Realized a problem with campaigning for NFA liberalization....

[beerslurpy]

I was thinking about how most people are shocked that suppressors and MGs are legal for anyone to own and how Correira (sp?) was trying to put as many suppressors in people's hands as legally possible. I thought this was a great idea until it occurred to me to do some math and see how many people lived in states that completely bar people from owning these toys. Pretty depressing. Ironically, we might have an easier time pushing for MG legalization.

Without even counting prohibited persons and minors, 38% of Americans live in states that completely ban sound suppressors and 28% of Americans live in states that ban machine guns. Adult felons and minors make up about 35% pecent of the overall population but they cant vote against us or for us, so they can be ignored for the purposes of this article.

I counted Michigan as banning Sound Suppressors although one list didnt show it as a ban state. I counted states with highly restrictive rules (like CA's MG permits for movie studios and no one else rule, or NJs "how well do you know the state supreme court?" rule) as ban states.

It is attached as a PDF.

 

[Chris Rhines]

You have Maryland listed as a state banning suppressors. I can't find anything regarding suppressors in the 2005 BATFE State Laws and Published Ordinances. Are you sure about your list?

- Chris

 

[Telperion]

beerslurpy, that is why we also need Federal preemption. Until the Supreme Court wants to recognize the 2nd and 14th amendments, we can use the Commerce clause as a weapon against the gun prohibitionists, as they have used it against us.

 

[K-Romulus]

MD may not be accurate

My range is also a SOT-holder, and does sell suppressors here in MD . . .

 

[Euclidean]

One thing that might help your crusade in general...

I'd actually be interested in owning a suppressor/silencer, but I honestly know zilch about them other than things I've read on how to make them. To boot, I understand a legal unit costs at least nine bills and then $400 in taxes, right? (Isn't it $200 to create it and then $200 for me to take possession of it?)

I'm also quite terrified of the legal ramifications of such an item. Do I become the ATF's highly regulated slave for owning one?

Granted I probably can't afford one, but if I only knew where to get the damn things and how much they cost and how they actually work and not just the questionable content Paladin Press puts out, it would help tremendously.

See the problem is, I've never bothered to learn much about this stuff because I can't afford it. I think a lot of people are in that boat. It's my ignorance that keeps laws like this in effect, because you have to know something about this stuff to understand how to fight the regulations on it.

 

[beerslurpy]

After like 9 months of delays (disagreements with first SOT2, delays getting AR upper, delays moving, delays finding the upper) I am finally about to get my first can made. I'm going the trust route instead of the individual route.

No, it doesnt make you the slave of the ATF. Only dealers get audited.

 

[wdlsguy]

I understand a legal unit costs at least nine bills

You can buy a .22 LR suppressor for $235, a .223 suppressor for $375.

and then $400 in taxes, right? (Isn't it $200 to create it and then $200 for me to take possession of it?)

$200 to transfer to you.

I'm also quite terrified of the legal ramifications of such an item. Do I become the ATF's highly regulated slave for owning one?

As to one who is neither a FFL nor SOT, but only owns weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act, ATF may only compel you to show an agent upon request the registration paperwork, that is the Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever else might have been used to register the weapon. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 5841(e). They do not have any right to compel you to produce the weapon. As always the Fourth amendment applies, and ATF may not enter your home or other place of storage of the NFA weapon, nor seize the weapon, without a warrant, or without falling under an exception the Supreme Court has created to the operation of the Fourth amendment, or without your consent.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

 

[Euclidean]

See that's the sort of stuff that helps tremendously... an idiot's guide to silencers or something would be helpful. That's how they control us, with our own ignorance.

 

[beerslurpy]

I published my data with my results because I wasnt sure about the data and I dont have access to westlaw until next semester to do a 50 state review. Beleive me, I plan to do a lot of 50-state gun law surveys once I get access to westlaw/nexis-lexis. For example, there is a ton of hearsay floating around on the subject of which states are "stand your ground" and which states are "duty to retreat"- it is really a subject deserving of an in depth look at the common law and the recent statutes in every state.

In any case, you can completely add or remove the small states and it doesnt change the result by more than a few percentage points. CA + IL + NY really make up the bulk of the people in the statistics. IMO it is certainly better to have the bulk of the anti-gunners concentrated in 3 states instead of having a smaller majority spread across a larger number of states. Still, it is pretty remarkable how few pro-gunners get into the senate despite this.

 

[LAR-15]

You forgot about Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

All subject to US gun control laws.

 

[DerringerUser]

I live in CA, and i hate not being able to own a surpresser. Those things are so cool, and convenient, and they don't damage my ear. But, im not sure about crime with surpressers, because they are so silent, they may be undetectable, so i dont think they'll be legal any time soon.

I think we should push for lifting the MG ban, as so little crime has been cause with legally owned MGs, and i see no reason for keeping them banned.

 

[Third_Rail]

Have you ever heard a silenced weapon? They're not that quiet, just quieter. If they were perfectly quiet to use as a weapon only for killing, then I rather expect we'd hear of them used more often in crimes, yes? What about the restrictive gun laws in Europe, yet they allow silencers?

It's a health issue, truly. It's like regulating earplugs with a $200 tax.

 

[beerslurpy]

Suppressors arent quiet enough to be inaudible, so most situations where someone will call the police over shots fired will still call them when a suppressed weapon is used. Hearing a merely 130-140db *crack crack crack* will get 911 calls just as surely as a 150-170db *CRACK CRACK CRACK*.

Houses also have an enormous suppressing effect on their own. Even without suppressors, firing indoors will largely prevent neighbors from responding- the only difference is the extent of hearing damage of the people inside the house.

The quietest you can get a repeating subsonic weapon is about 120 decibels. I'm getting one of these made around a 45 caliber upper- and it requires a fairly enormous suppressor. With something quieter like a striker fired bolt action, you can get it down to maybe 115 or so. With something supersonic or something with a pistol sized can, you can forget about anything significantly below 130db.

It really doesnt do anything more than protect your hearing. Guns are just too damn loud in real life- the completely silent gun is something out of the movies.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

beerslurpy

It really doesnt do anything more than protect your hearing. Guns are just too damn loud in real life- the completely silent gun is something out of the movies.

Uh...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine

The De Lisle carbine or De Lisle Commando carbine was a specialist British rifle used during World War II. The designer was William De Lisle. It was based on a Lee-Enfield Mk 3 rifle converted to .45 ACP (a pistol cartridge), using magazines from the M1911 pistol. The primary feature of the De Lisle was its very effective suppressor which made it very quiet in action - indeed working the bolt to chamber the next round makes a louder noise than firing a round. The De Lisle carbine was used by British commandos and special forces, and was accurate to 250 metres.

The De Lisle was made in very limited numbers; about 130 were produced during the period of 1942 to 1945. Thompson submachine gun barrels were modified to provide the .45 caliber barrel, which was ported to provide a slow release of high pressure gas. The supressor, over 2 inches in diameter, went all the way from the back of the barrel to well beyond the muzzle (the suppressor makes up half the overall length of the rifle), providing a very large volume of space to contain the gases of firing. This large volume was one of the keys to the effectiveness of the suppressor. The Lee-Enfield bolt was modified to feed the .45 ACP rounds, and the Lee-Enfield's magazine assembly was replaced with a new assembly that held a M1911 magazine in place.

The De Lisle is known to have seen service during the Malayan Emergency, and it is thought that there may still be small numbers in service for military situations requiring a silenced weapon.

Seems there's someone right here on THR who owns one of these. Reportedly, all one can hear is the firing pin hitting the primer.

I want one...

And yes, I know the 250 meter claim is kinda over the top... but quiet, they are.

 

[beerslurpy]

That article was written by someone that has never owned one or fired one. They do make noise, and the projectile striking the target makes noise as well. Compare to bolt action 22's with big cans and quadruple the aperature for the bullet and you can imagine they arent completley silent by any stretch of the imagination. SRT has been making a ton of rifles very close to the Delisle for years (but with more advanced baffles) and they rarely go far below 120 db. And despite all this, the delisle is pretty much the apex of what you can accomplish- like I said in my article about striker-fired bolt actions using subsonic ammo.

Criminals today can tape a 2L soda bottle full of foam peanuts over the barrel of a gun and accomplish essentially the same thing as a suppressor, but few ever bother to do this. Ask yourself why. Probably for the same reason that criminals dont use other types of large weapons- lack of concealability. Making a suppressor for a small semiauto pistol that effectively quiets but doesnt prevent it from cycling is a fairly complex undertaking. And the gain in quietness is rarely worth the trouble of constructing or acquiring a black market can IMO. There are so many other ways for criminals to be discovered committing crimes that halving the gunblast isnt really worth it.

Moving suppressors to Title 1 would still involve serial numbering, entry into bound books and traceability if recovered at a crime scene. If you wanted, you could require manufacturers to put the serial inside the baffles somewhere as well so it couldnt be effaced. I dont see suppressor liberalization as really giving anything up on the LE side. They arent so hard to make that hitmen havent been using high quality ones illegally for decades. If anything, a widespread regulated market will increase the likelihood of clumsy criminals getting ahold of serialized ones and subjecting themselves or their suppliers to detection.

 

[Tim James]

My first reaction after reading that table

What the hell are so many people doing in Illinois?

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

You have my support in this. It should be done. People have been complaining about the NFA and about 922o for a long time, but it seems like lately the volume, intensity and seriousness of complaining has gone up. It would be great to have a movement going for this, and maybe even pressure the NRA to start taking NFA issues seriously.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Suppressors arent quiet enough to be inaudible, so most situations where someone will call the police over shots fired will still call them when a suppressed weapon is used. Hearing a merely 130-140db *crack crack crack* will get 911 calls just as surely as a 150-170db *CRACK CRACK CRACK*.

While a supressed weapon is far from "silent", a supressor does take the edge off. The db's don't change a whole lot, but the pitch does. It take sthe noise from that of a firecracker to something like a heavy framing hammer slamming home on 1/2" press board.

I would say it is more like going from a 170 db "crack" toa 140 db "thud"

But as you said, not so much about firing undetected as saving unprotected ears.

 

[Librarian]

The primary feature of the De Lisle was its very effective suppressor which made it very quiet in action - indeed working the bolt to chamber the next round makes a louder noise than firing a round. The De Lisle carbine was used by British commandos and special forces, and was accurate to 250 metres.

Otto Skorzeny wrote a memoir of WW2; it's widely regarded as, ah, maybe one should take it with a couple grains of salt.

However, in it he recalls that one of these (silenced Sten?) came into his hands; he opened the window and shot a duck on the canal below. According to him, nobody blinked.

Maybe it wasn't all that safe to react to peculiar activities by the SS; maybe it really was that quiet.