Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would you support a suppressor compromise...?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by berettaprofessor, Oct 15, 2013.

?

Would you support unrestricted suppressors for universal background checks?

Poll closed Oct 30, 2013.
  1. Yes, I'd face universal NICS checks if I could purchase a suppressor in Walmart

    35 vote(s)
    20.6%
  2. No, it's a bad idea (and please post why below).

    135 vote(s)
    79.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. berettaprofessor

    berettaprofessor Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Kansas
    Fellow THRer's, I understand and count myself with the no-compromise faction, knowing that the lessons of 1934, 1968, and 1986 are that gun supporters always lose in a "compromise."

    But I've been driven by a pet peeve lately, namely the restrictions on suppressors here in the US. Which makes me wonder how many would support the following deal (and for those who wouldn't, please state why so I can learn from you):

    Yes or no...would you support a deal that traded over-the-counter availability of suppressors, no restrictions, and no waiting periods, for the "universal" background checks the gun control crowd wants?

    I want to be able to buy additional suppressors without tax stamps and 6 month waiting periods, even if it meant that every purchase, personal or gun show or FFL, had to go through a NICS check as it now exists. And I'd especially go for it if, as an alternative to a NICS check, the buyer just had to show evidence of a background check within the past 5 years; of course, I'm from a state where I merely show my valid CCW and the NICS check is waived. That deal, if done correctly, wouldn't lead to registration and in fact, if it all fell under a valid CCW that most of us had, wouldn't even enable illicit keeping of NICS records. Right now I'm a yes. What do you say? And if I'm wrong, tell me why.
     
  2. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't think that is a good deal for RKBA unless you totally rewrite the system of background checks to do away with the underlying 1968 GCA structure they use. Suppressors are just not so useful that I would want the government to have a list of who owns every gun in the U.S.
     
  3. Baron_Null

    Baron_Null Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    210
    To me, making suppressors unrestricted while making UBCs law is a tiny step forward and a massive step back.

    Personally, I really don't like the idea of giving up a right in order to gain another.
     
  4. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,352
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    More divide and conquer anti-strategy.

    Suppressors are already banned in a lot of states and this does nothing to change things in those states.

    At the end of the day the $200 tax in states where they are legal is not the problem, its the 9+ month wait!

    Now if it was re-opening the machine gun registry it'd be different! :)

    Universal background checks will drive up the cost of guns and make the process even more cumbersome. If voterID is too much for them, universial background checks should surely be too much for us!
     
  5. fastbolt

    fastbolt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,644
    Location:
    Within the lightning
    You're dreaming. Bored?

    Why on Earth would the sale/possession of suppressors ever be linked to negotiating universal background checks? (Outside of your personal dream and desire to own suppressors, at any rate. ;) )

    You really expect some group of politicians would ever even remotely consider undoing some older, established law just to obtain an agreement on "universal background checks"? Even if the feds were to consider undoing some previous law, any number of states are going to keep their statures regarding them.

    They have the one, and they're eventually going to get the other one in some form or another.
     
  6. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    46,727
    Location:
    Alabama
    Absolutely not, but I understand the frustration. :)
     
  7. MErl

    MErl Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,283
    At least the question is a real compromise instead of the "We'll take half of what we initially wanted to take, see we compromised."

    I'd counter with fully repeal NFA and AWB nonsense in exchange for UBC. Use Federal preemption to invalidate all state level bans, allow ownership and sale of any/all firearms (and mags of course, no evil features lists).

    That trade I'd take for UBC.
     
  8. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Cleaning my guns.
    Would I trade? No.

    Would I consider us better off if the series of events and legislation had led us to that instead of what we have now? Maybe.

    I wholeheartedly agree suppressors should be available for completely unrestricted, over-the-counter sales. I also don't think I should have to pay a dealer to run a background check on my Dad before I give him a gun.
     
  9. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Here's the compromise I would like to see.

    Suppressors should be available as a cash-and carry purchase.

    I'm willing to compromise on a solution that treats buying a can like buying a pistol.

    In other words, you fill out a 4473 and do a background check to get a can rather than having to go through the NFA process.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4
     
  10. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,283
    "Universal background checks" would violate federalism. The Federal government has no right to regulate private non-commercial resale whether it is guns, cars, books, clothes, etc.

    Mike
     
  11. mooner

    mooner Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    I think Justin nailed the only compromise that I would be willing to make.
     
  12. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,940
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    Would you allow your daughter to be raped as long as your wife was left alone?

    Nope.
     
  13. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,352
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Doesn't do anything for states that already ban suppressors. Like I said, it would be a divide and conquer gambit

    MErl's idea would really get something in exchanging for giving up something, but its a pipe dream.
     
  14. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,588
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    I simply believe that at this point, we should give up nothing.

    There are ALWAYS unintended consequences, almost always bad, whenever new regulation is devised.
     
  15. Zardaia

    Zardaia Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    222
    Gain an inch and lose a mile. Plus, a few years after they become non-nfa there'll be some big crime or series of crimes commited with them and they'll either go back to nfa or outlawed altogether, but the UBC's will stay.
     
  16. MinnesotaFats

    MinnesotaFats Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Messages:
    247
    Location:
    The Land of 11,842 Lakes
    i would love a suppressor, but we need to stand up as gunowners a not give up a damn thing. ridiculous trade anyways.
     
  17. GJSchulze

    GJSchulze Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Messages:
    419
    The only way I would consider a trade for UBC would be for national reciprocity and a method of background check that would ensure no record keeping.

    Give up something that affects us all just so a few people can have a suppressor? That's pretty selfish thinking.
     
  18. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,390
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    NO!
    Universal background checks would effect WAY more people than the current rules on suppressors do. People who use suppressors are a minority in the gun community. Now this doesn't make it okay to restrict their rights, I'm not saying that. But we shouldn't agree to making it harder on the majority so a small percentage can get some benefit. That's not a win in our cause as far as the big picture is concerned. I certainly wish that suppressors were more easily attained but I think the scenario you asked about would be a step backwards for the majority of gun owners.

    I would certainly support what Justin mentioned because that makes it less restrictive without subjecting the others to stricter regulations.
     
  19. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,542
    Location:
    Kentucky
    No way to Universal NICS Background Checks under ANY circumstances.


    Suppressors aren't even a firearm. IMO they should not even be considered an NFA item much less need a background check. It was made an NFA item because of a possible problem of 'poaching' during the depression. Poaching laws are usually enforced by the Game Warden not the Feds.
     
  20. grimjaw

    grimjaw Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,358
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ditto to #9, Justin's suggestion; especially since in countries with more restrictive legislation, suppressors are more widely available with less red tape.
     
  21. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    856
    Location:
    Hell (FL)
    Echo that. Paying so much for something and waiting a year for it is getting old fast.
     
  22. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    No. I live in America...........
     
  23. evan price

    evan price Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,476
    Location:
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    Howdabout they repeal NFA-34, then we talk compromise.
     
  24. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    856
    Location:
    Hell (FL)
    All - I get our tried and true slippery slope and RKBA arguments but we already get the anal probe when filing a Form 1, 4, etc. for this type of item. Is there an "on the ground today" practical argument against the logistics of the suggestion? Having trouble coming up with one so please enlighten me!
     
  25. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Location:
    Virginia
    Why single out suppressors? I've owned suppressors in the past, and as far as I'm concerned, they're no big deal. They don't "silence" a weapon like in the movies. They might have specific uses, but these don't particularly have mainstream appeal.

    Repeal the entire NFA -- or at least reopen the machine gun registry -- and I might be willing to listen to such a "compromise."

    Of course such a thing would never happen. To the antis, gun control is a one-way street. They'll never agree to anything that helps gun owners, even a little bit.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page