Whats the real reason Class III is so expensive?

[bababooey32]

Freakshow - Thanks...You make many good points...

It also helps to ID the good guys on a SWAT event. If shots are being fired from suppressed weapons, it's most likely that's a good guy and not a bad guy

This one, however, is only valid if suppresors are not widely used. If Suppresors were widely used, as you advocate, LE could not be as certain that suppressed fire = friendly fire. It works now BECAUSE of the limited availability and use of suppresors.

In any case, I am not against having or using them, just curious as to their benefit. No muffs at the range would be great!

 

[freakshow10mm]

Even in the 31 states that allow suppressors, the criminals that commit shooting crimes don't use them. In interviews with professional assassins that I've read, not a single one of the 300 that were interviewed ever used a suppressor and thought it was actually stupid to use one.

People who are going to shoot and kill someone already do it without a suppressor. Having them in widespread use will not result in an increase in violence using suppressors. Most criminals will use something cheap like a maglight and washers or use a soda bottle (they suck by the way) and not a professionally made suppressor. Think of a suppressor as a carry permit. There is no blood running in the streets. The criminals who would carry a gun already do carry a gun and don't bother to get a permit. Criminals do what they want to do.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Criminals do what they want to do.

I wonder if criminals are paying $18,000 for select fire weapons like we have to... ones made before the registry closed.

I highly doubt it.

They are likely getting illegal shipments of newly manufactured guns brought in by dinghy from Cuba.

Its so much easier to own weapons when you are a criminal. That is the only thing that keeps me optimistic about this administration... if they make us all into criminals, we don't have to care about their rules anymore.


...

 

[Sam Adams]

Supply and demand. Due to breakage, supply is dwindling.

I thought that the purchase of replacement parts for full autos was allowed, so long as the original is actually destroyed (so as not to increase supply). What say any of you knowledgable about this?

 

[Trebor]

I thought that the purchase of replacement parts for full autos was allowed, so long as the original is actually destroyed (so as not to increase supply).

Not exactly.

For every NFA registered "machine gun" there is one part that according to the ATF *is* the machine-gun. And it's not always the receiver.

All the *other* parts can be replaced, but if that one, specific part that is legally the gun is damaged beyond repair, the MG is lost.

So, for example, if it's an UZI with a "registered receiver", which means the receiver is the legal MG,all the other parts can be replaced and the receiver can be repaired as long as possible.

But, if the receiver should ever be completely destroyed or somehow made unrepairable, that's it, that specific machine gun is GONE.

Now, obviously, owners go to great lengths to repair the registered part so repairs that wouldn't be practical or economically feasible on a semi-auto would be done on a registered MG.

But, ultimately, the registered part can only be repaired, not replaced.

This is more of a concern for owners of guns where a less durable part is he "registered" MG. A registered UZI bolt conversion or an registered AR auto-sear would both be *the MG* in those cases. If the autosear broke and was unrepairable, for instance, you couldn't build a new one to replace it.

Btw, my understanding is that at some point in the past building new gun with the same serial number for replacement purposes was allowed, but is not allowed any longer.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Btw, my understanding is that at some point in the past building new gun with the same serial number for replacement purposes was allowed, but is not allowed any longer.

No, that's still done, just not legally. Case in point, if your lightning link breaks and you get a new one with your name engraved, who could tell the difference? Is it legal, no, to most people, a piece of steel looks like a piece of steel.

 

[Yellowfin]

The single thing I regret more than anything else in moving from AL to CA is that I didn't know about civilian availability of suppressors early enough to buy some before moving. It's going to be quite a while before I get the chance again and I really hope it won't be too late.

 

[ida34]

The opinion that Cox made in reference to Machine Guns does seem to also apply to silencers. Cox formulated an opinion and being he is the one that would bring the charges it is a safe bet it would not be tested by a prosecution. If he does not think it is illegal then he would not prosecute the case. The other way to get this done is by a courts decision. Given the opinion by Cox on the Machine Gun issue is should be fairly easy to get a court to apply the same opinion to silencers. The problem is someone would have to step up to be charged with a violation to get a court to decide this. There may be a civil way to get a court ruling but non that I know of. A court ruling would also be more lasting for the long haul. I have read the law more than a couple of times and I agree that based on the law if machine guns are legal so would silencers based on Cox opinion.

 

[freakshow10mm]

You would think so but that isn't the case. In MI, the AGs official opinion is treated as case law and that is how the law is enforced and does actually hold legal weight. Since the opinion ruled only on machine guns and not suppressors, even though they are bound by the same exact statute, the opinion for machine guns does not apply to the suppressors in any way shape or form. That's why Cox only opined about suppressors. Which is stupid because the same requirements for an FFL or a Form 4 for machine guns is the same as a Form 1 or 4 for suppressors.