Silencer Central Lobbying Against Removing Suppressors from NFA?

[7RemMag]

Imagine if all the "I'm not going to vote because I dont like either" got together and voted for an independent. You might win an election....

That’s a swell idea, but what if there’s not an independent candidate that sufficiently represents one’s beliefs either? See the dilemma?

It probably sounds as though I’m difficult to please. I assure you I’m not, and my griping here is little more than voicing my opinion-Another right granted in our great constitution. Aside from what I’ve said on this thread little more can be said of my involvement in politics. It’s not something I choose to focus on because ultimately, it has changed my life quite minimally regardless of who was or was not in office. Most candidates provide a bunch of promises. When their voters are lucky, some of them actually happen. I wish every administration the best, and hopefully we can come out the other side of this one better off. I’m skeptical, but I’ve been skeptical for the last several years. Time will tell.

Everyone here has been rather civil, and that is something I think all of us can and should appreciate. It certainly speaks volumes of the Rokslide community, in my opinion. At this point, I’ll likely be making my exit from this aspect of the conversation. Cheers.

 

[5811]

If suppressors are delisted as NFA items, is there any reason they still need to be serialized? Or would they still be firearms vs muzzle devices?

Because that needs to be SC goal, unserialized items they can sell and mail to consumers. They can even keep their payment plan option.

Any updates on the legislation?

 

[Gila]

If suppressors are delisted as NFA items, is there any reason they still need to be serialized? Or would they still be firearms vs muzzle devices?

Because that needs to be SC goal, unserialized items they can sell and mail to consumers. They can even keep their payment plan option.

Any updates on the legislation?

That’s a good question….The HPA (Hearing Protection Act) would regulate silencers like firearms. Must ship to an FFL. However NRA (National Rifle Association) is trying to have a provision that only inserts Sec. 2 of the HPA into the Reconciliation BIll before the vote in the House. I have been trying to track it, but very confusing. I have not received any communication from NRA if the provision is in the bill as yet though. Near as I can tell, the silencers may be serialized and shipped to an FFL like any other firearm. Don’t know about background check. I do think that would be stupid though. Silencers should be treated like muzzle brakes, flash hiders, which are just considered to be unregulated accessories. If NRA has their druthers, that is the way the provision in the Bill will be.

 

[WCB]

To be fair. Why buy from them when there are other companies that dont have suspect intentions?

That isn't the point. MANY of the guys saying "they won't get a dollar from me..." wouldn't have purchased form them anyways. And even away from this sight I have seen and heard a couple guys say it that don't even own a suppressor and aren't really looking for one.

It would be like me voicing my boycott of Target. I don't spend money there anyways and don't intend to...But "gun guys" and the hard core "2A" guys are MANY times quick on the trigger and parrot talking points by some Youtube nerd without actual PROOF, research, or ability to form their own opinions.

 

[Gila]

The way I see it, Silencer Central actually has a valid gripe. Silencers should not be regulated like firearms. And that is what would happen if the HPA were to be enacted. The problem is the GCA of 1968. A provision that removes silencers from the NFA of 1934 AND removes silencers from the definition of firearm as specified in the GCA of 1968 should fix it, but I am not an attorney. Please see attached:

 

[RockAndSage]

The way I see it, Silencer Central actually has a valid gripe. Silencers should not be regulated like firearms. And that is what would happen if the HPA were to be enacted. The problem is the GCA of 1968. A provision that removes silencers from the NFA of 1934 AND removes silencers from the definition of firearm as specified in the GCA of 1968 should fix it, but I am not an attorney. Please see attached:

As much as I would like to see suppressors be mail-order items right to my house, one point worth making is that if they're legally classified as firearms, that formalizes 2nd Amendment protection in a completely clear and unambiguous way. That keeps states or future Congresses from trying to ban them entirely, by claiming they're not "arms".

 

[Reburn]

That isn't the point. MANY of the guys saying "they won't get a dollar from me..." wouldn't have purchased form them anyways. And even away from this sight I have seen and heard a couple guys say it that don't even own a suppressor and aren't really looking for one.

It would be like me voicing my boycott of Target. I don't spend money there anyways and don't intend to...But "gun guys" and the hard core "2A" guys are MANY times quick on the trigger and parrot talking points by some Youtube nerd without actual PROOF, research, or ability to form their own opinions.

What you are describing is virtue signaling.

Saying anybody HERE that is saying they wont buy from them is virtue signaling is quite pessimistic. As to off the forum I couldnt tell you what the fudds at the gun shop are saying.

I understand your point though. Virtue signaling is annoying.

 

[Gila]

As much as I would like to see suppressors be mail-order items right to my house, one point worth making is that if they're legally classified as firearms, that formalizes 2nd Amendment protection in a completely clear and unambiguous way. That keeps states or future Congresses from trying to ban them entirely, by claiming they're not "arms".

Think about the opposite scenario. A definition of a firearm should be a necessary part of a firearm to function, not an optional accessory. Look what happened to FRTs and Bump stocks. High capacity magazines are actually more pertinent. If you are going to regulate silencers, you would need to prove why they should be regulated (significant danger?) and at what sound level suppression would cause the danger. The Gov’t easily lost on FRTs and Bump Stocks. The states can do whatever it is they want to do. The Gov’t would have to prove that state laws conflict with the US Constitution, not necessarily a Gov’t regulation. Federal pre-emption also depends on the intent of Congress from what i have been able to understand anyway.

 

[RockAndSage]

Think about the opposite scenario. A definition of a firearm should be a necessary part of a firearm to function, not an optional accessory.

I read this in Hank Hill's voice. "Firearms and firearm accessories..."

Fair points, btw. My point was that I'm fine with suppressors being kept serialized, and there is an upshot to it, even if I would much prefer them to be mail-order accessories - as long as it gets them out of NFA classification. That is the monumental hurdle, and it's the once-in-a-generation chance we have right now. There is an extremely low likelihood of the GOP keeping both houses of Congress in the upcoming midterms, so it's now or never in practical terms. And if that means keeping them serialized, vs keeping them NFA, then hell yes. Do it.

 

[nm.otter]

Pulling suppressors from the NFA will spark competition, push innovation and lower prices.

...and might even allow some of those interesting (and inexpensive) options from EU and NZ manufacturers to be imported.

 

[Gila]

I read this in Hank Hill's voice. "Firearms and firearm accessories..."

Fair points, btw. My point was that I'm fine with suppressors being kept serialized, and there is an upshot to it, even if I would much prefer them to be mail-order accessories - as long as it gets them out of NFA classification. That is the monumental hurdle, and it's the once-in-a-generation chance we have right now. There is an extremely low likelihood of the GOP keeping both houses of Congress in the upcoming midterms, so it's now or never in practical terms. And if that means keeping them serialized, vs keeping them NFA, then hell yes. Do it.

It only takes a simple majority….The HPA was written with the possibility that Democrat support was needed to pass. But we have a pro 2nd amendment Congress. Now is the time to get it right IMO as well. Regulation costs the Gov’t lots of money and of course the consumer pays the lion’s share in taxes. Anyway what-ever NRA action is taken is good enough for me. That is why I donate to them.

 

[Gila]

...and might even allow some of those interesting (and inexpensive) options from EU and NZ manufacturers to be imported.

The Brits think silencers are the best thing since Tea and Crumpets!

 

[nm.otter]

The Brits think silencers are the best thing since Tea and Crumpets!

Whisper Crumpet, anyone?

I'm fine with suppressors being kept serialized, and there is an upshot to it, even if I would much prefer them to be mail-order accessories

Any respectable manufacturer will need serial numbers in order to offer a warranty.

 

[nettereo16]

Rules committee has been talking all night and is still going. 202-225-9191 is the GOP Rules Committee, call them NOW and voice support for the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act. I just called, took 10 seconds and the guy who picked up was friendly enough

 

[Zzyzx]

Of course silencer central was lobbying to keep the NFA requirements but decrease the tax to zero dollars. It is a business and that is what businesses do to protect their interests.

Glad the weasel got caught.

Brandon Maddox denying it is BS.

 

[Weldor]

The Brits think silencers are the best thing since Tea and Crumpets!

They think it's rude to not have a moderated firearm. Of course that is for the one's who can own a firearm.

 

[ThreeOhEight]

I can see the argument that their ‘hand holding’ business model approach would likely take a hit if we could just walk into a store and buy one like a magazine.

I can kind of also see the argument that by making suppressors purchasable like a magazine would be, they would no longer have any sort of 2nd amendment protections (if they even do already).

I hate paying a $200 fee to protect my hearing. So I’ll be looking elsewhere for my next can.

 

[Weldor]

Of course you all know they ran a special last month they paided the stamp. Just a thought but if every ones LGS and super stores carried them and you could buy over the counter. Seems like the manufacturer's would make more money on gross sales? I'm thinking like SC did last month. How many can's sold with no charge stamp vs. a normal month where you had to buy the stamp. Should be a good gauge or close anyway.

 

[CorbLand]

Of course you all know they ran a special last month they paided the stamp. Just a thought but if every ones LGS and super stores carried them and you could buy over the counter. Seems like the manufacturer's would make more money on gross sales? I'm thinking like SC did last month. How many can's sold with no charge stamp vs. a normal month where you had to buy the stamp. Should be a good gauge or close anyway.

It would likely increase supply as more manufacturers would jump into the market due to decreased regulation and an increase in demand. Margins would fall and why would you want to produce 1000 widgets to make the same amount of money as you could only producing 500?

Don’t let any business fool you. They don’t like competition. Competition is only good for consumers.

 

[Weldor]

It would likely increase supply as more manufacturers would jump into the market due to decreased regulation and an increase in demand. Margins would fall and why would you want to produce 1000 widgets to make the same amount of money as you could only producing 500?

Don’t let any business fool you. They don’t like competition. Competition is only good for consumers.

True but they are not out any money, the tax stamp goes to the feds. Just more competition like you said. Price could remain the same or not?