Will suppressors ever be taken off the NFA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would they move suppressors off the NFA and lose $200?
Because in 1934 $200 was really something, but these days $200 can't begin to cover the manpower costs to process the paperwork. In other words, by doing this and taking in $200, they're undoubtedly going into the budgetary "red" on every form.
So what's stopping them from raising the fee above $200? If it's costing them money, it makes more sense to simply increase the fee than to eliminate the system altogether.

After watching the amazing changes of the last 20 years, I'll go ahead and say YES, definitely in my lifetime. Probably in the next 10-20 years.
Great! Let's get started; because I'm certainly never going to get into the NFA game, but it sure would be nice to own a suppressor.
 
AlexanderA said:
I think if the "forbidden fruit" aspect of suppressors was removed, they wouldn't be all that popular.
You've got it backwards; the NFA process turns a lot of people off and drastically lowers the rate of silencer ownership. I used to work at an SOT and many customers told me they'd love to buy a silencer, but the wait was what was stopping them. Also, the NFA process drives up prices, which also discourages silencer ownership.
AlexanderA said:
After all, they don't really "silence" a gun like you see in the movies.
Maybe not, but they still make a big enough difference that many people prefer shooting suppressed whenever possible. I know I do.
 
So what's stopping them from raising the fee above $200? If it's costing them money, it makes more sense to simply increase the fee than to eliminate the system altogether.

Because that fee is set by the text of the law, written in 1934. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5811)

To change it, they'd have to amend the law, and they really don't want to pop the hood on that. Better to let sleeping dogs lie than bring up the idea of altering the NFA. If they get to altering it, some folks just might want some bigger changes! ;)
 
A telling point about suppressors is that Europe, that bastion of gun banning bureaucrats, actually promotes the use of suppressed firearms for shooting sports and hunting.

No, a suppressor will NEVER work like Hollywierd promotes. There will always be some discharge noise, especially if standard ammunition is used. Besides, after nearly a century of suppressed revolvers that make a strange, subdued, sound, that image is buried in our collective psyche.

Georgia just recently legalized the use of suppressed weapons in hunting on private property. Under that law ANY caliber, or weapon legal for hunting of that species, may be suppressed on private property.

Perhaps we're seeing cracks in the wall of suppressor myth and misinformation.
 
I sure hope so man we should start a whitehouse.gov petition.:D


Get the joke. However, even a Republican President could do absolutely nothing.

This has to come from Congress. The President has much less power than most people think. His biggest power is the veto. Executive orders are extremely limited.
 
From an observation standpoint..

It doesn't seem to me that most shooters are as concerned about the fee than the wait.

As a wrench in the argument.. Keep the tax, drop it from NFA, and have it be an over the counter transaction? I know many shooters who would love to start getting into suppressed shooting, but are deterred by a 10+ month wait. As it has been said, these items are more of an "in the red" tax item than a "green". Drop the wait, the extra expenses tied with doing something that could be accomplished via a background check, and use the profits to actually benefit our country?
 
Well most of government runs on tax dollars and doesn't generate any profit to balance its expenditures when it offers goods, services, or generates red tape. The poor USPS wants to balance its books and Congress won't let them.

It makes me curious if enough pressure and demand from states will ever open up the can of worms that is the NFA. Our state now allows use of suppressors and SBRs. This happened within the last 5 years or so in a liberal, Democrat-run government. The SBR bill only has three no votes and 150ish yes votes through the house and committee.

In general the trend seems to suggest most states seem to be loosening gun laws, with some exceptions.
 
The idea that only money keeps those items in the NFA is silly. A government trillions of dollars in the hole doesn't care about a few dollars in transfer taxes for NFA items; that money doesn't even cover the cost of running BATFE.

But there is NO WAY the law will be changed to remove anything like suppressors or 20mm cannon. And it would involve a change in the law; it is not a BATFE decision, like adding to the C&R list.

Can you imagine any congressman or senator voting to remove limitations on making and selling suppressors? Those evil, un-American, nasty, terrorist assassination devices, used only to kill innocent people..... You can fill in the rest.

Not going to happen. And if the President could have his way, he would probably add all rifles, handguns and repeating shotguns to the ban and confiscation list. Maybe he would let us keep double barrel shotguns, but that would be unlikely.

Jim
 
Can you imagine any congressman or senator voting to remove limitations on making and selling suppressors?

I happen to believe that Tip O'Neill was right All politics is local, as more States allow suppressors for hunting will their constituents accept the BS red tape from .gov? I know I wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
I hope so, but doubt it. Suppressors are definitely more common now, and most serious gun owners I know either own one (or more), are waiting for one, or want one. They have some REALLY big advantages for everyone (not just gun owners). For example:

1) They make hunting without hearing protection more hearing safe.

2) They create less conflict with neighboring landowners who don't like the noise of guns.

3) They are really nice for new shooters who aren't very confident with guns.


However, there are some things that I think will overshadow the advantages of suppressor ownership in the court of public opinion:

1) Many gun owners still regard them as a tool of the "bad guys". I even had an older gun owner I know make a snarky remark when he found out that I was waiting for a Form 4 to clear for a suppressor. It went something like: "oh, so I guess I have to worry about you doing some grassy knoll crap now, eh?"

2) The Democrats will NEVER vote for this in Congress, and a Democrat president will never sign such a bill. Simply put, it goes against the party line. As such, this debate won't even matter unless we have a Republican controlled congress (both House and Senate) as well as a Republican president. That doesn't seem likely in the near future, especially with some of the choices being ran for office on the Republican side of things these days.

3) The media would have an absolutely field day with this issue. They love a good controversy, and will certainly create one where none is to be found. Roughly 2/3's of Americans do not own guns, and many know nothing of suppressors beyond what they see in the movies. As such, a catchy news article (along with the help of all of the well-funded anti-gun groups) will probably keep this issue from becoming popular on a truly majority basis.




Picture the hypothetical article now:

"SILENT GUNS: THE NEW THREAT FACING AMERICA

Congress is currently considering a measure that would legalize all firearm silencers. The tubular metal devices were once only seen as a tool of assassins and spies, but soon may be available in stores everywhere. As concerns over mass shootings continue to grow in this country, many opponents of this measure fear that it will only lead to more bloodshed within our communities.

Bob Bleeding-Heart, a spokesperson for IAF (Idiots Against Firearms), spoke to Channel 6 Skews tonight regarding this issue.

Mr. Bleeding-Heart, do you believe that the change in this law is something that the average American really needs to be concerned about?

Absolutely! Imagine the carnage that could be inflicted by a killer with an assault weapon who could move quietly through a mall or a school with a SILENT weapon! People will be dying because they won't even be able to hear the sound of gun fire and know that it is time to run for safety. There's absolutely no reason that these tools of assassins belong on the streets of American cities. The NRA has manipulated America for too long, and the blood of our children will be on their hands. We must oppose this measure, for the sake of our children, and our children's children!

But, is it true that these devices make firearms silent?

Absolutely! They wouldn't be called "silencers" if they didn't. Can you imagine how dangerous a killer could be if they were executing innocent children just a few feet away from police officers who didn't even know that the gun was being fired???!!!

This is a truly absurd bill, and we'll oppose it at any cost, and hold all of those who support this measure accountable for the lives they'll cost. It isn't worth the life of even one child!

Blah, Blah, Blah, lies, lies, lies… half-truth, exaggeration, and false statistics… talk of blood, etc.
"


Anyway, you guys get the point. It would probably go something like that. And although such an article would churn the stomach of anyone who actually knows anything about these devices, it will still probably prevent most politicians from voting in favor of deregulation.
 
Many gun owners still regard them as a tool of the "bad guys".

The Democrats will NEVER vote for this in Congress, and a Democrat president will never sign such a bill. Simply put, it goes against the party line.

The media would have an absolutely field day with this issue. They love a good controversy, and will certainly create one where none is to be found. Roughly 2/3's of Americans do not own guns, and many know nothing of suppressors beyond what they see in the movies. As such, a catchy news article (along with the help of all of the well-funded anti-gun groups) will probably keep this issue from becoming popular on a truly majority basis.

I wonder how the anti's (and the other critics) will respond when the fact is bought out that silencers are not only used but highly encouraged in other countries.

Here is my idea, get some video of silencers being used in other countries. Put all the videos in a compilation and And then let THAT be the centerpiece for changing the silencer laws in THIS country.

Hell, the anti's are always comparing other gun laws countries laws to ours. So lets do the same with the laws regarding silencers and call them out on it.

.
 
I'd be pushing for transferring them with a NICS check. Even if you still had to pay the $200 transfer tax, the speed improvement would be a tremendous help. Especially since I would not want to try to defend the current 10-12 month NFA wait in court.

When I bought my HK45, I didn't get the Tactical model, even though it had the trigger I preferred, because I didn't want to open the can of worms the threaded barrel would bring. The real deterrent was the wait time after I'd already have paid for a can. No telling I wouldn't have moved on to another gun by the time it was approved a year plus later.
 
I wonder how the anti's (and the other critics) will respond when the fact is bought out that silencers are not only used but highly encouraged in other countries.

Here is my idea, get some video of silencers being used in other countries. Put all the videos in a compilation and And then let THAT be the centerpiece for changing the silencer laws in THIS country.

Hell, the anti's are always comparing other gun laws countries laws to ours. So lets do the same with the laws regarding silencers and call them out on it.

.
You're forgetting that liberals don't give a whit about facts or logic, only emotions. And they won't FEEL like it's a good idea.
 
"Liberals" don't corner the market on emotion-based and/or irrational decisions. And deriding liberal folks that way is a poor way of changing anyone's mind.
 
Don't be so pessimistic. It was pretty surprising when the AWB was not reauthorized in 2004. The backlash was pretty impotent too.

Mike
 
"...was for 'poaching' concerns..." Sounds like typical government 'sales' BS to me. Our lot decided the favourite firearm of criminals were .25 and .32 calibre handguns along with anything with an under 4" barrel. Now, those are illegal to possess without a special permit that is no longer issued.
Criminals carry stolen or illegally imported large capacity 9mm's or bigger. They equate the size of their illegal firearm with their manhood and don't care if a particular firearm or device is illegal or not.
Mind you, I don't buy the hearing protection sales pitch either. Shooting a rifle outside while hunting has never bothered my hearing. Nor is there anywhere in North America with the population density of Europe.
"...What's needed is a root-and-branch reform of the NFA..." What you really need is a root and branch reform of the ATF. Stopping a government agency from making law by regulation. Worse that they've exported that to here.
 
Yes, provided people here stop being so pessimistic, and actually work to make it happen, yes! we could do that! Heck, maybe we could have people just pay the tax, and have the stamp approved, at the POS, rather than wait forever, for paperwork, that should be digitized.
 
Spot on coloradokevin, are you sure you don't write opinion pieces for Chicken Noodle Nooz? It seems like every other time I pull up that site there is an article that follows pretty much that exact format and tone.

I'd love for suppressors to come off of the NFA, but I really don't see a viable route to get from here to there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top