Suppressors out of the NFA

[Remington550-1]

How many of you think that Suppressors should be de-regulated and/or taken out of the NFA?

 

[wally]

Talk about "selection bias"

 

[giggitygiggity]

I think that of all the items that are regulated, suppressors have the least need to be regulated. They, in and of themselves, are harmless. Firearms are also harmless when treated properly, but a suppressor, unlike a firearm does not pose any kind of danger or demand respect (ie don't look into the barrel, keep your finger off the trigger, etc). It is a tube with baffles that makes a gunshot quieter. If anything, the government should now be offering tax rebates to firearm enthusiasts who buy suppressors because the Obamacare won't have to treat people who have whittled away their hearing from shooting unsuppressed firearms. Suppressors add safety and take into account the considerations of neighbors who might not like hearing gunshots.

 

[hirundo82]

Yes, they should. Ideally, completely deregulate. Practically--regulate them the same as any Title I firearm.

 

[Sam1911]

You honestly expect to find anyone, HERE of all places, who thinks suppressors should be regulated items?

Talk about a loaded poll! Kind of like asking a bunch of kindergarteners if ice cream is GOOD!

 

[MCMXI]

A suppressor isn't a firearm so its regulation should never have been included in the NFA. It's ironic that we can buy rifle barrels and complete AR uppers without any regulation but suppressors require prints, photos and CLEO sign off for individuals in addition to a $200 tax stamp and many months of waiting.

 

[Panzerschwein]

In Europe suppresors are used for hunting and are useful for hearing protection and to lower noise complaints etc.

I think most people who for example, want to murder somebody quietly, could just use something like a sledgehammer... I don't think suppresors would really be all that useful in crimes despite the movies.

 

[HisStigness]

I think a big part of the reason they are part of the NFA is that the government incorrectly identifies them as "silencers". Then some politicians that know nothing about guns come along and think "Wow there's a device that makes gunshots silent? That would make it really easy to murder someone, we should ban them." What they don't realize is that suppressed gunshots can range from 120-150 dB, which is still very loud, and nowhere near "silent"

 

[Sam1911]

I think a big part of the reason they are part of the NFA is that the government incorrectly identifies them as "silencers".

Might be some effect there, but that is what Hiram Maxim called them when he patented his first one.

 

[Midwest]

A suppressor isn't a firearm so its regulation should never have been included in the NFA.

In Europe suppresors are used for hunting and are useful for hearing protection and to lower noise complaints etc.

I was going to say the same thing. Suppressors were included in the NFA because they were concerned with poaching during the depression.

http://www.qsmsilencers.com/hearing loss facts.htm


"During the Great Depression there was some concern on the part of the government that suppressed firearms would be used for poaching livestock by those in need during these trying years."

Poaching laws should be the concern of the state game warden and not the Federal Government. As it is a number of states have passed laws allowing for the use of suppressors for hunting. Ohio and Louisiana are two of the latest states in the legislative process of passing laws allowing hunting with suppressors.

It is ridiculous to make people pay an extra $200 and wait 10 months for what amounts to a muffler. It doesn't even shoot anything, it is an accessory.

.

 

[BigBoyToyz]

Would you rather pay a 600 dollar tax per each item but have 0 wait time and just file a pistol sales form to MSP?

 

[Telekinesis]

Would you rather pay a 600 dollar tax per each item but have 0 wait time and just file a pistol sales form to MSP?

I think the general consensus (see above poll) is that we'd rather have no regulation whatsoever

 

[Theohazard]

I think a big part of the reason they are part of the NFA is that the government incorrectly identifies them as "silencers".

Sure, they don't truly silence the firearm, but most manufacturers refer to them as both "silencers" and "suppressors", enthusiasts and people in the industry use the terms "suppressor", "can", or "silencer" interchangeably, and -- as Sam1911 pointed out -- the original inventor called them "silencers", which is why our government calls them that.

I've noticed that those who say "it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor" are almost always people who don't actually have any personal experience with silencers or the silencer industry.

 

[MCMXI]

I've noticed that those who say "it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor" are almost always people who don't actually have any personal experience with silencers or the silencer industry.

At least the automotive industry got it right when they coined the phrase "muffler".

 

[Theohazard]

At least the automotive industry got it right when they coined the phrase "muffler".

Tell that to the Brits who call mufflers "silencers": http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/silencer

I agree that "sound suppressor" more accurately describes what it actually does, but when people claim that the term "silencer" is incorrect, they're simply wrong.

 

[zdc1775]

Beyond the fact that I think NFA 34 should be completely done away with I think having suppressors on it is even more idiotic than thinking that it actually keeps criminals from getting their hands on whatever they want.

The suppressor/silencer arguement reminds me a lot of the revolver/pistol arguments. One side tries to make themselves look smarter by using their select term to correct the uninformed when in actuality they are both correct. And this coming from a guy who will only call a revolver a revolver or a sound suppressor a suppressor. The difference is I don't try to correct everyone who uses the term I choose not to use.

 

[MCMXI]

I prefer the term suppressor as does GEMTECH, TBAC, Surefire and Liberty but it's a tough sell given that AAC, AWC and SilncerCo use the term silencer. Regardless of the nomenclature, they shouldn't be regulated ... most of us here seem to agree on that. I don't know what one person was thinking, or the other seven for that matter.

AAC > Silencer
GEMTECH > Suppressor
Surefire > Suppressor
TBAC > Suppressor
AWC > Silencer
Liberty > Suppressor
SilencerCo > Silencer & Suppressor

 

[HisStigness]

Beyond the fact that I think NFA 34 should be completely done away with I think having suppressors on it is even more idiotic than thinking that it actually keeps criminals from getting their hands on whatever they want.

The suppressor/silencer arguement reminds me a lot of the revolver/pistol arguments. One side tries to make themselves look smarter by using their select term to correct the uninformed when in actuality they are both correct. And this coming from a guy who will only call a revolver a revolver or a sound suppressor a suppressor. The difference is I don't try to correct everyone who uses the term I choose not to use.

Well there's right and there's wrong. A revolver is not a pistol, but both pistols and revolvers are handguns. Magazines are not clips, but clips can fill magazines. A car has one engine and multiple motors that do other things like power windshield whispers and roll the windows down.
People seem to need to have more than one word to describe the same object, hence people calling engines motors, magazines clips, and suppressors silencers. I am not any smarter than anybody for knowing the correct name for these objects, I just like to identify things properly.

 

[Sam1911]

I am not any smarter than anybody for knowing the correct name for these objects, I just like to identify things properly.

And in several of those cases, smarter than the folks who invented or manufacturer and sell those items...such as Mr. Colt's "Revolving Pistol" and the Remington "Magazine Clips" they sell to hold the cartridges in their rifles.

Vocabulary certainly is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Theohazard]

I prefer the term suppressor as does GEMTECH, TBAC, Surefire and Liberty but it's a tough sell given that AAC, AWC and SilncerCo use the term silencer. Regardless of the nomenclature, they shouldn't be regulated ... most of us here seem to agree on that. I don't know what one person was thinking, or the other seven for that matter.

And a lot of the employees at those companies use both words interchangeably, at least in my observation.

I used to work at an FFL/SOT and I lost count of how many times two guys would come to the silencer counter, one guy would call them "silencers", and his buddy would correct him and say they were actually called "suppressors" and then look to us employees to back him up. Luckily it was always fairly easy to settle the argument tactfully by telling them they were both correct.

As far as regulation goes, every time I pick up one of my suppressors it amazes me how heavily regulated they are considering they're basically inert tubes of metal with baffles inside. I think they should be over-the-counter purchases just like most other firearm parts.

People seem to need to have more than one word to describe the same object, hence people calling engines motors, magazines clips, and suppressors silencers.

The main difference between magazine/clip and silencer/suppressor is that -- when it comes to firearms -- a magazine is technically a different thing than a clip, whereas both a silencer and a suppressor are always used to describe the exact same thing.

Both terms are perfectly acceptable amongst silencer/suppressor enthusiasts and none of them will admonish you for using either.

 

[plodder]

From Theohazard:

I've noticed that those who say "it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor" are almost always people who don't actually have any personal experience with silencers or the silencer industry.

I own one and always refer to it as a "suppressor", but I am not belligerent to those who refer to them as "silencers", as both terms are grammatically, if not technically, correct.

 

[Hometeached1]

Talk about "selection bias"

Biased? Are you sure.

 

[basicblur]

I musta called it a silencer, as I remember being berated by an indignant gun shop employee - it's a suppressor!

When I filled out my paperwork for mine, I read the form multiple times (fine print, referenced regulations, etc.), and I can't recall ever seeing the ATF forms using the word suppressor. I saw silencer, muffler, (and I think a few more), so I started using the word silencer since that's what the ATF seems to call 'em (indigent, know it all gun shop employees aside).

When I was doing my research, numerous folks at the local PD had no idea what I was talking about when I referred to them as suppressors - when they asked me what that was, I said silencer - they then all knew what I was talking about.

Should a gun shop employee etc. try to correct me again, I'll simply inform them the ATF calls them silencers, so that's what I'm going with so we'll all be on the same page.

 

[Theohazard]

I musta called it a silencer, as I remember being berated by an indignant gun shop employee - it's a suppressor!
[...]
Should a gun shop employee etc. try to correct me again, I'll simply inform them the ATF calls them silencers, so that's what I'm going with so we'll all be on the same page.

Yeah, and show them the same picture that Sam1911 posted and then ask to deal with an employee who actually knows something about the products he's trying to sell you.

 

[bigfatdave]

They're a safety device.

If they were invented today, they'd be mandatory in CA/NY/IL/MA/CT next week.

Deregulate and encourage usage! Make it a reverse tax stamp, an ATF rebate for owning one!