Democrats introduce legislation to ban gun silencers

[hso]

The other senator is a lost cause.

Maybe not. They might be a "lost cause" on firearms, but unless they're one of the co-sponsors of this reanimated zombie bill they may be persuaded by citing the state legislation, federal background AND Chief LEO approval requirement, 42 other states with legal suppressors, and the inevitability of this legislation not passing or possibly even not clearing committee hurdles because 80% of the states support suppressor ownership and use. Tell them you understand the need for politicians to make these sort of dead on arrival legislation, but it is never beneficial to side against the overwhelming majority on something already heavily regulated at the federal level.

Can't hurt to take that approach.

 

[JR24]

Maybe not. They might be a "lost cause" on firearms, but unless they're one of the co-sponsors of this reanimated zombie bill they may be persuaded by citing the state legislation, federal background AND Chief LEO approval requirement, 42 other states with legal suppressors, and the inevitability of this legislation not passing or possibly even not clearing committee hurdles because 80% of the states support suppressor ownership and use. Tell them you understand the need for politicians to make these sort of dead on arrival legislation, but it is never beneficial to side against the overwhelming majority on something already heavily regulated at the federal level.

Can't hurt to take that approach.

Tammy Baldwin has been a senator for a long time here and is right on board with every Dem bill that we hate, voted to convict Trump twice, voted against the bill to protect failed aborted babies, voted always for gun control, etc etc etc.

She's also stopped responding to my emails and calls a long time ago

 

[doubleh]

Why ban something that is already severely regulated?

Is someone who doesn’t know the law drafting up laws again?

Is that a serious question?

 

[Pat Riot]

This truly defies logic. If they cannot trust their own federal agency to regulate suppressors then how can they trust that same agency to regulate the guns they call “Assault Weapons” that they wish everyone to register and pay fees on?
Surely they do not think law abiding citizens will illegally make and use “silencers” because federal law currently mandates a 30 year prison sentence for the use of an unregistered silencer in the commission of a crime.
Here is an interesting law brief from 2017 that discusses “silencers” and crimes committed with the use of silencers.
https://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v08n2/clark.pdf

The document linked above also discusses that the silencers used in crimes are homemade, therefore already banned and illegal. There is nothing that I read that stated that any ATF regulated suppressors have been involved in any crimes up to that point.

 

[AlexanderA]

The sponsors of this bill are just trying to show the antigun activists that they are "doing something." Whether it's practical or logical has nothing to do with it. We have to realize, at this point, that all gun legislation is just theater. (And that applies to pro-gun bills as well.) If any law is passed, it tends to put the lobbyists out of business. When it comes to silencers, both the 2017 Hearing Protection Act and now this new ban bill are two sides of the same coin. Neither was intended to be actually enacted. Nothing will ever get enacted as long as the two sides are evenly balanced.

 

[AlabamaRoscoe]

If people don't stop with the high profile "mass shootings", suppressors will be the least of our worries. More laws aren't the answer except to appease the ignorant on firearms.

The assault on the 2A is just beginning!

 

[Gladius]

"Let's ban something that's already highly restricted and doesn't even figure in real-life crimes at all."
Seriously, how many suppressors, legal or not, are used in crimes? Has there been a crime which suppressors have either made easier to commit or get away with? Are there any statistics that can even be skewed to support this?
"Let's do nothing about nothing, just to impress the low-information voter. Yeah, that'll get me reelected."

 

[TheBruce]

"Let's ban something that's already highly restricted and doesn't even figure in real-life crimes at all."
Seriously, how many suppressors, legal or not, are used in crimes? Has there been a crime which suppressors have either made easier to commit or get away with? Are there any statistics that can even be skewed to support this?

Statistics don't matter to the left. Neither does the truth. All that matters is their agenda of complete control and self enrichment. They want to ban all guns and everything gun related, because as long as we the people are well armed, they can't go all in and steamroll our liberties and way of life. At least not without the most severe of consequences.

 

[AlexanderA]

All that matters is their agenda of complete control and self enrichment. They want to ban all guns and everything gun related, because as long as we the people are well armed, they can't go all in and steamroll our liberties and way of life.

I don't see the vast majority of the antigunners thinking it through that deeply. For the most part, these are well-meaning people that don't know much about guns. They respond emotionally to what they see on the news. Let's be careful not to join the "tin-foil brigade." It just makes us look bad.

 

[rust collector]

AND Chief LEO approval requirement

I believe the CLEO signoff was eliminated in 2016. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/chi...n-law-enforcement-certification-atf-form-1-or Now it's just a notification, but still should qualify as another safeguard already in place.

 

[AlexanderA]

If people don't stop with the high profile "mass shootings", suppressors will be the least of our worries.

I keep coming back to the idea that we, as gun owners, need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. (This is a matter of self-preservation for us.) The difficult question is how that could be done without signing on to the whole antigun agenda.

 

[1976B.L.Johns.]

She's also stopped responding to my emails and calls a long time ago

Ditto for me in Minnesota (go figure!)
This state has gone to H E double hockey sticks.
Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar will not respond to me on anything firearms related! And to top things up, Amy was raised in my hometown..............
Dumbecrats!
i suppose this post will be deleted.......just venting!

 

[JTHunter]

Maybe not. They might be a "lost cause" on firearms, but unless they're one of the co-sponsors of this reanimated zombie bill they may be persuaded by citing the state legislation, federal background AND Chief LEO approval requirement, 42 other states with legal suppressors, and the inevitability of this legislation not passing or possibly even not clearing committee hurdles because 80% of the states support suppressor ownership and use. Tell them you understand the need for politicians to make these sort of dead on arrival legislation, but it is never beneficial to side against the overwhelming majority on something already heavily regulated at the federal level.

Can't hurt to take that approach.

While that is an admirable suggestion, when you have a pair of "dyed in the wool donkeys" like Tammy Duckworth(less) and "Tricky Dicky" Durbin, nothing will change their minds - if they actually have one.

 

[BigBore44]

I keep coming back to the idea that we, as gun owners, need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. (This is a matter of self-preservation for us.)

Who defines the “crazies”? What is the definition of a “crazy”? And I’d really like you to answer that. A pejorative statement about those who may have some clinical diagnosis isn’t “High Road”. Should a clinical diagnosis of some “mental illness” prevent said person from the right to self-defense if that person shows no signs of violence or self harm?

We can prevent all felons (those not later acquitted or pardoned) from legally owning firearms because they have intentionally committed, and been found guilty, of a specific action that has been set forth by law. What it sounds like you are advocating for the prevention of self-defense, guaranteed under the Constitution, of a person not even accused of a crime. Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Tommygunn]

I keep coming back to the idea that we, as gun owners, need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies. (This is a matter of self-preservation for us.) The difficult question is how that could be done without signing on to the whole antigun agenda.

How to do that? Some have spoken of psychiatric checks to purchase guns. First, there aren't enough psychologists, and secondly even experts are notoriously bad at predicting just who will actually become violent.
If an individual has an actual violent background then that's one thing, but such people aren't already included - - - - especially if they have been arrested or have a record?
I'm open to any ideas that DO NOT infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Its both sad and hilarious that so many think nothing will come of this or any other anti gun legislation proposed in the last week given the current state of things.

The NFA items have always been the low hanging fruit for the grabbers, they've just now apparently noticed them.

This should be clear as ever for those folks that don't believe in "registration leads to confiscation". Anyone who's paid for the tax for a SBR or suppressor they know who you are, where you live and what you have.

I've never understood folks that do that but then claim "they'll NEVER register their AR's".

Don't ever register anything.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I don't see this going anywhere.

 

[Skoghund]

In many European countries, you can’t hunt without one.

The above statement is not true. There is no country in Europe where it is compulsory to hunt with a moderator and in some its illegal to use them. They are very popular in the UK and becoming more popular here in Scandinavia. Myself I will not have them on my hunting guns.

 

[Old Dog]

I keep coming back to the idea that we, as gun owners, need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

I second Tommygunn - what does that look like? Do we become a country that requires a new psych evaluation and three references (as some European countries do) prior to purchasing a firearm?

Most states already have some version of "red flag" laws, and the fact that one becomes a prohibited person after becoming the subject of a protection/restraining order and even a DV arrest (not conviction) in some states already encroaches into the realm of not being afforded constitutional due process protections.

Ready access to mental health treatment and care in this country is a huge problem. Warehousing of the mentally ill in prisons and jails because states don't have mental health treatment centers and hospitals is a huge problem.

One party can throw billions of dollars to taking care of undocumented aliens, yet we cannot fund treatment for our own citizens with mental health issues. One party would have us believe that the tools are the problem, not the people using the tools.

So tell us, AlexanderA, what can we, as American gun owners, do to keep guns out of the hands of those who would become mass shooters?

 

[milsurpguy]

The below map shows the 42 states suppressors are legal and the 40 they're legal to hunt with. Focus efforts to oppose this on the senators from those states and use the language from the state legislation that almost uniformly cite the safety and courtesy suppressors add.

Thank you.
And its everywhere you would expect them to be illegal.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Legally registered silencers are not a crime problem.

Unregistered silencers are illegal.

So they'll solve the practical nonexistent "silencer crime problem" by banning legal silencers.

Like Congress solved the 1950s epidemic of juvenile delinquency by forcing crime and horror comics off the new stands.

Sound devices can detect source and direction of unsilenced muzzle blasts and can detect the suppressed cough of "silenced" muzzle blasts without the confusion of echos off buildings.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

If the antis are influenced by movies, maybe they should watch or rewatch the restaurant hit scene in that Godfather movie where they chose the loudest big caliber snub nose revolver in their arsenal to daze and confuse the witnesses.

 

[Dale Alan]

Its both sad and hilarious that so many think nothing will come of this or any other anti gun legislation proposed in the last week given the current state of things.

The NFA items have always been the low hanging fruit for the grabbers, they've just now apparently noticed them.

This should be clear as ever for those folks that don't believe in "registration leads to confiscation". Anyone who's paid for the tax for a SBR or suppressor they know who you are, where you live and what you have.

I've never understood folks that do that but then claim "they'll NEVER register their AR's".

Don't ever register anything.

It's impossible to " Don't register anything " .

 

[DoubleMag]

If people don't stop with the high profile "mass shootings", suppressors will be the least of our worries. More laws aren't the answer except to appease the ignorant on firearms.

The assault on the 2A is just beginning!

No NO NO NO!!!!

Plllllease! Please perty please tell me 1-how this will go no where or 2- my Senator is always for this stuff or 3-ANYTHING to allow me to, do NOTHING. NO ACTIVITY -ZERO- nadda....save keyboarding on it, here and other pro2A forums!

Its both sad and hilarious that so many think nothing will come of this or any other anti gun legislation proposed in the last week given the current state of things.

The NFA items have always been the low hanging fruit for the....


...they know who you are, where you live and what you have.

I've never understood folks that do that but then claim "they'll NEVER register their AR's".

Ooops, let's see here...connect the dots THEY are in fact drawing;
1-on the 1st step, register AR's , sniper rifles, grandpa's Civil War mementos (formerly called muzzleloader), and, IT WILL BE Ok then to own said registered item,
2- BAN THE REGISTERED ITEMS, starting with suppressors

And if the appeasers think 'they' will STOP at banning suppressors, well, some ppl really do need a psych eval .

 

[Steve S.]

When a person has reached a point in their mind that they no longer value being here and that not being here is more comforting to them, there is very little society can do to stop their final deed. In turn, if that person has an anger toward others and wants a reckoning or revenge, there is simply nothing available to stop them from a horrible act. Once a person decides that death is their final goal and others will pay a price, Katie bar the door - they then become unstoppable and predicting these acts is impossible.
So, you control the thing (weapon) by minimizing or eliminating the availability - just like most will kill a snake or spider - they do not understand the thing and all they know is fear so elimination is the only acceptable outcome.
I am an avid gun owner and shooter but I can understand the other side’s fear - it is real and I understand why they have that fear. Is their fear reasonable or logical, to a degree yes it is. Common possession and ownership of firearms that can literally reek havoc on multiple innocents with volumes of flying lead scares many people and it should because it naturally invokes fear, whether we like it or not, it is a very normal human reaction because it happens and they see it and it is uncontrollable and it is unpredictable and they become afraid.
So in summary, these scared people don’t give a damn what the 2A says or guarantees, they just want the fear to go away, they don’t want to be afraid anymore. I am an avid gun owner and shooter and I understand their fear - it is quite real and quite normal - I am not afraid and I do not live in fear but I do not know how to teach that mindset - I do not know how to help them.