SHUSH Act

[Swing]

It appears there is another proposed legislation that would remove cans from the NFA. It is called the SHUSH Act (Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act) and it would make suppressors regular old accessories you can buy like any other part. Details here. Senate bill here. House bill here.

Just passing it along. Cheers.

 

[ilbob]

I bet it goes about as far as CC reciprocity and the HPA and the Sportsmens Act that the HPA was folded into.

Likely just red meat for the true believers. But I am a cynic, having seen this kind of thing for 40 some years with not much to show for it.

 

[CapnMac]

We are at either three or four actual bills in just this session. Five years ago, one would have been a unicorn, a firefly like a bunch of the anti bills that get floated for form's sake.

The tide may not have yet turned, but it certainly seems to have ebbed in our favor.

The inherent foolishness of making suppressors contraband may be getting the sunshine it needs to see a sunset, finally.

 

[LiveLife]

We never thought Trump would win in November 2016.

And now we have Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and recently a federal judge "argued for" the Second Amendment to grant a temporary injunction for "standard capacity" magazine for of all places, California! https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ked-ca-10-round-mag-ban.823318/#post-10589057

You never know, strange things may happen in 2017.

I am hopeful.

 

[ilbob]

I am hopeful.

You keep trying and eventually sometimes you get some of what you ask for.

 

[Ryanxia]

The SHUSH act might scare enough politicians into compromising with the HPA. I think we have a good chance at that passing, nothing happens quick in government but I am also hopeful. One thing is for sure, the people that sit back and say 'it'll never happen' contribute exactly ZERO to our cause. They are usually the same people that gripe about gun control laws but will never contact their representatives because 'it won't make a difference'.

We've had some big wins in my home State of Maine, no one thought we would be able to achieve Constitutional Carry after almost 100 years of requiring a permit, and not many thought we would be able to defeat billionaire Bloomberg from New York when he tried to buy Universal Background Checks in Maine. Some people sat back and said 'it'll never happen' in both cases, those people just need to be sidestepped while we continue on with improving our Rights.

 

[jdc1244]

I bet it goes about as far as CC reciprocity and the HPA and the Sportsmens Act that the HPA was folded into.

Likely just red meat for the true believers. But I am a cynic, having seen this kind of thing for 40 some years with not much to show for it.

Agreed.

This is low on the list of Congressional priorities - it doesn't even make the list.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Public opinion can "evolve" and politicians must follow. Just look at gay marriage and marijuana. Endorsing either 10 years would have been political suicide, now it's almost required in many areas - or at least better to be quiet.

If there is enough noisy advocacy, one of these bills will go through. The more silencers on circulation, the more folks realize they are not "scary." We should all do our part and buy more!

 

[RPRNY]

CapnMac is on the right track. With Congress, especially right now, it's about momentum.

There has to be a critical mass. I don't see enough votes in the Senate to pass any of them either as stand alone in regular order or roped into the broader Sportsmen's Act. As a tax title matter, both the chimeric tax reform that Ryan wants offers a slim chance, as does inclusion in another pig of an Omnibus spending bill. But as Capn notes, several years ago, one bill would have been a freak show messaging bill, now there's some momentum.

 

[Armymutt]

'“The bill would end the federal requirement for background checks on firearm silencer sales, and make it legal for convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill to buy and possess silencers,” said Everytown in a statement.'

So what? Those people already can't own a gun. What are they going to do with a silencer?

 

[Ryanxia]

'“The bill would end the federal requirement for background checks on firearm silencer sales, and make it legal for convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill to buy and possess silencers,” said Everytown in a statement.'

So what? Those people already can't own a gun. What are they going to do with a silencer?

And those aren't the people that buy an $800 suppressor. Those are the people that put a soda bottle or $10 oil filter on the gun they illegally possess anyway.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm convinced that part of the appeal of suppressors (and, to a lesser extent, SBR's) is that they are regulated by the NFA and, therefore, give the owners bragging rights for "having an NFA item" while at the same time being reasonably affordable. A lot of people seem to feel that NFA items are the apex of gun ownership, and place the owners into something of an elite. If suppressors are completely deregulated, they will lose this special cachet. Considering that they are really not all that effective in silencing, I would expect demand to drop off once the novelty wears off.

 

[Ryanxia]

I'm convinced that part of the appeal of suppressors (and, to a lesser extent, SBR's) is that they are regulated by the NFA and, therefore, give the owners bragging rights for "having an NFA item" while at the same time being reasonably affordable. A lot of people seem to feel that NFA items are the apex of gun ownership, and place the owners into something of an elite. If suppressors are completely deregulated, they will lose this special cachet. Considering that they are really not all that effective in silencing, I would expect demand to drop off once the novelty wears off.

While I agree many NFA owners might have a little zing in their step for having jumped through the hoops, the appeal is definitely practical for most. I had no desire to own an SBR until the Sig brace came out and I realized how much more maneuverable a short barrel setup is. And suppressors certainly ARE effective in quieting firearms, maybe you've never had the opportunity to use one but they make a huge difference. With the two that I have it is very comfortable to shoot without hearing protection on where it is not without the suppressor attached.

 

[AlexanderA]

And suppressors certainly ARE effective in quieting firearms, maybe you've never had the opportunity to use one but they make a huge difference.

My one experience owning a suppressor was with a factory unit for my MAC 11. Meh. I didn't notice it "silencing" the gun much. (The main use of it was as a handgrip for the barrel.) I sold both these items after having them for a relatively short time, with no regrets. My general feeling is that suppressors are way overrated. Reality is not like the movies. I would not bother buying one now, under any circumstances. YMMV.

 

[Sam1911]

My one experience owning a suppressor was with a factory unit for my MAC 11. Meh. I didn't notice it "silencing" the gun much. (The main use of it was as a handgrip for the barrel.) I sold both these items after having them for a relatively short time, with no regrets. My general feeling is that suppressors are way overrated. Reality is not like the movies. I would not bother buying one now, under any circumstances. YMMV.

Quite a few of the guys who shoot small carbines in our IDPA and USPSA matches are using silencers and it's a pretty great thing. With subsonic 9mm or .300 BO ammo, at least on the outdoor ranges, I consider them hearing safe which is a blessing. So nice to be able to run a shoot house or other stage without plugs or muffs and be able to converse with the shooter at normal volumes!

Of course, the cans available now are not the same as the old Sionics unit you had with your MAC. Lots of competition in the market these days to make very well performing devices. Though, of course, nothing is really "silenced." However, I've seen plenty of 9mm ARs brought down to the level of being quieter than an air-powered framing nailer. And that's a really pretty serious improvement.

Maybe ironically, considering the long-standing image in the public mind of what silencers are for, I see them very rarely installed on handguns. Almost always on rifles.

 

[pdsmith505]

I think the utility of silencers also depends on where you shoot...

If you are limited to heading down to the local indoor range where the guy in the next stall over is blasting away with his S&W .500, the can on your Ruger MK is rather pointless.

If you find yourself shooting on private land out in the wilderness, a can is amazing. I fit into this camp, and have developed an aversion to shooting anything without a can.

 

[AlexanderA]

Nobody talks about the opposite of a suppressor, which is a sound enhancer. Given the right conditions, this could be as tactically useful as a suppressor. (Could make the opponent think that you have a larger caliber gun, are closer, etc.) Both suppressors and enhancers have to do with tactical deception, like camouflage.

Nobody has thought to regulate sound enhancers.

 

[CapnMac]

Nobody has thought to regulate sound enhancers.

Well, "they" have, just under the rubric of "cop killer bullets" (you know, like the .32 S%W long) or "sniper rounds" (like .30-30).

 

[armoredman]

Would a "flash can" work as your "sound enhancer"?

 

[Swing]

Considering that they are really not all that effective in silencing, I would expect demand to drop off once the novelty wears off.

It really depends on the can, the load, and the firearm. Some are very quiet setups. Others, not so much.

While I agree many NFA owners might have a little zing in their step for having jumped through the hoops, the appeal is definitely practical for most.

^ Agreed, completely. Of my NFA items, the cans are easily those most practical. Some of my NFA items are for better handling characteristics (e.g., SBRs), while others are just for fun/gonzo purposes (e.g., SBS, AOW, etc.). A good suppressor really improve the enjoyment of shooting on my private range. If/when my free time ever gets back to normal, I plan to do a little hunting (varmints, mainly) for the first time in a long time, and a silencer will likely make the outings a bit better too. The utilization of said when hunting is legal in my state.

In other words, if silencers became Title I items, I'd buy more, not less. The tax is a mild annoyance, the paperwork a bit more, and the dang-near year long wait even more so. Remove that and they are even more appealing.

 

[Tommygunn]

Nobody talks about the opposite of a suppressor, which is a sound enhancer. Given the right conditions, this could be as tactically useful as a suppressor. (Could make the opponent think that you have a larger caliber gun, are closer, etc.) Both suppressors and enhancers have to do with tactical deception, like camouflage.

Nobody has thought to regulate sound enhancers.

According to the old tv series, Sledge Hammer, the opposite of a silencer is a loudener.

 

[Swing]

According to the old tv series, Sledge Hammer, the opposite of a silencer is a loudener.

Ditto The Simpsons.

 

[Zerodefect]

There's a lot of RINO's that are going to be unemployed soon. This or the HPA, could save their jobs.

 

[CapnMac]

There's a lot of RINO's that are going to be unemployed soon.

This is something I'd support.
Even if it seems as likely as unicorns.
Sigh

 

[Demi-human]

It is completely fine that some don't see the point of a muffler. But why should that affect what I would like to do with my money and hearing? The point that they don't make firearms silent is ludicrous. It isn't to make them silent, it is to make them hearing safe.
Meanwhile, my nieghbor is allowed to shake the windows of my house when he takes his Harley out for a ride. Evidently we are free to make other people deaf, but not to protect our own hearing? Not without being two hundred dollars lighter and waiting four hundred days first.