Move Sound Suppressors to Title I!
- Thread starter El Tejon
- Start date
- Status
I'm in.
Noise ordinence compliance is a sound argument.
Protecting the hearing of the shooting public has power.
Sharing the wildlands with non-hunters so that wildlife behaves naturally is good.
Noise ordinence compliance is a sound argument.
Protecting the hearing of the shooting public has power.
Sharing the wildlands with non-hunters so that wildlife behaves naturally is good.
ctdonath
Member
Find someone whose non-military/police job requires firearms use, and get OSHA involved for a hearing safety issue - especially for silencer-hostile states.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The thing to do would be to draft a couple of form letters that couch our arguments in reasonable language:
*Negative health consequences of cumulative hearing damage.
*No knowledge of cumulative hearing damage in 1934 when the law was originally passed.
*Urban encroachment on existing shooting ranges, sound suppressors could help to make good neighbors by reducing noise pollution.
*Never used in crimes.
*Have been legal for use in many European nations for decades with no ill effect or increased crime rate.
*We put mufflers on everything else: cars, lawn mowers, everything else that functions with internal combustion.
*Moving them to Title I is a reasonable course of action, because it doesn't completely remove all governmental control over them. You would still have to go through a NICS check and fill out a Form 4473 to obtain one.
For what it's worth, if you use a little imagination, it's extremely easy to couch this argument in terms that make it appear to be "progressive" or whatever. You're showing concern for your fellow citizens: reducing health care costs, reducing noise pollution, following the leadership example of those erudite and civilized Europeans, and, hey, look, we're not asking you to hand the things out to anyone, there will still be background checks, but now they're just streamlined and more efficient.
*Negative health consequences of cumulative hearing damage.
*No knowledge of cumulative hearing damage in 1934 when the law was originally passed.
*Urban encroachment on existing shooting ranges, sound suppressors could help to make good neighbors by reducing noise pollution.
*Never used in crimes.
*Have been legal for use in many European nations for decades with no ill effect or increased crime rate.
*We put mufflers on everything else: cars, lawn mowers, everything else that functions with internal combustion.
*Moving them to Title I is a reasonable course of action, because it doesn't completely remove all governmental control over them. You would still have to go through a NICS check and fill out a Form 4473 to obtain one.
For what it's worth, if you use a little imagination, it's extremely easy to couch this argument in terms that make it appear to be "progressive" or whatever. You're showing concern for your fellow citizens: reducing health care costs, reducing noise pollution, following the leadership example of those erudite and civilized Europeans, and, hey, look, we're not asking you to hand the things out to anyone, there will still be background checks, but now they're just streamlined and more efficient.
bamawrx
Member
My other thread on which countries have the most firearm freedom has really got me thinking we need a good compromise "first step" to getting back to the pre-1934 USA.
Other nations that allow for civilian full auto have a "collectors license" that facilitates this. I would be in full support of a one time license that is at least as comprehensive as the current form 4 type transfers, but would allow for fast transfers of all types of arms including post 86 to the licensee.
The current stock of gun bills not acted on this session are the proper targets for some new thinking on these issues. If we are going to give a veteran amnesty and allow for private gun museums to have non-transferable machine guns, then why not use this opportunity to add the suppressor to title I, and or provide for a "collectors" license that allows for everything.
The title I silencers, or collectors license, would be a huge boom to the small arms industry, and would appeal to basically every gun owner. Imagine the new glock with a can in every box!
SOMEONE PUT TOGETHER A SMARTLY WORDED LETTER, SO WE CAN COPY IT AND INPUT OUR OWN PARTICULARS. IT SHOULD HAVE SOME HISTORY OF NFA, AND INCLUDE SPECIFICS OF EUROPES TREATMENT OF THE ISSUE.
Other nations that allow for civilian full auto have a "collectors license" that facilitates this. I would be in full support of a one time license that is at least as comprehensive as the current form 4 type transfers, but would allow for fast transfers of all types of arms including post 86 to the licensee.
The current stock of gun bills not acted on this session are the proper targets for some new thinking on these issues. If we are going to give a veteran amnesty and allow for private gun museums to have non-transferable machine guns, then why not use this opportunity to add the suppressor to title I, and or provide for a "collectors" license that allows for everything.
The title I silencers, or collectors license, would be a huge boom to the small arms industry, and would appeal to basically every gun owner. Imagine the new glock with a can in every box!
SOMEONE PUT TOGETHER A SMARTLY WORDED LETTER, SO WE CAN COPY IT AND INPUT OUR OWN PARTICULARS. IT SHOULD HAVE SOME HISTORY OF NFA, AND INCLUDE SPECIFICS OF EUROPES TREATMENT OF THE ISSUE.
suppressors
There is surely technology which could allow suppressors that would bring the noise level down to not harmful, but still allow some sound. We could have legislation allowing suppressors in this range to be included integrated into the barrels of new guns and sold with no more restriction than any other gun. Some objective minimum sound standard could be selected in the range of a 22 rifle. This would do away with the argument about stealth assasins and normalize the things.
There is surely technology which could allow suppressors that would bring the noise level down to not harmful, but still allow some sound. We could have legislation allowing suppressors in this range to be included integrated into the barrels of new guns and sold with no more restriction than any other gun. Some objective minimum sound standard could be selected in the range of a 22 rifle. This would do away with the argument about stealth assasins and normalize the things.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
Not really. What about ammo like Super Colibri, which is basically silent without a suppressor? So on, so on...
I'd say anything that alters the sound to be lower is technically a supressor, but according to the BATFE, it's only certain things. A longer barrel, though it reduces sound, isn't one to them. A flash suppressor way back that made something less than incredibly loud, but still over 115dB was considered a suppressor. It's beyond me, really.
I'd say anything that alters the sound to be lower is technically a supressor, but according to the BATFE, it's only certain things. A longer barrel, though it reduces sound, isn't one to them. A flash suppressor way back that made something less than incredibly loud, but still over 115dB was considered a suppressor. It's beyond me, really.
loki.fish
Member
I had the chance to shoot a .22lr pistol with a suppressor on it last night after returning from the Machine Gun Shoot. I'm hooked. I want one. I want everybody I run in to to shoot one. It was so wonderful to not have to deal with those big bulky ear muffs. If I can get a rifle quiet enough to not need the damn ear muffs, it'd be wonderful. It's so hard to use sights on a rifle with ear muffs hitting the stock. I'll admit, before last night I liked suppressors because of the "cool" factor. After shooting one it's changed. I still like them for the "cool" factor, I'll admit it. But I like them even more because of what they were designed for. Must buy one, then another, then another. Forget moving suppressors to Title I, lets make them come with every firearm purchased. Doesn't New Zealand or something do that?
River Wraith
Member
Even though you can legally own a suppressor, isn't it illegal to use it? (Which is utterly retarded, by the way. Why the hell would you pay 200 bucks for something you can't even legally use?) I almost bought one for my P-99, but it just didn't work out (financially).
I am willing to do whatever is needed in SC to get this rolling, so if someone tells me what to do and points me, then I will do whatever.
I am willing to do whatever is needed in SC to get this rolling, so if someone tells me what to do and points me, then I will do whatever.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Noise Abatement
This is too funny.
There are a number of us at work (engineers, mostly) whose character flaws include a lack of hopolophobia.
In one of our discussions last week, I suggested that it is irresponsible to make it mandatory for a man defending his family and home to traumatize his wife and kids while waking the neighborhood and damaging his own hearing -- all because he wanted to eliminate a threat to his family's safety.
I pointed out that it's idiotic to REQUIRE that one do harm -- psychological and physical -- to those being protected because you have to stop a rapist or murderer.
Never expected that to show up here. Clearly, I have underestimated the THR folk.
You guys are okay.
This is too funny.
There are a number of us at work (engineers, mostly) whose character flaws include a lack of hopolophobia.
In one of our discussions last week, I suggested that it is irresponsible to make it mandatory for a man defending his family and home to traumatize his wife and kids while waking the neighborhood and damaging his own hearing -- all because he wanted to eliminate a threat to his family's safety.
I pointed out that it's idiotic to REQUIRE that one do harm -- psychological and physical -- to those being protected because you have to stop a rapist or murderer.
Never expected that to show up here. Clearly, I have underestimated the THR folk.
You guys are okay.
SAMPLE Bill to lower tax on suppressors(somebody metioned doing just this above. The tax is this SAMPLE proposal is set at five dollars):
A BILL
To amend certain taxes found in Title 26 US Code dealing with sound regulating devices for firearms.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Hearing Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. LOWERING TRANSFER TAX
(a) Section 5811 (a) of Title 26 United States Code is amended by:
Striking ‘.’ and adding after ‘transferred’ :
‘and the transfer tax for silencers (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code) shall also be $5 for each such firearm transferred.’
SEC. 3. LOWERING MAKING TAX
Section 5821 of Title 26 United States Code is amended by:
Striking ‘.’ adding after ‘made’ the following:
‘except the rate for making a silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code) shall be set at $5 for each firearm made.’
A BILL
To amend certain taxes found in Title 26 US Code dealing with sound regulating devices for firearms.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Hearing Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. LOWERING TRANSFER TAX
(a) Section 5811 (a) of Title 26 United States Code is amended by:
Striking ‘.’ and adding after ‘transferred’ :
‘and the transfer tax for silencers (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code) shall also be $5 for each such firearm transferred.’
SEC. 3. LOWERING MAKING TAX
Section 5821 of Title 26 United States Code is amended by:
Striking ‘.’ adding after ‘made’ the following:
‘except the rate for making a silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code) shall be set at $5 for each firearm made.’
River Wraith
Member
Sweet, I used to live in WA, so I guess that's what I was basing it on. Now all i have to do is save some money...
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
Add something in about Federal preemption re:legal issues, and I'll happily propose it to anyone that will listen in Congress.
ctdonath
Member
First, start with education.
"Silenced" guns firing supersonic ammo are still LOUD. The silencer - "suppressor" is the better term - only reduces the firing noise, not the "crack" inherent in supersonic flight. I fire my "silenced" AR15 with ear protectors, as the noise level is merely reduced from ear-damaging to dang-that's-loud.
Subsonic ammo can, yes, with care, bring the firing noise down to "Hollywood quiet". In this case, point out that the absence of noise does little to facilitate crime, as few people will notice a gunshot out of context, and few of those will do something about it. It also requires a balance of ammo, gun, and function which is non-trivial to obtian. The "tool of the assasin" myth is pretty much that - a myth ... and in the extremely rare cases where someone would actually deliberately use a silencer to actually facilitate a crime, the fact that they're committing murder of the highest degree will not be dissuaded by absence of a little paperwork.
ctdonath
Member
LAR-15,
Perhaps some verbage that merely moves silencers into the AOW category?
Possibly with some "purpose" verbage about the importance of saving hearing protection?
Perhaps some verbage that merely moves silencers into the AOW category?
Possibly with some "purpose" verbage about the importance of saving hearing protection?
Well somebody mentioned merely lowering the taxes on them so that is what my sample does.
I don't have any findings or purpose. Somebody else who has or uses suppressors might be better for that. I'm sure they had to give a good reason to their CLEO.
They are a little too restricted for my tastes.
I don't have any findings or purpose. Somebody else who has or uses suppressors might be better for that. I'm sure they had to give a good reason to their CLEO.
They are a little too restricted for my tastes.
This SAMPLE proposal moves .22 rimfire silencers from Title II to Title I:
To amend Title 26 US Code dealing with sound regulating devices.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Hearing Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS
Section 5845(a)(7) of title 26 U.S.C. is rewritten to read:
‘(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18 United States Code) except those that operate with twenty two caliber rimfire ammunition; and’
To amend Title 26 US Code dealing with sound regulating devices.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Hearing Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS
Section 5845(a)(7) of title 26 U.S.C. is rewritten to read:
‘(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18 United States Code) except those that operate with twenty two caliber rimfire ammunition; and’
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
Preemption would mean that individual states aren't allowed to make separate laws on them, like how VT bans them, etc. Everyone would be required to follow Federal law.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked