Would you support a suppressor compromise...?

[berettaprofessor]

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.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

 

[Baron_Null]

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.

 

[wally]

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!

 

[fastbolt]

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.

 

[Walkalong]

Absolutely not, but I understand the frustration.

 

[MErl]

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.

 

[Outlaw Man]

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.

 

[Justin]

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

 

[Arizona_Mike]

"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

 

[mooner]

I think Justin nailed the only compromise that I would be willing to make.

 

[CoRoMo]

Would you allow your daughter to be raped as long as your wife was left alone?

Nope.

 

[wally]

I think Justin nailed the only compromise that I would be willing to make.

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.

 

[Old Dog]

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.

 

[Zardaia]

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.

 

[MinnesotaFats]

i would love a suppressor, but we need to stand up as gunowners a not give up a damn thing. ridiculous trade anyways.

 

[GJSchulze]

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.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

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.

 

[Midwest]

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.

 

[grimjaw]

Ditto to #9, Justin's suggestion; especially since in countries with more restrictive legislation, suppressors are more widely available with less red tape.

 

[Akita1]

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

Echo that. Paying so much for something and waiting a year for it is getting old fast.

 

[wow6599]

No. I live in America...........

 

[evan price]

Howdabout they repeal NFA-34, then we talk compromise.

 

[Akita1]

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!

 

[AlexanderA]

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.