"silencer" in local trading post !!

[wdlsguy]

So, it must be about CONTROL, and not about the guns.

Russia had gone communist in 1917, America was in the middle of the Great Depression, and the ruling elites in Washington were getting very nervous about the possibility of a revolution. That what I was told anyhow.

 

[orangelo]

So, it must be about CONTROL, and not about the guns.

Wasn't that already obvious? One of the few kinds of guns that required the ultimate in 'common sense gun control' were machineguns. They were subject to heavy taxation. Owners had to be licensed and registered. They could not be taken out of state without government approval. Mere possession by a person not listed on the registration is grounds for imprisonment.

The gun grabbers all say they aren't out to ban guns, 'common sense' is all they want... but give them all that and what do they do? They ban them in 1986. Despite all the 'common sense gun control' measures already in place for 52 years and the fact that NFA registered devices are almost NEVER used in crimes. Dead poodles and hamburgers have been used in more violent crimes than all legally registered weapons in the past 72 years.

So the NRA is absolutely right, registration DOES lead to a complete ban. And that is why gun grabbers (aka Democrats) must be opposed no matter what kind of 'hunter friendly' garbage they spew. They have only 1 thing in mind for guns and that's banning them outright.

They required registration of MGs. Then they stop registering them.
In DC they required registration of handguns. Then they stopped registering them.

Anyone see a pattern?

Wait til I share this little tidbit with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Pat Robertson. We can make sure no Democrat ever wins any election ever again. Don't worry, registered voters can still cast their ballots for whoever they want. But districts that vote heavily Democrat won't be allowed to register any voters.

 

[Chipperman]

It was not about making money.

It was about making the fee so crazy ($200 in 1934 was A LOT), that very few people would actually register machine guns. When the 1980's came and $200 was not so much money anymore, they decided to stop taking the money altogether.

 

[mtnbkr]

So, it must be about CONTROL,

And the light goes on above Sistema's head...

Chris

 

[Father Knows Best]

I believe it was about control. Russia had gone communist in 1917, America was in the middle of the Great Depression, and the ruling elites in Washington were getting very nervous about the possibility of a revolution.

Um, sorta. I don't know that fear of communism had much to do with it, but the National Firearms Act of 1934 was certainly about control. Remember that prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933, and with it came a huge increase in crime, particularly organized crime. Sawed-off shotguns were viewed as being popular with the criminal gangs, as were the newfangled submachine guns like the Thompson models of 1921 and 1928.

In the 1930s, however, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution still meant something. Accordingly, Congress didn't think it had the power to enact outright bans on automatic weapons, short barrel rifles and shotguns, or suppressors. It did have the power to regulate interstate commerce, and it had the power to tax commerce. Accordingly, Congress did what it knew it could do -- require a permit to obtain a machine gun, suppressor or short barrel rifle or shotgun, and impose a hefty tax on any such transaction. The tax was set at $200. That may not sound like a lot seeing that pistols and rifles typically sell new these days for $400 to $1,000, but that was a huge amount of money in 1934. Adjusting for inflation, $200 in 1934 equals $2,855 in 2005 Dollars. In other words, Congress effectively the ability for all but the extremely wealthy to own automatic weapons, suppressors and short barrel firearms by imposing ridiculously high taxes on them. It was indeed about control.

 

[Father Knows Best]

When the 1980's came and $200 was not so much money anymore, they decided to stop taking the money altogether.

Not quite. BATFE will still happily take your $200 to transfer a suppressor, machine gun or short barrel rifle or shotgun. New suppressors, and short barrel shotguns and rifles, are still being made, and each costs $200 in taxes each time it is transferred. In 1986, however, the registry was forever closed to new machine guns for private ownership. Existing ones can still be transferred at $200 a pop, but no new ones can be added to the registry.

 

[cmidkiff]

In my home state of Missouri, any NFA item is fine... EXCEPT mufflers. Can't have one, no way, no how, short of SOT or LE status.

I can't decide which one pisses me off more... MO's no muffler law, or the '86 ban on new MG's. Both are a total disgrace. Of course, we would have neither without the NFA '34 and the GCA '68. REPEAL THEM ALL!

 

[Father Knows Best]

cmidkiff, I feel your pain. I lived in Tennessee for years, and thought about getting a suppressor or two. My dad lives in Georgia and has several, including a wicked cool integrally suppressed .44 mag rifle. I never got around to it.

Then I moved to Minnesota a few months ago. I had some funds, and thought it was time to finally buy that suppressor. Imagine my disappointment to learn that Minnesota bans them completely! :banghead:

Ridiculous.

 

[HCfan]

Not to go off the subject of the silencer being in a trades paper but I do have a question.

A silencer is considered a NFA weapon so you have to pay the $200 tax. From what I've seen, they go for $500+ for the cheap ones to over $1000.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

 

[Chipperman]

Father Knows Best--

Not quite. BATFE will still happily take your $200 to transfer

I was talking about new registration for machine guns. Yeah, they were more than happy to take my money for NFA transfers on MGs that were ALREADY in the registry.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

To make a tube that attaches to your gun, sure. But to make an effective suppressor that will last for many rounds is not a simple thing to do.

 

[gezzer]

A silencer is considered a NFA weapon so you have to pay the $200 tax. From what I've seen, they go for $500+ for the cheap ones to over $1000.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

I wouldn't call a Gem=Tec Outback II a cheap can at 300 smakers I call mine Top of the line and tec. Great warranty and built by a reliable company.


Make own? Sure if you have a machine shop and know what you are doing. For the average gun tinker I would spend the money on a well engineered item than a home built oldtime tec. Remember the TAX is 200 bucks no matter what.

 

[wdlsguy]

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just do a form 1 and just make it yourself?

Can you build a .22 LR can for $235 or a .223 can for $375?

 

[Beren]

If I tried to make a can myself on a Form 1, I would end up spearing my hand on a lathe or something. The medical bills would add up to more than just buying a can from a manufacturer. Now, short-barrel AR-15s - those are simple to do yourself on a Form 1.

If you have decent machining skills and the proper equipment, it probably wouldn't be too hard to make your own silencer on a Form 1. Me though, I need to stay away from spinning sharpies.

 

[redneckdan]

i have a question that kinda falls under this topic. Michigan doesn't yet allow supressors but if they do I would like to get one. Say I get a .22 rimfire muzzle can, is the can only allowed for one fire arm or can the same can be taken off one firearm and attached to another? Also, If I were to make a can, do the proper paper work, use it for a while and come up with a better design; can the original can with the serial number be destryoed and the serial number be assigned to a new can without paying another tax?

 

[steveracer]

The can is the NFA item.

You can take it off one weapon and add it to another. No problem.
Just be sure it's not an integrally supressed barrel you're swapping. May have different rules.

 

[wdlsguy]

You are free to move a suppressor from one firearm to another. No idea if you can destroy your old suppressor and replace it with a new one.

 

[444]

Did it ever occur to you that he advertised the suppressor for sale and expects people who know what they are doing to answer the ad ?

I have purchased a half dozen suppressors from ads on the internet from people who didn't feel the need to post any additional information. They know the law, I know the law. We didn't need anything else to be said and didn't need any third party calling us up to captivate us with his knowlege of firearms law. Why not leave the guy alone unless you want to buy the stuff he is selling ?



I have never tried to make a suppressor, but I would imagine that you would make the outside of the suppressor (suppressor body, suppressor tube ?, outside.. ?) and engrave the serial number on it. Then you would modify and play around with the internals. You wouldn't destroy the whole thing.

 

[gezzer]

Note: Jr. ATF agents jump in to help.

Some rights helper here.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Then there's Washington, where possession of suppressors is perfectly legal (if possessed IAW federal law), but it's a gross misdemeanor to fire a shot through a suppressor (RCW 9.41.250(3)). A separate offense for each shot!

Yeah but how could they catch you? They wouldn't be able to hear it!

 

[pete f]

only way to possess a can on minnesota is to become a dealer or a manufacturer.

Even the popo and the DNR are statutorily limited to how many and when they can have cans.

Can you say stooooopid DFLers


The funny thing is, my cousins who still live in sweden are required to use cans at the range. There are only certain days of the year (and only a few) when they can shoot without them. As it is viewed as running open pipes on your car. I believe they hunt without them, if they want, but they are required to use them at the range I went to with them. They were shooting both their civil guard rifles and personal hunting rifles.
Not sure if this is a range rule or a local or national, but they just assumed it was the same here.

 

[Zach S]

I saw an add once for a full-auto Mac 10 in the Iwanna (local classifieds), which I found odd since they didnt allow ads for "semi-auto assault weapons as defined by the BATFE" (and AFAIK they still have that header in the guns and bows section). I always wondered how many wanna-be gangbangers called him.

A while later, I saw an add for something else title II, I think a RDIAS for an AR15, POR. The next week, it said "all NFA rules apply, if you dont know what that means, dont call." I bet he got a lot of calls that wasted his time...

Just be sure it's not an integrally supressed barrel you're swapping. May have different rules.

Most integrally supressed barrels, take the 9mm upper from Gemtech or LRM for example, have barrels less than 16" long and must be used on rifles registered as SBRs.

Cans are easy on and easy off. I dont imagine that integrally supressed barrels would be, but I'm far from an expert.

 

[VARifleman]

To make a tube that attaches to your gun, sure. But to make an effective suppressor that will last for many rounds is not a simple thing to do.

A simple tube that attaches to the gun, while the ATF would probably accept money for it, is not an NFA item. It can have no baffles though (as then it would be a suppressor).

Search for Bloop Tubes.