Can we legalize suppressors now?

[mjh]

If deregulated I'll likely buy at least two. IF something reasonable comes up for a vote I'll contact my congress critter and tell them to help protect my hearing and so forth......get 'er done......

 

[justin davis]

Suppressors got wrapped in with the original 1920s (ish) "machine gun" ban when old timey mobsters were rampant.

At least that is my understanding of the origins of the "why."

Yea that was my understanding too. It has nothing about the ATF not wanting you to have them etc. They were made a NFA item back in the early 1900’s. It is possible to get them changed. Would be nice if it did

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Should be, at the most a 4473 form, and out the door. But in reality they should be otc without paperwork.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Lord why would the person pushing the legislation be so stupid as to call them "silencers" when they are absolutely not?

Because that is what they are called in the NFA. It is honestly part of the legal definition of them. It shouldn't be, but it is.

 

[MuleDeerMike]

Obama had hus first 2 years to make big changes and he did nothing. Politicians do not want to fix their talking points.

Obamacare was the biggest thing he passed and that was in his first 2 years.

 

[MuleDeerMike]

We likely only have 2 years with full control of the government so it’s time for an all out blitz. If we don’t do our part and call, email, show up at our representatives offices, the spineless, lazy Republicans will just let the opportunity slip away again.

* Deregulate suppressors like most European countries. They laugh at us spouting about our freedoms when they go buy them over the counter just like any other commodity.

* Deregulate short barrel weapons

* Let all regulations by the 3 letter agencies that have been overturned by the courts die.

* Lock the border down, period. In my dream world we would modernize Ellis Island and crank it back up. Seemed to work well while it was in operation.

* Tune up the VA system and make sure our vets get all the support they need.

I’m sure there plenty more. This is just what popped into my head immediately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree, first 2 years needs to be an all out blitz, starting on day 1. Best chance to make meaningful change will be before the 2026 mid terms. But in the meantime we've at least stopped the bleeding.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Yea that was my understanding too. It has nothing about the ATF not wanting you to have them etc. They were made a NFA item back in the early 1900’s. It is possible to get them changed. Would be nice if it did

IIRC, it was an add on from "concerned" politicians due to all of the poaching that was going on at the time. Remember it was the height of the Great Depression. People were getting food however they could, laws be damned.

 

[Erict]

8 states where they are prohibited by STATE LAW.

NY actually had a "hearing protection" type law proposed recently, but I don't ever see it going anywhere.

 

[199p]

That would be way to simple for you guys hahaha feel like you would have to change the tax stamp to something like doing a handstand to be able to own one

 

[Mike D Texas]

This. It's amazing to me how many 2A advocates, hunters, etc are so quick to ignore that last time Trump was in office he used an executive order to infringe on the 2A (first time that had happened) that only a handful of months ago finally got struck down by the Supreme Court.

To think that Trump 2.0 will do anything favorable for suppressors is laughable.

Yeah because people can’t or don’t learn from their mistakes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Mike D Texas]

Obama had hus first 2 years to make big changes and he did nothing. Politicians do not want to fix their talking points.

Did you forget about Obamacare?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[satchamo]

Even with federal changes states like IL will still ban them. At this point, the states outright banning them are way more of an issue than paying for a tax stamp…. I can own and use suppressors as an IN resident but cross into IL with it (where I do 95% of my hunting) and it’s a felony….

 

[Mike D Texas]

Lord why would the person pushing the legislation be so stupid as to call them "silencers" when they are absolutely not?

Hmmmm I wonder why companies like SILENCERco, SILENCER shop, SILENCER central, etc… exist. And I’m pretty sure the technical term on .gov documents call them silencers.

If anything it seems like suppressor is slang more than anything but not a legal definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ThorM465]

Fun and important fact. The muffler on your car was developed from the patent for the first suppressor. The suppressor on your rifle and the muffler on your car are literally the same technology.

 

[ThorM465]

Hmmmm I wonder why companies like SILENCERco, SILENCER shop, SILENCER central, etc… exist. And I’m pretty sure the technical term on .gov documents call them silencers.

If anything it seems like suppressor is slang more than anything but not a legal definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You can't legislate reality to your liking. The technically, scientifically correct term is suppressor. Silencer is the slang term.

 

[Mike D Texas]

You can't legislate reality to your liking. The technically, scientifically correct term is suppressor. Silencer is the slang term.

Ok great. What is the legal definition in the law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[E.Shell]

Suppressors got wrapped in with the original 1920s (ish) "machine gun" ban when old timey mobsters were rampant.

At least that is my understanding of the origins of the "why."

By way of clarification:

The 'ban' was actually a requirement to register such devices (machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, 'any other weapons' (AOWs) and suppressors) with the feds and pay and exorbitant (at the time) $200 tax, with insanely high penalties (10yrs/$10k) for non-compliance.

That law was the "National Firearms Act of 1934" (The NFA), the first of many federal transgressions against an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. Prior to becoming law that one could not possess such items like free men, it was challenged in court in a case that lost by default, because the accused (a backwoodsy sort that didn't know (likely) or didn't care) failed to attend.

The second major transgression was the "Gun Control Act of 1968" (GCA'68), in which one could no longer buy new firearms direct, no longer commercially sell firearms unless a licensed dealer (killing the "Western Auto" and other hardware store brands) and all dealer sales were recorded (hello Form 4473). The NRA backed this law.

The "Gun Owners Protection Act" (GOPA 1986) purportedly allowed lawful gun owners to transport safely transport their firearms through unfriendly states (NY, MA...). It was attached with a rider at the last minute barring possession by and transfer to regular civilian citizens of machine guns manufactured after 1986, hence the "transferable " status (and inflated value) of MGs made before '86. In 1985, a Colt M-16 was the same price as a Colt AR-15, today...what? $20k or more, while decent ARs can be had for a grand.

Been downhill after that...

The suppressor/silencer regulation is one of the most far fetched and dumbest sides of federal law. Everywhere else in the world it is considered bad manners to shoot without a silencer. Regulate an inert device with no innate ability to do anything, and regulate it far more than a Title II firearm like a regular long gun or handgun. Harder for most people to get, and afford, than a pistol that actually shoots bullets. I guess they were on a roll...

You can't legislate reality to your liking. The technically, scientifically correct term is suppressor. Silencer is the slang term.

While I'd agree that "suppressor" IS the technically correct term IF describing function, "silencer" is NOT slang, it is the long term legitimate name for the device, however scientifically inaccurate.

The inventor, Hiram Maxim, called it a "silencer" in 1902. The BATFE calls it a "silencer". The law (18 USC & 26 USC) calls it a "silencer". My Forms 4 calls them "silencers". No one is legislating reality. Either term is acceptable.