What's the chance of suppressors/silencers coming off of Class 3 Status?

[usmarine0352_2005]

Apparently this is on the agenda of the gun lobby. It would be nice to not have to jump through all of these hoops. Side note, I didn't realize that Maxim invented the car muffler and suppressor, that's a cool fact.




And I was wondering how the heck do you get the serial # of the suppressor you're going to purchase if you aren't allowed to purchase it yet?








https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...sors-became-legal-minnesota-barely-any-debate

How gun 'suppressors' became legal in Minnesota — with barely any debate

By Doug Grow | 10:29 am

Court rulings and changes in law have gutted much of the Firearms Act of 1934, but to this day silencers still are a Class 3 implement, meaning they are subject to strict federal regulation, special taxes and stiff fines and prison sentences for illegal possession. (Dumping the Class 3 designation on silencers is another item on the agenda of the gun lobby.)

Anderson, who sometimes carries a weapon to the Capitol, says that he intends to buy silencers for some of his guns. He outlined the process he’ll have to go through: He’ll have to get approval from the Cass County sheriff; pass a state background check; apply to the federal government to possess the silencer, sending $200 along with his application (which needs to include the serial number of the silencer he intends to purchase); go through a federal background check that might take months; and finally, make the purchase of an item that is fairly pricey (upwards of $700).

“It’s ludicrous that we have to go through all of this at the federal level,” Anderson said. “This is an item you should be able to walk into a store and just purchase. We need to work on the federal law. But still, this is a pretty big step.”

 

[LocoGringo]

You purchase it first, then you get the serial number to submit the paperwork. Basically, in a nutshell, you buy the suppressor first, then you petition the Federal Government to possess it. If the government denies you possession, you have to sell it (after an appeal, if you wish). The article kind of got the order wrong. While the months long investigation into your background and the local laws is progressing, the suppressor (or any NFA item) is in limbo, and it is held by the entity that is legally in possession of the item.

The chances of them coming off of NFA are slim and none...there just isn't enough political clout behind the movement...yet. Hopefully, as they become more mainstream and more people realize they 1) aren't illegal, 2)aren't "evil" and 3)are HIGHLY useful, they will gain a greater following to gather enough political clout to change the law. But you've got to remember, the government is getting $200 every time a suppressor is purchased, so how likely is it that the government will give up that revenue stream?

 

[Midwest]

What's the chance of suppressors/silencers coming off of Class 3 Status?

Wouldn't it take an act of Congress to have suppressors come out from under NFA Regulations? But lets say suppressors did come off of the NFA list, but would anything change as far as the states would go?

Would suppressors be considered then as a regular firearm and just need a regular background check? Would you have to be 21 or 18? I think if you live in any of the states that allow them now. You would just go to your local gun store and buy it. Even then, it isn't a firearm. It is an firearm accessory.

So could it come off the NFA list? Anything is possible.
.

 

[LocoGringo]

^^^
Yes, it literally would take an act of Congress to change the law. Then there would probably be a time of confusion for the states to fall in line and figure out where suppressors belong on the spectrum of "weapons" and modify legality. It would probably lead to a big mess where states have limited or eliminated legal possession of a suppressor. The courts would DEFININTELY get involved and it would have to be sorted out through the legal process.

 

[hso]

Gotta change NFA and that ain't happen'.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

Slim to no chance IMHO, for several reasons but mainly that the government is collecting a tax via tax stamps from you to own it.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."- Milton Friedman

 

[JSH1]

No one is currently working to remove suppressors from the list of class III firearms. Even the new suppressor lobby American Suppressor Association doesn't list removal from NFA as one of their goals. Right now the focus is to allow suppressor sales in states that ban them and to allow them for hunting.

 

[hamp sandwich]

I was always under the impression that items are more likely to be added, not removed, from the NFA list. My highest hope would be that they relaxed fees or repealed the 86 decision, but I'm sure that is wishful thinking at this point. It's fun to dream though, right?
On the plus side, it's refreshing to see so many getting into NFA items. In turn, that could solidify the existence of such items.

 

[Archie]

Yes, it will require Congress passing a bill (saying so) and the current President signing it. The current (2015) President will NOT sign such a bill. Congress might and might not pass such a bill; it sort of depends. Do NOT hold your breath.

Getting more states to approve ownership, possession and use them for hunting (noise pollution) is possible. This will also make them appear more 'mainstream' and allow more people to become accustomed to them. This will make the Federal change easier and more likely (but not guaranteed).

If anyone reading this wants this to happen - or even loosen up - NEVER VOTE FOR A Democrat! Bernie Sanders is close enough to not vote for him, either. For that matter, be careful of which Republicans one supports. Some are pretty wishy-washy on gun rights.

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't know. I wouldn't have bet on some of the positive changes we've had over the past few years.

But: if there was an organization that prioritized removing silencers from NFA regulation, and worked towards it with the same sort of fervor as the knife rights groups have demonstrated in rolling back state anti-switchblade laws, I would join and support.

The NFA in general is a bad idea, but the idea of putting hearing protection under such a heavy burden? A sane government would be more likely to require sound reduction technology on firearms than restrict it.

 

[Midwest]

No one is currently working to remove suppressors from the list of class III firearms. Even the new suppressor lobby American Suppressor Association doesn't list removal from NFA as one of their goals. Right now the focus is to allow suppressor sales in states that ban them and to allow them for hunting.

This is the best strategy for now until suppressors become more mainstream.

I just read another article here on THR about legislation to allow suppressors in Vermont.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=782752&p=9943514#post9943514

So we are winning state by state. Get more states on board and enough people using them and maybe the NFA can be changed ......someday.

It should not be restricted, it isn't a firearm. It is an accessory for use in firearms, in reality it is a safety device to help protect hearing.
.

 

[dmxx9900]

I see no NFA items removed anytime soon but suppressors will become legal in more states. And I see NFA items being able to be purchased by individuals ,wait for stamp and pick up without needing CLEO signature or having to get a trust in the near future.

 

[denton]

Easy: Turn firearms regulation over to OSHA. Suppressors would soon be mandatory.

 

[wally]

Easy: Turn firearms regulation over to OSHA. Suppressors would soon be mandatory.

Really bad idea, lead ammo would be banned and all shooting ranges turned into super-fund toxic waste sites!

 

[TanklessPro]

Some may not like what I say,but it needs to be said.
The best way to gain freedoms back is the same way we lost them, a little at a time. Step one would be to eliminate the wait time using the NICS check, but keep the tax stamp. Then as time passes eliminate the tax on the grounds that it is not a firearm.

 

[R.W.Dale]

IMO we need to use the EPA to our advantage here and frame this as reducing environmental noise pollution.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

There are places in Europe--England, France and Finland come to mind--where they do not understand why America has supressors in "gangster weapon" status.

I remember a posting by a rural Brit who said his local constables advised him to get a suppressor for his garden gun out of courtesy to his neighbors and to eliminate having to respond unncessary gunshot complaints when he shot pests in his garden. Basically in a lot of Europe--maybe the rest of the world--if you can own a gun, you can buy a suppressor as an accessory w/o paperwork.

(Yes, the Form 1 and Form 4 term is legally "silencer".)

 

[R.W.Dale]

If I have my history straight suppressors weren't put on the NFA due to an organized crime angle. But rather as an anti poaching measure at the height of the Great Depression.

 

[Lord Teapot]

0% imo

 

[USAF_Vet]

It'll take an amendment to NFA to remove suppressors. The issue with that is opening the NFA for amendments can work for us, or against us. Sure, we may get suppressors off NFA, but as a "compromise" we may lose semi auto rifles or rifle caliber handguns to it.

I don't know if SCOTUS can rule that portion of NFA unconstitutional or invalid based on the fact that suppressors don't fit the definition of a firearm, but it'll take a test case to get to SCOTUS for the ruling. Our last major 2A ruling was close enough, it could easily go against us due to Hollywood bias.


Bit by bit, more and more states are allowing suppressors. Mine allows them, but not for hunting yet.

It'd be nice to see them regulated to non-firearm status, sold over the counter with no restrictions just like they were prior to 1934. Demand goes up, supply follows, hopefully the price lowers.

 

[coloradokevin]

Gun laws rarely move in a pro-gun direction. Most of the time it seems like we're adding more restrictive laws, not reducing restrictions. Naturally, there are exceptions to this rule.

But, suppressors are probably used by less than 3% of all the shooters I've ever known (and I know a LOT). There isn't a lot of lobbying power in favor of suppressor ownership, even though it makes a ton of sense for people to use them for noise abatement, hearing protection, etc.

If such a bill went before congress there would be a huge push from the liberal left to demonstrate the alleged dangers of these 'tools of assassins'. It's asinine, of course, but that's probably the card they'd play.

Instead, we'll all continue to pay our $200 stamp to the government, while waiting and waiting for the government to give us the privilege of enjoying one of our inalienable rights. Fun, isn't it?

 

[JSH1]

Gun laws rarely move in a pro-gun direction. Most of the time it seems like we're adding more restrictive laws, not reducing restrictions. Naturally, there are exceptions to this rule.

In my lifetime the tide has definitely turned towards the pro-gun / less restrictive side of the equation especially at the federal level.

As to lobbying power; where is the NRA?

 

[Midwest]

If I have my history straight suppressors weren't put on the NFA due to an organized crime angle. But rather as an anti poaching measure at the height of the Great Depression.

Since the individual states now specifically address suppressors/silencers for hunting. And since the Great Depression has long been over and poaching issues are now effectively dealt with by State Game Wardens the issue has now been resolved in the 80 years since the law was enacted.

And since many states now allow suppressors/silencers for hunting in one form or another, any need any Federal restrictions on suppressors/silencers is outdatedand should be removed from the NFA.

Furthermore, since suppressors/silencers are not a firearm, but just an accessory like a stock or a scope. It should not be regulated by the 1968 GCA or ITAR either. Since it is just a firearm accessory, a safety device to protect hearing. There should be no restrictions on it's sale.

Those are the arguments I would suggest using for legislation to take suppressors/silencers off the NFA list.
.

 

[Ed Ames]

If you want to see opposition agitprop circa 2013: http://www.motherjones.com/politics...on-wants-states-legalize-silencers-supressors

 

[HexHead]

They shouldn't be treated any differently than a scope. At the very least, change their status to AOW, with it's $5 tax stamp.