Move Sound Suppressors to Title I!
- Thread starter El Tejon
- Start date
- Status
Actually, I don't see how moving suppressors to Title I would affect the states at all. All that would change is that you wouldn't have to pay the federal tax on them and have to get a CLEO signoff. States still could individually outlaw them if they wanted to.
I think the "federal pre-emption" is overstepping a bit. Just make them Title I, and let the states decide from there.
I think the "federal pre-emption" is overstepping a bit. Just make them Title I, and let the states decide from there.
Christianninja
Member
Okay guys, I think I'm going to take a shot at putting together a well-written form letter/essayish dealy pointing out the positive qualities of Title 1 Supressors.
I've stolen a lot of the points you guys have put up that should be included, and compiled them with a few of my own. I'd like some critique on the points before I begin, and any further suggestions.
Thoughts? Additions?
I've stolen a lot of the points you guys have put up that should be included, and compiled them with a few of my own. I'd like some critique on the points before I begin, and any further suggestions.
- History of NFA
- Negative health consequences of Cumulative hearing damage.
- No knowledge of cumulative hearing damage in 1934 when the law was passed.
- Urban encroachment on existing shotting ranges; supressors would cut down noise pollution.
- Legal and unregulated in Finland, Norway, and the UK for decades with no ill effect.
- Supressors already on everything else: cars, mowers, anything with internal combustion.
- Moving to Title 1 not that big of a change, still under Government Regulation, requiring NICS check and form 4473 to obtain one.
- Noise ordinance compliance
- Less disturbance of wildlife.
- Supressors let the lead vapor condense inside of them, instead of being inhaled by the shooter/spectators.
Thoughts? Additions?
Some states require silencers to be legally owned MUST be registered with the BATFE or in accordance with the NFA (Wisconsin and Arizona come to mind).
Those laws would have to be preempted.
But not total ban laws like in California.
Moving silencers from title 2 to title 1 may result in more state level attempts to ban them and preempting state laws is never big with anti gun states.
ctdonath
Member
Exempting .22LR silencers will be legally difficult because silencers largely operate as a matter of caliber & pressure, not cartridge dimesions. Exempt .22 rimfire silencers and people WILL be putting 'em on 5.56/.223 Remington rifles. Maybe kinda hard to explain ... there isn't a legally viable dichotomy, so explaining why it isn't there in terms of it being there is tough. So long as the hole is the same size, and silencers tend to be over-engineered for strength, the legal differences between, say, an AAC Pilot and an AAC Omni are indistinct.
If the exemption can be viably expressed legally, methinks you'll open up more loopholes & complexities than you intended. Unintended consequences.
I like the idea, I just think it will go somewhere you don't want it to go.
If the exemption can be viably expressed legally, methinks you'll open up more loopholes & complexities than you intended. Unintended consequences.
I like the idea, I just think it will go somewhere you don't want it to go.
ctdonath
Member
Per states requiring BATFE registration:
Consider that Alaska doesn't require a CCW carry permit, but will issue one anyway if you want. BATFE could be directed to accept registrations of things that don't need registering.
Odd thought: has anyone tried NFA-registering something that doesn't need to be registered?
Consider that Alaska doesn't require a CCW carry permit, but will issue one anyway if you want. BATFE could be directed to accept registrations of things that don't need registering.
Odd thought: has anyone tried NFA-registering something that doesn't need to be registered?
Sure it is, when they are the ones doing the preempting.
Technically, this is what is done whenever somebody files a form 1. An existing firearm is reclassified as a SBR, SBS, or MG (but not since '86), before it is actually reconfigured as such.
CleverNickname
Member
Limiting the law to only .22 rimfire suppressors is pointless. It's going to take a lot of political capital to get this changed, so why limit ourselves to .22 rimfire suppressors right off the bat? You're taking away bargaining chips.
Start by trying to eliminate restrictions on suppressors, period, then make bargains as needed. But don't just give away chips even before you get to the table.
ctdonath
Member
I meant merely registering it in the NFA list, without assigning it to MG/SBR/AOW/etc. categories. Yes, it sounds pointless ... but considering the absurd laws we have to deal with...
I would be concerned about a backlash at the state level if silencers were moved to Title I in the near future. Hence my suggestion to lower the transfer tax to $5.
The CLEO signoff problem is easily solved by forming a trust or LLC.
We have a better shot (no pun intended) at moving silencers to Title I if we can make them somewhat mainstream as Title II items.
The CLEO signoff problem is easily solved by forming a trust or LLC.
We have a better shot (no pun intended) at moving silencers to Title I if we can make them somewhat mainstream as Title II items.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
We should just simply ask to move all suppressors to Title I.
After all, are people who only shoot .22 rimfire cartridges more deserving of hearing protection than those who shoot centerfire?
That's the cool thing about legitimizing suppressors. It's not a gun issue. It's a public safety and environmental issue. Couching it almost exclusively in those terms puts us in a light that no reasonable person will oppose. All of the ammunition to shoot down criticism of it is already built right into the proposal. Sure, anti's will screech about the evils of suppressors, but the public health and noise pollution line of reasoning will just make them look all manner of stupid.
LAR's draft proposals are very useful, and one stipulating the movement of all suppressors from Title II to Title I would make for an excellent addendum to a letter.
After all, are people who only shoot .22 rimfire cartridges more deserving of hearing protection than those who shoot centerfire?
That's the cool thing about legitimizing suppressors. It's not a gun issue. It's a public safety and environmental issue. Couching it almost exclusively in those terms puts us in a light that no reasonable person will oppose. All of the ammunition to shoot down criticism of it is already built right into the proposal. Sure, anti's will screech about the evils of suppressors, but the public health and noise pollution line of reasoning will just make them look all manner of stupid.
LAR's draft proposals are very useful, and one stipulating the movement of all suppressors from Title II to Title I would make for an excellent addendum to a letter.
Okay here is a draft that DOES remove suppressors from the NFA but has no findings or a preemption/protection statute. Somebody will have to add those in:
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'.
SECTION 2. REGULATION OF SOUND REDUCING DEVICES
(a) In General- Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by:
striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting ' (6) a machine gun;and (7) a destructive device.'.
SEC.3. IMMUNITY
Limited Immunity-
See what can be done with this.
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'.
SECTION 2. REGULATION OF SOUND REDUCING DEVICES
(a) In General- Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by:
striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting ' (6) a machine gun;and (7) a destructive device.'.
SEC.3. IMMUNITY
Limited Immunity-
See what can be done with this.
Stevie-Ray
Member
Well this is rather exciting. I might be able to tell my buddies in the future that I was there when the first seeds were planted to legitimize suppressors for the masses. Perhaps I even had a hand in it! Personally, I would make use of them for several of my weapons.
I believe I'm going to get busy.
I believe I'm going to get busy.
El Tejon
Member
LAR, no, just one idea. Move all suppressors to Title I with federal preemption.
A loss of focus will not help us. Move suppressors to Title I, for the children, for our health, for the environment.
A loss of focus will not help us. Move suppressors to Title I, for the children, for our health, for the environment.
El Tejon
Member
No, Title I is the solution.
Reducing the excise tax on suppressors gains us nothing (other than $195). We still have the same red tape problems and state issues of Title II.
Any change to the NFA will draw a media and Leftist response. When we move we move big. With the "Instant background check" in place and the mileau of public health and the environment, we now have a bridge to bring stuff into Title I.
Reducing the excise tax on suppressors gains us nothing (other than $195). We still have the same red tape problems and state issues of Title II.
Any change to the NFA will draw a media and Leftist response. When we move we move big. With the "Instant background check" in place and the mileau of public health and the environment, we now have a bridge to bring stuff into Title I.
Reducing the transfer tax from $200 to $5 makes suppressors much more affordable. It also opens up a resale market.
Which are vastly overrated, especially if you use a living trust.
This is where you will run into a brick wall. Good luck passing a federal law that says states have to allow suppressor ownership.
It's a simple tax cut, that's all.
ctdonath
Member
Yes Title II _IS_ a problem, even if the tax is reduced.
One should not have to create a trust, corporation, or get fingerprinted & CLEO-signoffed and wait for months for federal oversight for something functionally little different from earplugs.
Sure, reducing the tax to $5 would be an improvement - but is it enough of an improvement to be worthy of the fight to get there?
Public health is on the line. Getting a silencer should be a matter of "here, it's $50" instead of "so what red tape & hoops must I deal with to get one?" You'd give someone earplugs without a background check, right?
One should not have to create a trust, corporation, or get fingerprinted & CLEO-signoffed and wait for months for federal oversight for something functionally little different from earplugs.
Sure, reducing the tax to $5 would be an improvement - but is it enough of an improvement to be worthy of the fight to get there?
Public health is on the line. Getting a silencer should be a matter of "here, it's $50" instead of "so what red tape & hoops must I deal with to get one?" You'd give someone earplugs without a background check, right?
It's really very straightforward. All it takes is $40 worth of software and a notary.
I can't renew my CHL without being photographed and fingerprinted.
Form 4's are running 2-3 weeks mailbox to mailbox these days.
It might not be that much of a fight. It's just a tax decrease, bringing the transfer tax in line with that for AOWs.
ctdonath
Member
You're missing the point.
There's a big difference between having to buy software, fill out forms, notarize 'em, file 'em, do more paperwork, pay taxes, wait for turnaround, etc. vs. nothing.
You're still operating on the presumption that it's OK to have to wade thru paperwork and red tape and bureaucrats to avoid getting thrown in jail for 10 years & paying tens of thousands of $$$ in fines, as only slightly more inconvenient than straightforward freedom.
You shouldn't have to get your CHL renewed at all. You shouldn't need a CHL. Vermont & Alaska figured that out.
You shouldn't have to wait weeks to protect your hearing. In gun-hating Europe you can pick 'em up cheap (like around $20-50) at the range (heck, there it's considered rude to NOT use one).
They're mufflers. Let's just focus on getting 'em off the NFA list entirely. I shouldn't have to do backflips to get one - no matter how easy it may be to do a backflip.
There's a big difference between having to buy software, fill out forms, notarize 'em, file 'em, do more paperwork, pay taxes, wait for turnaround, etc. vs. nothing.
You're still operating on the presumption that it's OK to have to wade thru paperwork and red tape and bureaucrats to avoid getting thrown in jail for 10 years & paying tens of thousands of $$$ in fines, as only slightly more inconvenient than straightforward freedom.
You shouldn't have to get your CHL renewed at all. You shouldn't need a CHL. Vermont & Alaska figured that out.
You shouldn't have to wait weeks to protect your hearing. In gun-hating Europe you can pick 'em up cheap (like around $20-50) at the range (heck, there it's considered rude to NOT use one).
They're mufflers. Let's just focus on getting 'em off the NFA list entirely. I shouldn't have to do backflips to get one - no matter how easy it may be to do a backflip.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that suppressors were moved to Title I.
How many states would institute their own licensing schemes? How many states would ban them entirely? What is your plan to prevent that from happening?
Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie and nibble away at the existing restrictions.
How many states would institute their own licensing schemes? How many states would ban them entirely? What is your plan to prevent that from happening?
Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie and nibble away at the existing restrictions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked