Suppressors Lack 2A Protection?

[dockmurgw]

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Seems like a elephant size contradiction, DOJ claiming suppressors lack 2A protection, but they are treated as worst of the worst NFA items. If the DOJ is correct, should they be delisted from NFA and treated as the tin cans that they are? But if they are treated that way, can they be banned at will because they are not protected by the 2A? Interesting dilemma.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...S&cvid=d87898af35d44eb39ce39c80fe175677&ei=17

 

[robertrwalsh]

Interesting conundrum.

 

[dockmurgw]

Interesting conundrum.

I'm thinking this falls under the category Catch 22

 

[A10]

Suppressors are a hearing protection device. Nothing more. But too many folks have watched too many TV shows, so there is a level of public opinion that follows no logic.

Lots of those folks feel like the US should be more like Europe. Countries over there require suppressors at shooting ranges. Go figure.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Some European countries require suppressors on hunting rifles as far as I know.

 

[robvious]

catcha 22... currently they are "ARMS"... just delisting isn't sufficient... any modifications will need to be carefully thought out, and will need to be superior to state level prohibitions..

 

[BB57]

The current bill coming out of committee, keeps suppressors as NFA items and maintains the application and registration process, but reduces the tax stamp fee to $0.

SBRs still have a $200 tax stamp fee.

Its unfortunate they are not also proposing SBRs have the same $0 fee, but its a significant step forward for suppressors.

And yet people are complaining as they are still an NFA item requiring registration. If we were still looking at 12-13 month waits I'd agree as it was a major barrier to buying one. But with approvals coming back in a day or two, its not a huge deal.

The alternative would be to pull them out of the NFA entirely, which of course runs the increased risk of classifying them as arms not covered by the second amendment and would make it even easier for states to ban them than is the case now.

Frankly, its in our interests to fight to have them considered "firearms" protected under the second amendment.

 

[s&wchad]

The current bill coming out of committee, keeps suppressors as NFA items and maintains the application and registration process, but reduces the tax stamp fee to $0.

It's a start...
The House can still amend the bill to remove supressors from the NFA. Here's the NRA's take: https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ns-advances-legislation-involving-suppressors

Contact your US Representative.

 

[BB57]

It's a start...
The House can still amend the bill to remove supressors from the NFA. Here's the NRA's take: https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ns-advances-legislation-involving-suppressors

Contact your US Representative.\

It's a start...
The House can still amend the bill to remove supressors from the NFA. Here's the NRA's take: https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ns-advances-legislation-involving-suppressors

Contact your US Representative.

I had a similar discussion about an hour ago. It's a start, it gets he door open and it can be expanded later.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Heard that SilencerCo heavily lobbied against the removal.....Would cut into their $$$$

 

[Blueandnickel]

It appears it might actually be Silencer Central.

Was it Silencer Central?

 

[dockmurgw]

I would love to see them delisted as NFA items. Some comments suggest removing the tax is a start, but I'm of the opinion that considering the climate today vs. what might be in two years, its now or never. Could be a generation or two before the stars align as they are now.

 

[dockmurgw]

From an email I received yesterday from Silencer Central:

Silencer Central has consistently and publicly stated our strong support for enactment of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). Additionally, we strongly support any viable legislative proposals which would enhance or expand the ability of our customers to exercise their constitutional right to purchase, possess, and legally use suppressors. We are not lobbying against the HPA.

 

[steelslaver]

Why would any company lobby against a bill that would greatly expand access to their product?
I don't have a can, not because of cost for a stamp but because it is to much of a pain in the rear

 

[ladder13]

GOA is claiming, allegedly, that suppressors are included in the House Bill removing them from NFA.
Looooooooooong way to go.

 

[Nedroe]

Guys at a local shop tell me they have had some can approvals in less than 2 days.
They say the average approval for an individual is a little less than 3 weeks, with approvals for trusts averaging about 8 weeks.

Much improved from just last year, & certainly way faster than 2 years ago or longer.

Ned

 

[Bald1]

GOA is claiming, allegedly, that suppressors are included in the House Bill removing them from NFA.
Looooooooooong way to go.

NRA reporting it too. Congress is begging Senate not to make any changes to bill. We’ll see

 

[Rodan]

Why would any company lobby against a bill that would greatly expand access to their product?
I don't have a can, not because of cost for a stamp but because it is to much of a pain in the rear

They (along with others like SilencerShop) have built their business model on providing the service of 'making the paperwork easy' to encourage consumers to buy through them. If there's no NFA process, the same product is easy to buy anywhere and they no longer have an edge in the marketplace. My local NFA FFL expressed similar sentiments: that he would be out a significant $$$ investment in SilencerShop Kiosk equipment if suppressors were removed from the NFA.

 

[venomballistics]

As last I heard, hearing protection act has passed the house, removing suppressors from the NFA.
Of course, the Senate can screw it up, but in the meantime ..... What just happened?

 

[JamesWP]

I hate that some people will lose money if this passes, but I also don’t care. My freedoms are more important.