Grassroots Reform: Call For Volunteers

[Beren]

Fellow High Roaders,

With the growing number of noise complaints lodged against gun ranges and the ever-present risk of hearing damage associated with target shooting and self-defense, wouldn't it be nice if it were more affordable and convenient for the average, law-abiding American to own and use a firearm sound suppressor? Currently, we have to pay an onerous two-hundred dollar tax and secure the signature of our local chief law enforcement officer as well as the bloated prices our current laws cause. We face additional legal problems if we wish to use our suppressors with "post-ban" rifles.

I'd like to develop a bill that would make it less costly and more covenient for the average, law-abiding American to afford and use a sound suppressor for target shooting (including competition use) and self-defense.

Basically, the bill would:

- lower the tax stamp cost to $25 from the current $200

- replace the current requirement for a CLEO signature with notification provided to the CLEO, similar to what is required for C&R licenses

- require issuance of the tax stamp within thirty days of application, unless the applicant has a criminal record that would prevent him from owning a firearm

- remove restrictions on the attachment of sound suppressors to any rifle or handgun and authorize the actual use of the combined instrument for lawful target shooting and self-defense

- possession and/or use of a suppressor or suppressed firearm during the commission of a violent felony covered by federal law would be a crime in itself punishable by a fine or up to five years imprisonment

The bill would not affect state law.

With the barriers to ownership greatly lowered, we should see greater availability and lower costs to purchase suppressors and suppressed firearms.

Do you see any value in pushing to have such a law passed? Would you help push your local reps to sponsor or co-sponsor something like this? Are you a lawyer or paralegal with the skills to help draft a formal bill?

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Beren

 

[Mulliga]

Unfortunately, nothing like that will ever get passed in our current anti-gun climate.

I can see it now: VPC reports about "Silenced Terror," calls from chiefs of police that "silencers" are often used by criminals, etc.

 

[Beren]

You may be right, Mulliga, but what chance of success do we have if we don't even try? If we don't even push small initiatives, all it leaves for us is to sit, wait, and try to fend off the marauding VPC hordes. I understand most of our energy this year is focused on allowing the AWB to expire - but I believe we have an opportunity in 2004 to accomplish even more.

As far as countering the usual lies that would be tossed our way, does anyone have stats on how often legally-owned suppressors are actually used during the commission of a crime?

 

[emc]

I think that Beren has a good point to make, regardless of what the particular issue is. The level of ignorance regarding firearms, firearms law, and the Constitution on the part of the public is absolutely astounding. If we choose to fight nothing but holding battles, then we are constantly on the defensive, desperately trying to hold on to what we have. We are then in the position of having to react to what the lefties are trying to do, which gives them the initiative and the ability to pick and choose the battles that will be fought. We need to be much more proactive so that we can start winning hearts and minds and rolling back some of the erosion of our rights that we've experienced.

FWIW,

emc

 

[Henry Bowman]

I would really like to get on board with this. But I see a huge mountain to overcome. "Silencers" have been stigmatized for generations. Almost no one alive can remember when they were not.

Most people assume they are only used by snipers and poachers. Most people (literally) get their information from TV and movies. When James Bond used a silencer, it was no louder than a pea shooter. Must be true.

Got a game plan?

 

[Beren]

Henry:

Two prongs; one, the political, the drafting of a bill to achieve our stated goals, gathering support among sympathetic groups, and finding Congressional sponsors. The second, an educational effort to introduce lawmakers and average citizens to the real facts concerning suppressors, their use in other countries, and the benefits they provide to gunowners and non-gunowners alike.

Our bill would not eliminate fees or registration of suppressors. Suppressors would still be "controlled", and I think that fact would make it an easier pill for many to swallow.

 

[Telperion]

Beren: I find the registration and filing process more obnoxious than the tax itself. Apart from California state law, that is what largely keeps me uninterested in buying one. I don't look forward to the "sex offender" treatment from BATF. Maybe, over time, I could get over it and buy one.

Mulliga is right: look at the minor tizzy raised by letting police use suppressors in Minnesota. Like most "extreme" RKBA proposals, if you ever have the momentum to actually get this done, you might as well go for the gold. While a half-measure itself, I'd rather see suppressors moved to Title I.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Beren's right - we've got to try! We'll never get our rights back if we don't attack. This is the best political climate we've had in years. We must attack now! Are there any lawmakers willing to sponser this bill? Someone with a GOA rating of A should be able to do it. This law would leave the NFA restrictions in place and merely make it easier for law abiding citizens to get suppressors.

And I can't remember the last time a legally owned silencer was used in a crime.

 

[cameroneod]

I think its a great idea. Just change the wording a bit. Instead of "silencer" or "suppressor" which are evil in the mind of the public, use something that sounds non threatening. Im thinking "pistol muffler" would be good. Draft it up so it appears to be "for the children." Hey the Brady Bunch did it with our "assault weapons." Why cant we?

 

[Beren]

The idea of moving suppressors to Title I status is a good one, and I like the term "muffler." After all, we mandate that our vehicles have mufflers on them to reduce the amount of noise pollution they introduce. It's also a more accurate term, if I understand how suppressors work. They simply reduce the amount of noise by 20-30 db, they don't completely silence firearms. They muffle and reduce, not silence.

Am I correct in my understanding, or am I way off base?

 

[Moparmike]

[screeching]
"Protect the hearing of your children! Use Firearm Mufflers! Think of the children!!!"
[/screeching]

 

[Mark Tyson]

We'll call it the Firearm Noise Pollution Reduction Act of 2004!

 

[Don Gwinn]

I'm all for it!

 

[Mark Tyson]

First draft letter:



Dear Senator ___________,



There are a growing number of noise complaints being leveled against shooting ranges both in our state of _________ and nationwide. Excessive noise contributes to the erosion of property values and is harmful to the hearing of those involved in the shooting sports. Both of these effects could easily be avoided if the shooting public had easier access to firearm sound suppression devices.

Today getting a legal noise suppressor is a complicated business. These devices are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. One must pay a $200 tax to the ATF and seek the approval of one’s chief local law enforcement officer, a laborious process that can take up to a year.

In order to make noise suppressors more accessible to the shooting community, new legislation could make the process faster and less expensive while retaining safeguards over possession of these devices. First the proposed legislation could reduce the cost of the ATF tax stamp from 200$ to a more reasonable amount. Then it would require the issuance of the tax stamp unless the applicant has a criminal record that would prevent him or her from owning a firearm (currently issuance of the stamp may be turned down without reason). Finally it would replace the current requirement for a chief local law enforcement officer’s approval with simple notification provided to the CLEO. The bill could be entitled the “Firearms Noise Pollution Reduction Act†or something similar.

This proposal may seem alarming to those who have come to associate suppressors with criminals due to media sensationalism. However it is a fact that suppressors are used in many European countries by hunters for the protection of hearing and to avoid frightening game animals. In some countries such as Finland there are no regulations governing these devices.

By taking the proposed measures we could ensure that law abiding gun owners have access to quality sound suppressors while preserving all current legal safeguards meant to keep these devices out of the wrong hands. The devices would still be registered with federal and local authorities. Further provisions of the law could require that those in possession of these devices keep them in secure containers and increase criminal penalties for use of these devices in violent crime.

Better access to firearm noise reduction devices will reduce noise pollution and protect the hearing of those in the shooting community. Please consider drafting and sponsoring legislation that would accomplish this goal.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and thank you for your service in the United States Senate.




____________________

XXXXXXXX

 

[Moparmike]

Good letter. I wish I could write a personal yet succinct letter to my congresscritters that would drive home a message or convince them to "see the light."

 

[Mark Tyson]

BUMP!

Anyone else want to take up this campaign?

My senator's staff will probably say: "Oh no! It's that gun nut writing again. You won't believe what he wants this time . . ."

If senators across the country start getting these letters we just might get somewhere.