Suppressors Lack 2A Protection?
- Thread starter dockmurgw
- Start date
That's the latest I have heard as well. There are two obvious effects: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?
1) The DOJ also just announced that it now regards suppressors as firearms protected by the second amendment. What does that mean in conjunction with the proposed bill?
- it means suppressors, while not registered, will still have to be purchased via a 4473 and NICS check, and transferred through FFLs. So no buying one off amazon; and
- if you want to make one, its now making a firearm with the same required paperwork and approvals.
All we will potentially gain is losing the registry, but....
2) There are a number of states (15 or so, about half the states that allow suppressors) that have laws that only allow ownership and or possession of suppressors contingent on the owner and suppressor being properly approved and registered under federal law.
The devil will be in the details of the wording of each individual law. But in essence:
If your suppressor must be federally registered to be legal to possess in your state and they do away with the federal registry...well...technically you can no longer legally possess it.
The state AG or local prosecutors may or may not elect to prosecute those cases, but your county sheriff's office has names and addresses of (formerly) registered owners, so it wont be hard to track you down if they decide to confiscate and or prosecute.
That's worst case, and of course the state legislature can amend the law. But that assumes the current state legislatures involved have the actual votes.
That was the point I was making the other day in the gun shop. Federal legislation allowing something and defining the circumstances under which it is allowed goes a long way toward preempting more restrictive state laws. Well crafted federal laws can really help to minimize government interference. That's not what is happening in this case.
venomballistics
Member
There isn't any paperwork or approval for a PMF unless that end product falls into a category within NFA regulation. In the here and now, a suppressor would be an NFA device, requiring form 1 and permission to proceed. Tomorrow, if all goes in accordance with the prophecy, then we have a potentially interesting tangle. Legal precedent typically defaults to prior things being grandfathered in. However, knowing the law of the land, exactly where you stand is, and always will be vital. Just as self defense law may turn from stand your ground to duty to retreat depending upon what side of a geopolitical line you're on. this will be the same. I imagine NYC is having it's 18'th litter of kittens over this while Montana barely raised an eyebrow while carving an apple on the front porch.
See location for details
See location for details
It's absolutely stoopit. Today suppressors are just noise pollution controls. By their idiotic reasoning automobie mufflers should be banned because criminals will use them to silence their getaway cars. And why would anybody want a silenced car that isn't a criminal? But, it is SOMETHING that the BATF can claim juridiction over and they ain't about to let anything go.
There will be a looong wait to obtain one if they get booted off NFA, imo. Demand will far outstrip supply for quite some time. All those that “don’t want the hassle, don’t want to be on a registry, don’t want to pony up $200, etc” will be lining up.
I bought a Silencerco 46M yesterday. Yep, already on multiple govt registers, paid the tax.
The best lawyer who ever lived has my back.
I bought a Silencerco 46M yesterday. Yep, already on multiple govt registers, paid the tax.
The best lawyer who ever lived has my back.
Last edited:
Yep, and that means any company making them will not be losing money as the rules of supply and demand will apply.There will be a looong wait to obtain one if they get booted off NFA, imo. Demand will far outstrip supply for quite some time. All those that “don’t want the hassle, don’t want to be on a registry, don’t want to pony up $200, etc” will be lining up.
I bought a Silencerco 46M yesterday. Yep, already on multiple govt registers, paid the tax.
The best lawyer who ever lived has my back.
OP
And then there's the Byrd Rule.
hkcavalier
US Veteran
Well...boo hoo. Just like if the Hughes amendment were reversed and machineguns were made available again (even through NFA with a stamp), and all those dealers with guns worth tens of thousands would be soaked. It's artificial scarcity and only so because of bad laws. I'm not trying to put good people into bankruptcy, but they know the game they're playing and how volatile it can be.
OP
Let’s get this DONE. They can keep the $200 they collected about 10 days ago, as a gift to our national debt.
“Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance released its portion of the Senate version of the Reconciliation Bill. Late last month, the U.S. House passed a version of the Reconciliation Bill which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA). In the portion that was just released by the U.S. Senate, they have included provisions of the SHORT Act, which is sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), as well as several conforming amendments that would help ease confusion arising from removing these items from the NFA.
This new language would not only remove the onerous $200 federal excise tax, registry, and paperwork currently imposed on suppressors, but would also remove those same requirements for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” as defined by the NFA.
In addition, the new conforming amendments would prevent states that regulate NFA items from imposing restrictions based on existing state laws requiring federal registration”
“Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance released its portion of the Senate version of the Reconciliation Bill. Late last month, the U.S. House passed a version of the Reconciliation Bill which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA). In the portion that was just released by the U.S. Senate, they have included provisions of the SHORT Act, which is sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), as well as several conforming amendments that would help ease confusion arising from removing these items from the NFA.
This new language would not only remove the onerous $200 federal excise tax, registry, and paperwork currently imposed on suppressors, but would also remove those same requirements for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” as defined by the NFA.
In addition, the new conforming amendments would prevent states that regulate NFA items from imposing restrictions based on existing state laws requiring federal registration”
Last edited:
I don't think so. There dozens suppressor companies out there..........Even Savage is making/selling them now....Ruger is selling DEAD AIR suppressors now too.There will be a looong wait to obtain one if they get booted off NFA, imo. Demand will far outstrip supply for quite some time. All those that “don’t want the hassle, don’t want to be on a registry, don’t want to pony up $200, etc” will be lining up.
I bought a Silencerco 46M yesterday. Yep, already on multiple govt registers, paid the tax.
The best lawyer who ever lived has my back.
I REALLY hope this comes to pass..........I have 2 suppressors obtained the "old"wyay.
It looks like it’s headed that way. If they can agree, big ask, on the thorny issues it will get signed into law. I really like the last sentence.
OP
Not exactly a high tech product that will require vast amounts of raw materials, R&D and patent attorneys...should take the current manufacturers all of 24 hours to ramp up production.
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 923
- Reaction score
- 2,923
I have called & emailed both my Senators multiple times in the last week.
One is a solid yes, the other, votes with the other side way too often.
One is a solid yes, the other, votes with the other side way too often.
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,468
- Reaction score
- 737
The NFA ban on Supressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and submachine guns was upheld by the Supreme Court at the time, because they were not in common use by the military. That decision is in the dustbin on history, so now the exact opposite reasoning is popular.
