Move Sound Suppressors to Title I!

[El Tejon]

Found an old letter of mine published six years ago in GUNS Magazine, October 2000.

"Three cheers for Cameron Hopkins for his fine article on suppressors! I am enthused to see that Title II firearms are not being given dirty looks at GUNS.

However, Hopkins neglected one fact in his article. The lack of wise availability of suppressors constitutes a grave threat to this country.

Raise your hand if you know a long-time shooter with hearing loss. Even with ear protection there will be damage. Further, raise your hand if you know of a range that is receiving pressure to close or curtail its operating hours because of noise.

Thanks to our inane National Firearms Act of 1934 and the even more inane Safe Streets Act of 1968, suppressors are considered Title II weapons--one must pay a $200 tax and get governmental approval to possess a suppressor, which is nothing more than a lawn mower muffler.

The solution is obvious and can be done with a stroke of a pen. Move suppressors from Title II to Title I! This will give the BATF something to do by going around and illegally looking at 4473s just like they are doing with pistols and self-loading rifles and rid us of the feckless tax and paperwork.

Kirk S. Freeman"

Moving suppressors to Title I will encourage their use, protect our children and make a healthier, happier society. I urge THR to write the NRA and advise that this public health measure is something they should support.

 

[Third_Rail]

I think we both get laughed at whenever we suggest such a thing, unfortunately. :banghead:



At least, I get laughed at.


In any case, more people saying something to NRA/GOA/JPFO/etc. wouldn't hurt.

 

[El Tejon]

Laughed at? Pffft, that happens all the time.

We need to organize so we can get a drumbeat going.

Move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption.

 

[Christianninja]

But aren't supressors just used by assassins!?

I'm all for it. But could it be done? Espescially after the upcoming elections...

 

[LAR-15]

In some states silencers or mufflers can only be owned or possessed IF they are registered under the NFA or in the NFRTR.

You would be making instant criminals (at the state or local level) of many silencer owners in some states if silencers were taken out of the purview of the NFA.

It's complicated.

Lowering the transfer and manufacturing taxes to five dollars would be better.

I dunno.

I looked into this and ran into problems.

I'll see if I can post some states where this applies.

 

[Telperion]

LAR-15, that is why we also need Federal preemption.

 

[Dead]

El Tejon: Move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption.

No need to worry about the states that only allow suppressors if in registered as NFA items, or if they DO NOT allow supperssors currently the above would make those laws meaningless.

 

[LAR-15]

From the Arizona Revised Statutes:

Silencers are prohibited weapons in AZ except:

"B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 7, subdivisions (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and transfer records of the United States treasury department or any firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United States treasury ."

 

[LAR-15]

Wisconsin State Statutes:

"941.298 Firearm silencers. (1) In this section, “firearm
silencer” means any device for silencing, muffling or diminishing
the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of
parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling
or fabricating such a device, and any part intended only for use in
that assembly or fabrication.
(2) Whoever sells, delivers or possesses a firearm silencer is
guilty of a Class H felony.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to sales or deliveries of firearm
silencers to or possession of firearm silencers by any of the
following:
(a) Any peace officer who is acting in compliance with the
written policies of the officer’s department or agency. This paragraph
does not apply to any officer whose department or agency
does not have such a policy.
(b) Any armed forces or national guard personnel, while in the
line of duty.
(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration
requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872.
History: 1991 a. 39; 2001 a. 109."

 

[El Tejon]

LAR, as I said, that's why federal preemption is needed.

 

[crunker]

I think suppressors should be Title 1, unless they are so effective that they silence a gun to practically inaudible levels.

 

[Geronimo45]

Title 1? Title zero. I don't need a NICS check to buy a scope - why do I need one for a suppressor? It's harmless without a gun behind it.

 

[strambo]

Title 1 would be a necessary first step. "See, everyone still has to get a background check...they aren't going to assassins". Then later after they are an accepted part of society and not just evil things used by criminals on movies...change it again.

 

[thertel]

So lets organize, get the Lion's to talk about hearing loss and Hearing Conservaton, get the EPA to talk about reduced noise pollution, ask property owners near ranges what their biggest complaint is, and if they would like it solved? Range owner would be for it. The onyl people against it are those who think criminals would acquire them more easily, and the BATF who wants its money.

Thomas

 

[Wiley]

Never happen. Too many politicians have spent too much on sound detection equipment to 'keep us safe'. They might be accused of wasting money.

 

[ZeroCool]

While I would love nothing more...

I don't see this happening for all of the above reasons.

Also, while I'm not saying it would necessarily happen, I could see the anti's and politicians saying that widespread suppressors will encourage more shootings and accidental discharges. The whole "no noise for others to hear" argument, ya know?

Like I said, I would love nothing more than for suppressors to become more widespread and accepted for all of their practical uses. That said, I feel that suppressed guns would tempt people to shoot guns in certain areas that they otherwise would not (backyards, basements, etc.)

Kind of a slippery slope issue with me, (like widespread full-auto).

 

[Justin]

Loosening the regulations on sound suppressors is a completely and utterly achievable goal.

Lemme put it this way:

When I can get a seriously leftwing co-worker to agree with me that moving suppressors from Title II to Title I makes sense, then I think that we have a reasonable shot at pulling it off.

El Tejon's letter is correct, and as he shows, it's exceedingly easy to point out that there are beneficial health and environmental reasons for making this change to the law. It's also a reasonable enough change that only the most ardent prohibitionists would oppose it.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Loosening the regulations on sound suppressors is a completely and utterly achievable goal.

Ok, so who's going to actually DO something to get it done?

Are you, Justin, and you, El Tejon, willing to organize the effort, set up the PAC and give the rest of us directionn on how to organize on a local level?

I'm the first volunteer. I WILL do work towards the stated goal. I'm your gun. Point me.

 

[loki.fish]

I'll volunteer as well. As Snake Eyes said, "I'm your gun, point me."

 

[El Tejon]

Fine, I carried the water on the Tejas-Indiana reciprocity agreement and just got rid of our moronic State Park carry ban. So, I need another gig. It keeps me off the streets, as my mother would say.

First, write the NRA, GOA, JPFO, your state association. Let the pro-gun groups know that it is a concern of yours.

Second, spread the word. Bring it up at your gun club, your gun store, your bear, puma and zombie resistance meetings, whatever. Spread the word. We must educate our own allies. Heck, you guys probably know shooters who think "silencers" are illegal. Teach them.

Third, if it comes up in a zoning board or newspaper article near you, jump on it. An obvious answer to "noise abatement" is right in front of us all. Stress the health of the children and the beautiful peace of Mother Earf (wear your sandals).

Fourth, write your representative and Senator. Most are ignorant of these matters, so teach them. Give them the history of the NFA. Talk to them about suppressors and how they are not like the movies. Teach them how they function. Tell them about the health and community benefits especially in an increasingly urbanized nation. Tell them about how you are concerned for your childrens' health.

The nay-sayers among our allies will come along once we get the ball rolling.

 

[LAR-15]

Go to town hall meetings with your politicians and talk to them about it.

 

[Third_Rail]

Well, seeing as I'm moving to VT where suppressors are currently not allowed, I'll talk to local and state reps, write letters, etc. In fact, I think I'll go type up a few letters now and send them off to the reps; might as well get cracking before I move!

 

[Zundfolge]

Never happen. Too many politicians have spent too much on sound detection equipment to 'keep us safe'. They might be accused of wasting money.

In 1986 there were only 8 states with "Shall Issue" CCW, and 15 with no CCW.
20 years later there are 37 states with "Shall Issue" CCW and only two with no CCW (and Alaska went "Vermont Style").

In 1986 if you told me that CCW would become so widely acceptable I would have said; Never happen. Too many politicians have spent too much on gun detection equipment to 'keep us safe'. They might be accused of wasting money.

The pessimism in the RKBA movement is the strongest force holding us down.

 

[Correia]

Education needs to come first. As an NFA dealer, it absolutely blows me away how man "gun people" don't even know you can have a suppresor. They see suppressed weapons on the wall, and it freaks them out.

I'm doing my part by trying to get as many of these things into circulation as humanely possible.

Seriously though, you want to make people want a suppresor? Have them shoot one. The more common these become, the less "evil" they are in the public consciousness. Just like CCW and handguns.

I think it is doable.

And anything that keeps El Tejon off the streets and out of trouble is a good thing. The pumas will thank you.

 

[OEF_VET]

Y'all are trying to bankrupt me, ain't ya? If they're no longer uber-restricted, everyone will want to get in the business of making them. Where will that leave me?

Just kidding. I'd love it if suppressors were moved from Title II to Title I. There are far too many benefits to the use of suppressors for them to be so highly regulated. I suffer from hearing damage, caused in large part by shooting plenty of high-powered weapons without hearing protection. I'd like to keep what hearing I have left.

It would take a LOT of effort to change the classification of suppressors and to encourage their use. Heck, it's tough to sell them to even the most die-hard shooters, even those whose mantra is "Molon Labe, RKBA, 2A, Live-Free-Or-Die, Don't tell me how to run my life."

Part of the reason I bought ETS was to do my part in spreading the gospel of the benefits associated with suppressors. If I make enough money to survive, that's great. I'm darn sure not in it to get rich. However, if I am able to change the thought processes of just a few folks who would otherwise criminalize suppressors, then I will truly be successful!

So, write letters, spread the word, talk to whoever will listen. If you can afford it, buy a suppressed weapon and show people the benefits. And I'm not saying that as a Title II manufacturer. Heck, buy from one of my competitors if you so choose, but do something to show folks that normal, everyday, law-abiding Americans use suppressors for activities that aren't related to Mafia-style assassinations! Lead by example! It's one thing to talk the talk; it's another thing altogether to walk the walk!