ago, and were specifically written by anti-firearm politicians in a way so as to effectively prohibit suppressor possession altogether (imagine paying the $200 fee in the 50's!)

The current laws on the matter are senseless, wildly unpopular, and conflict with data collected from countries where suppressor purchasing and ownership is unregulated, apparently showing that such does not contribute to violent crime.

I'm curious if any bills are being proposed to remedy this. I'll admit I do not really understand how these sorts of legal matters work.

This issue has been a thorn in my side for some time, because outfitting a weapon with a suppressor is the only way to hunt with it while both preventing hearing damage, while also removing the need to fumble around with ear protection, which can ruin a shot opportunity.

 

[Art Eatman]

No current legislative efforts that I've heard of.

The suppressor regulation goes back to the 1934 deal against full-auto, short barrels, etc. The $200 tax, back then, was a far heavier load than it is today. Today, the problem is the year's delay in getting final approval from BATFE. They're overloaded with paperwork.

 

[Twiki357]

I haven’t heard of any proposed change(s) in the suppressor or SBR (Short barreled rifle) laws, but I would sure like to see them repealed. Suppressors have been proven to be a legitimate accessory in many other countries and do not contribute to crime. Additionally, with the various rifle caliber pistols available, putting a stock on one (That increases its size) should not make it illegal. And the ludicrous time that it takes for the ATF to issue a permit just adds to the problem (Or deterrent as some would say.)

With the less anti-gun administration (Presumably) taking office in January, this may be a good time to start putting a bug in Congress’ ear, especially as an addendum to a “Must pass” bill, to eliminate these prohibitions.

 

[Swing]

I am not aware of any current legislation at the federal level. The American Suppressor Association is an organization the OP might want to check out.

 

[Slamfire]

I would like shooters at the range to use suppressors to reduce the noise!

The things are just mufflers, does anyone here like having to listen to motorcycles with straight pipes, cars with minimal exhaust systems, or those cars who have stereo systems so loud you can hear them blocks away?

I don't, noise is a nuisance.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....outfitting a weapon with a suppressor is the only way to hunt with it while both preventing hearing damage, while also removing the need to fumble around with ear protection, which can ruin a shot opportunity.

Not necessarily.

When I hunt I wear electronic plugs. They amplify normal sounds and compress (cut out) load noises (like a gunshot). They work like electronic muffs, but they stay in all day so there's no fumbling. The bad news is that they are expensive.

 

[LocoGringo]

Not necessarily.

When I hunt I wear electronic plugs. They amplify normal sounds and compress (cut out) load noises (like a gunshot). They work like electronic muffs, but they stay in all day so there's no fumbling. The bad news is that they are expensive.

Wow, same price as some excellent quality suppressors, but not as cool or helpful for other shooters around you. Don't help with recoil either.

Hope your ears don't produce too much ear wax...

 

[HankB]

There seems to be some lobbying going on to remove suppressors from the NFA, but AFAIK, no such legislation is pending at the Federal level. On the other hand, some states have eased up on some of their own suppressor restrictions - I recently read that Florida has rescinded a ban on their use for hunting.

 

[AlexanderA]

Well, this is preaching to the choir, on this forum.

There's no rational justification for any of the NFA anymore (if there ever was).

Yet, this is one of those "Third Rail" issues that no politician will touch. At least not openly. If we want improvement, it will have to be at the margins, by attaching incremental reforms to other legislation.

The #1 thing that needs to be done, as far as the NFA is concerned, is repealing the Hughes Amendment to allow registrations of new MG's. Suppressors and SBR's are less important, IMO. At least you can get new ones if you jump through the hoops.

 

[LocoGringo]

Well, this is preaching to the choir, on this forum.

There's no rational justification for any of the NFA anymore (if there ever was).

Yet, this is one of those "Third Rail" issues that no politician will touch. At least not openly. If we want improvement, it will have to be at the margins, by attaching incremental reforms to other legislation.

The #1 thing that needs to be done, as far as the NFA is concerned, is repealing the Hughes Amendment to allow registrations of new MG's. Suppressors and SBR's are less important, IMO. At least you can get new ones if you jump through the hoops.

I disagree with the last two sentences of this post. Suppressors can be considered a public health issue because of the loss of hearing for hunters and other, less careful, shooters that don't use hearing protection. The problem is that suppressors are so expensive and the wait is so long to get one, most shooters can't afford one. If the restriction were removed for suppressors, they would be a couple of hundred dollars at max over the counter. They aren't so much a luxury as a machine gun or even a SBR. They're closer to a necessity, especially for larger caliber weapons. Hell, suppressors aren't even weapons!

 

[RustyShackelford]

Federal or state & local level?.....

Are you talking about federal laws?
Or the state/local level laws or ordinances that pertain to sound surpressors?

My state is on track to change the hunting/sport use of sound surpressors. The gov has a NRA A+ rating so he's not going to be against it.
I see the use of surpressors more as a noise abatement issue or way for AR/M4 owners to practice-train with MSRs(modern sporting rifles) & not have a lot of noise/gunfire.
Accessories and add-ons with new ARs & M4s have really pushed the surpressor issue. Gun owners want the cans to be cool or help train with.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it.

 

[AlexanderA]

Suppressors can be considered a public health issue because of the loss of hearing for hunters and other, less careful, shooters that don't use hearing protection.

I understand what you're saying about suppressors being for hearing protection. But, we don't have to convince the participants on this board -- we have to convince the general public and, through them, their legislators. The general public has been conditioned by Hollywood movies to think that suppressors are "silencers" that are used in clandestine operations and criminal enterprises. (For examples, look at "Where Eagles Dare" in which Clint Eastwood uses a "silenced" pistol to wipe out Nazis; "silenced" weapons also play large roles in "McQ" and "Three Days of the Condor.") To someone who has been conditioned in this way, justifications of suppressors as a health issue sound hollow and self-serving. I would say there's less sympathy for suppressors among the general public than there is even for machine guns. After all, machine guns were used in all the war movies by the good guys.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Working cops....

Working cops & street cops aren't worried about the gun owners or weapons purchased thru legal methods, they complain about the illegal or stolen guns.
Some feel any gun owner with a surpressor will be robbed or beat up then the super cool tricked out MSR with a laser & sound surpressor will be in some MS13 member's hand or a drug dealer.

 

[Field Tester]

Frank,

Are you aware of any laws on the books that ban electronic hearing protection while hunting in certain states? I recall reading it was illegal in certain areas, but I'm not willing to put money on it.

 

[agtman]

I'm wondering if there is any effort currently underway to reduce or eliminate the regulations on suppressors.

Actually, for the last couple of years, a lobbying firm on behalf of the national suppressor-manufacturers group (American Silencer Assoc.)* has been quietly approaching pro-gun representatives and senators (Repubs & some Dems from southern & western states) to discuss the merits of "de-listing" suppressors from the definition of an "NFA firearm" under federal law. That move would relegate suppressors to the status of ordinary non-regulated "gun gear" and accessories, like scopes. Prices, not to mention the ease and time it takes to obtain one, would change over night.


Not saying it's going to happen; however, among the arguments being made to Congressmen in favor of de-listing suppressors, is the fact that some 40 or 41 states (including those which are home states for many of these Congressman, Dems & Repubs) have already legalized the use of suppressors while hunting. Ohio just did in HB 234, I believe, and not long ago N.Carolina did too.

* http://americansuppressorassociation.com/

 

[jrdolall]

Alabama recently allowed suppressors for hunting. It has been allowed in Arkansas for a while. I now live in GA and have not checked that law here as I don't hunt here.

 

[AlexanderA]

agtman wrote:

Actually, for the last couple of years, a lobbying firm on behalf of the national suppressor-manufacturers group has been quietly approaching pro-gun representatives and senators (Repubs & some Dems from southern & western states) to discuss the merits of "de-listing" suppressors from the definition of an "NFA firearm" under federal law. That move would relegate suppressors to the status of ordinary non-regulated "gun gear" and accessories, like scopes.

This could not be done administratively; it would take legislation to amend the NFA. Lawmakers don't want to go there because it would open a can of worms for them.

Not saying it's going to happen; however, among the arguments being made to Congressmen in favor of de-listing suppressors, is the fact that some 40 or 41 states (including those which are home states for many of these Congressman, Dems & Repubs) have already legalized the use of suppressors while hunting. Ohio just did in HB 234, I believe, and not long ago N.Carolina did too.

That argument works both ways. The states have been willing to loosen their restrictions on suppressors precisely because of the existing federal regulations. They can wash their hands of the issue knowing that "somebody else will take care of it." Absent federal regulation, many of the states would get back into this, with unpredictable consequences. (The same goes for all items currently under the NFA.)

 

[Mike OTDP]

It's worth remembering that taking suppressors off NFA does not necessarily mean total deregulation. They can be transferred on a NICS check, which would be a reasonable compromise.

 

[agtman]

This could not be done administratively; it would take legislation to amend the NFA.

That's what I said. The lobbying effort is directed to getting Congress to amend the NFA statute and legislatively remove "suppressors," "silencers," "mufflers," and other references to such devices, from being defined therein as "NFA firearms."

The states have been willing to loosen their restrictions on suppressors precisely because of the existing federal regulations.

Can't agree with that. If that were the reason, the states in which the ownership of suppressors was already allowed would have legalized them for hunting long before this.

Aside from the argument I mentioned, it's been a long process of dispelling all the "gangster" myths and educating state legislators about the benefits of hunting with suppressed firearms (typically, rifles), which range from the obvious protection of auditory health to not disturbing people living nearby, or frightening their pets or livestock, etc.

Heck, in certain European countries, where it's harder than heck to even get a firearm, if you do own a rifle or pistol for hunting, you can walk into any outdoor or sporting-goods shop and buy a can for it off-the-shelf with no paperwork, registration or waiting-period. To them, the can is not a firearm and they've long since accepted the benefits of suppressors for hearing-protection and its removal of the nuisance of concussive gunfire on other people in the area.

The one bugaboo a number of Wildlife/Game Management officers raised early on in some of the states considering whether to legalize suppressor-hunting - that allowing their use would create a steep rise in incidents of poaching - hasn't materialized.

 

[huntingseason]

I remember that Montana and several other midwestern states passed laws that allowed suppressors to be made, distributed, and sold within their respective states without federal intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

 

[Frank Ettin]

I remember that Montana and several other midwestern states passed laws that allowed suppressors to be made, distributed, and sold within their respective states without federal intervention.

Except those laws are meaningless and do not supersede federal law. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled against the Montana law in one case (Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013)).

In one of the links you supplied (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

...Plaintiffs filed suit in support of the law, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. ...

On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a decision issued on August 23, 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the U.S. District Court erred in concluding that the Plaintiff's lacked standing but, after considering the merits of the case, affirmed the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and the court's own precedent in United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally. A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Judge Bea, went further to hold that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. Two petitions for a writ of certiorari sought to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court, but the writ was denied in both instances....

 

[HankB]

I remember that Montana and several other midwestern states passed laws that allowed suppressors to be made, distributed, and sold within their respective states without federal intervention.

In the text of Frank Ettin's response, it looks like the Feds have, once again, stretched the commerce clause all out of shape by creative misinterpretation to give themselves the right to regulate intrastate - as well as interstate - commerce.

I suspect the most laws like Montana's might do is keep LOCAL authorities from prosecuting people with locally made and distributed suppressors; the Feds would still be free to arrest and prosecute folks.

Hmmm . . . the Feds say that state authorities can't enforce Federal laws (Recall the kerfluffle about Arizona and illegal immigration.) IANAL, but might it be similarly argued that, for example, Montana LEOs are PROHIBITED from enforcing Federal restrictions on suppressors? (Serious question - I really don't know.)

I know that if I were a Montana resident - I wouldn't want to be a test case.

 

[Midwest]

Wasn't the argument for putting suppressors under the NFA was because of poaching concerns during the Great Depression? Local poaching issues should have been left to State Game Wardens, not the Federal Government IMO.

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."


Suppressors should not 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.
.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the Feds say that state authorities can't enforce Federal laws (Recall the kerfluffle about Arizona and illegal immigration.)...

Well no, that's not what the case says. What the case said is that, with respect to the particular law at issue, the federal government has "occupied the field" so conflicting state laws were preempted by federal law -- essentially Arizona could not enforce certain of its law which were in conflict with federal law.

...IANAL, but might it be similarly argued that, for example, Montana LEOs are PROHIBITED from enforcing Federal restrictions on suppressors?...

So no, that argument will not get you anywhere.