Remove suppressors as an NFA regulated item

[Maximumbob54]

This may merely be a petition but I would like to believe that all changes start as something small and like a snowball rolling down a hill in time become something bigger. It is my personal opinion that the use of firearms sound suppressors (silencers) has been made into a taboo object more by Hollywood and is less recognized as the tool that they really are. As a petition this is supposed to be reviewed by the current administration if it meets the signature threshold listed. The website will ask you to use an email address to verify you as a person and not a bot. Again personally I like to keep a few email addresses and one for just these sort of things. Below is a quote of the body of the petition:

"Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item would eliminate the $200 tax stamp, eliminate legality and travel issues between states, reduce hearing safety concerns related to discharging firearms, and would help people be courteous neighbors when discharging firearms."

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-suppressors-nfa-regulated-item/wVgXbqP8

If you would like to read more about the petition process then the homepage is listed below:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

I admit this is half about getting the word out about this, but the other half is I would like other points of view on this. As I said above I have never thought of sound suppressors as a nefarious device used only by assassins or military black ops types. Most of them unless they are very well made (read that as expensive) aren't even all that quiet. They certainly reduce the amount of noise but if the only time you have heard one in use is from a movie then you are falling for a foley artist's opinion of how the director wants the movie to sound. More often than not the firearm itself still had quite a bit of noise from the cycling of the action and if the cartridge used is not subsonic then there is still the loud crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier in flight. More, directions for them usually admit you should still wear proper hearing protection. Yes, some of them can be very quiet with the right ammunition choice and some actions are inherently quiet in the first place.

I had to look for a bit to find it but American Rifleman had a pretty good article on suppressor basics including if they are legal in your area how to obtain one. I know they are legal here in Florida but the red tape and costs involved have so far had me avoid them. The months long wait time involved alone is enough to sour my desire to file for one. Either way it is a good read worthy of at least skimming as it does inform the reader of this useful tool.

Sound Suppressors 101 - American Rifleman

Bottom line, you only get one set of ears in this life and usually hearing damage even in this day and age of medical marvel is still permanent loss. The less demonizing of suppressors could eventually lead to less of a loss of hearing by hunters and daily range shooters. I have no personal first hand knowledge of this but I've read that several foreign countries actually encourage the use of suppressors in order to not break noise ordinance rules or irritate others in the community. But all of that is just my perspective. Last, if I am incorrect in any of my thoughts then please correct me.

If you care to join in the petition then kudos, if not then it is still worth a thought at least. Sound off on your feelings about the matter!

 

[JohnSW]

The upside of unsuppressed gun shots: In urban/suburban areas, they alert people to the fact that bad guys are being very bad. Some cities even have gunshot detection systems, that automatically show the location of the gunshot.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Now that's what I'm talking about. I hadn't heard of that. Interesting to learn about and I will be looking that up for more info.

 

[Bkreutz]

Man if I lived in a city that had enough shootings to warrant buying a "gunshot detections system", I think I'd be looking for another place to live.

 

[EvilBetty]

The upside of unsuppressed gun shots: In urban/suburban areas, they alert people to the fact that bad guys are being very bad. Some cities even have gunshot detection systems, that automatically show the location of the gunshot.

The problem with this is that suppressors are very rarely used in crimes today, even less so than those awful semi-automatic rifles.

Obviously some of this is due to the availability of these devices.

But more largely it's the price and size of these devices. I don't have a current link, but most guns recovered from criminals are old and cheap, and above all else, small and concealable. Having a 6-8" suppressor that costs more than the gun isn't going to be an option for your common criminal.

I would imagine that if a criminal was acting preemptively and was serious enough about shooting covertly, they'd just make a cheap improvised suppressor (AutoZone? ) As with most things, criminals don't care about laws. This law only affects the law abiding.

 

[blujax01]

I have to wonder how many criminal types go to the time and expense of retrofitting their guns with threaded barrels? Other than this guy, I mean.

 

[WR Moore]

In some countries, the use of suppressors in training is considered a safety/industrial health issue. That viewpoint is gaining traction in some circles here.

BTW, the belief that the bad guys only use cheap *** firearms is mistaken. The average quality has gone up over the years.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think easing of NFA restrictions will eventually come as popularity increases. I read that more suppressors have been sold in the last few years than since the NFA was put into effect 80 years ago. If that trend continues we will see restrictions ease.

Some things are moving in the right direction. The NRA has changed their posture from being hostile towards suppressors to more of an out-of-the-closet pro-suppressor position, but I think suppressor ownership will have to increase a lot more before the NRA is willing to put much effort behind it. The NRA has remained relatively silent about the absurd wait times for a tax stamp. I would have thought that having to wait up to a year for a tax stamp would have been a good gateway to expose the ridiculousness of it all on a national level... but apparently not worth the NRA's time/effort to make substantial noise about it, at least none that I have heard. A couple states have recently changed their laws to allow suppressed hunting, and one or two of the few remaining states that don't allow suppressor ownership have changed their laws too. So little by little things are moving in the right direction. On the flip side, I was recently chatting with a member of the largest gun rights groups in MA. I asked what efforts the group was involved in to help secure the right of suppressor ownership for the good people of MA. Nothing. Was told it isn't the right time. As far as I can tell the group has done nothing in the past 40 years. That's not necessarily a criticism, but rather an indicator of interest among many gun owners and gun rights groups. That said, I will no longer do business with MA manufacturers. Plenty of manufactures in states that find such freedoms worthy.

Increased ownership/popularity is the key. If you don't own a can, get one. If you already have one, buy another. I have taken my own advice.

 

[jag312]

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but the reality is that the chance of silencers or suppressors being removed from the NFA is close to zero. Does anyone really think that Congress will pass a Bill to remove them and that the President will sign that Bill?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Living in California it may not seem like it, but most of the country is generally moving forward with a pro-gun agenda. Heck, who would have thunk this president would have signed legislation allowing to carry loaded guns in national parks?

I agree that anything with suppressors in the near future is unlikely. But when Illinois started issuing carry permits I looked out the window for flying pigs. Never say never.

 

[Road Rat]

Suppressors should definitely be made legal for all.

Look at all the good things that would happen to EARS in the future. No more "Huh?" generation!!!

I believe Britain makes them mandatory - even for hunting. Good job on their part!!

 

[tcook90]

I doubt it will happen, only because I doubt the gov't would give up the revenue stream.

I admit, I'm a little cynical.

 

[jag312]

I would be concerned that if a Bill is introduced in Washington to remove silencers from the NFA, the anti-gunners would add an amendment to increase the transfer tax on other NFA firearms to $2,000 or more. Look back to what happened in 1986.

 

[Smitty357]

The law works too good the way we gave it now. I wouldn't complain over a $200 tax stamp and draw attention to this. Out of sight equals out of mind. The antis aren't even looking at NFA items at the moment. So let's just all hush, keep quiet, and pay our $200 when needs be.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

 

[Quick10]

The law works too good the way we gave it now. I wouldn't complain over a $200 tax stamp and draw attention to this. Out of sight equals out of mind. The antis aren't even looking at NFA items at the moment. So let's just all hush, keep quiet, and pay our $200 when needs be.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

No, it's quite broken. The fact that I have to fill out extra paperwork and pay extra tax on an item is burdonsome and should be removed. It's an infringement in my opinion.

 

[Smitty357]

So why stop with just removing suppressors if u think its an infringment. For that matter the whole NFA of 1934 is an infringement.

But u don't hear anyone complaining that they can't own a MG without a tax stamp. Unless of course they pay well into and past the 10k price range for a register able one.

Arguing over suppressors is a pointless argument if u don't in fact argue over the whole thing.

 

[italiansport]

I think one point is being overlooked here in that suppressors are very useful to those inclined to engage in poaching. If this effort ever comes to the general publics attention I expect a hue and outcry from the left, PETA ,The Sierra Club etc. that there'll be "blood running in the woods" if these are made readily obtainable.
Jim

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The law works too good the way we gave it now. I wouldn't complain over a $200 tax stamp and draw attention to this. Out of sight equals out of mind. The antis aren't even looking at NFA items at the moment. So let's just all hush, keep quiet, and pay our $200 when needs be.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

I personally know a lot of folks with suppressors. I have never heard any of them express such sentiments. To the contrary, everyone I know who has a can or is waiting up to a year or more and paying a $200 tax has the opposite sentiments.

How many suppressors do you own?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

So why stop with just removing suppressors if u think its an infringment. For that matter the whole NFA of 1934 is an infringement.

But u don't hear anyone complaining that they can't own a MG without a tax stamp. Unless of course they pay well into and past the 10k price range for a register able one.

Arguing over suppressors is a pointless argument if u don't in fact argue over the whole thing.

The pro-gun movement in America has been quite successful with an incremental approach to repealing 2A infringements over the past quarter century, not an all-or-nothing approach.

It does not require a PhD in public policy making to understand that easing restrictions on suppressors would be far more palatable to the general public and an easier sell to lawmakers than machine guns.

The NRA has tepidly called for doing away with suppressor restrictions but has not done so with machine guns, at least not that I've heard of.

NRA-ILA | Suppressors-Good for Our Hearing

 

[Smitty357]

What about SBRs?. Those are no more harmful in the hands of the general public than is a standard weapon.

Why don't we remove these also?

I can understand they would think MGs would be an issue. But let's remember that our second ammendment wasn't written in terms of not being able to own particular weapons. Therfore I don't see an argument here over the 2nd amendment. If the argument is there then the whole NFA should be removed in full and all citizens should be able to bare arms of their choosing.