Silencers

[Brian Pfleuger]

Many countries with strict gun control laws have REQUIREMENTS for suppressors on guns that are legal, such as for hunting. They're not lax because they think the bad guys can't get guns so why bother restricting suppressors, they're lax because they realize they are useful and have little to no criminal downside.

[Scouse]

That said, I do think it is a difficult issue.

As far as I am concerned the right to the means of effective self defence within common sense limits is one of natural law. It is something so fundamental that arguments based in social utility can have only limited weight. The same does not ring true for suppressors, for me.

Suppressor laws are like speed limits, they might not be popular, but arguments in favour of them have some strength. That said, not sure what I think the right approach - certainly think it is a worthwhile debate though.

[Scouse]

Have there ever been studies done into criminality and suppressors?

My lack of certainty on it rather than just going for the less regulation option is based on an instinct - the instinct that making the most practically efficient method of inflicting murder much easier to hide for the crucial period of escape is a bad idea. If I am wrong I would be glad to be corrected.

[sigcurious]

Scouse, what are these supposed strong arguments?

[sigcurious]

Have there ever been studies done into criminality and suppressors?

At least one which does not indicate that suppressed firearms are "extremely convenient weapon with which to commit crime".

[Scouse]

Ok, my "strong arguments" remark was based entirely on the instincts I mentioned previously...to me this makes sense. Clearly people disagree, since my position is based on an instinct, I would be open to argument as stated.

[Scouse]

Can't read the whole thing right now, but the abstract of that study looks like exactly what I was asking for. Will read it when get on computer.

Like I say, it just seems to make sense to me.

[Indi]

ASA is doing a lot of lobbying and more for the silencer world. Why do you think you can hunt with suppressors now, in certain states.

http://americansilencerassociation.com/?

[Armorer-at-Law]

Like I say, it just seems to make sense to me.

and

Ok, my "strong arguments" remark was based entirely on the instincts I mentioned previously...to me this makes sense. Clearly people disagree, since my position is based on an instinct, I would be open to argument as stated.

"Instinct"? That's not much of a basis for supporting an argument.

In your earlier post, you stated:

The reality is a suppressed handgun is an extremely convenient weapon with which to commit crime.

How so? A suppressor makes the handgun significantly larger, heavier and harder to conceal. That's not very convenient at all. It also doesn't make the handgun "silent."

These so called "common sense" opinions based on pre-conceived, but erroneous, notions are hurting us all in our effort to fully restore our rights.* The facts are that they are rarely used in crimes. (see above-referenced study) But even if they were, that is not enough to justify taking away the rights of the law-abiding.

The benefits of suppressors are good arguments for pursuading legislators to undo bad laws, but from a legal/Constutional standpoint, there doesn't have to be benefits (or need) to "justify" a right.

*I am handing a legal case right now in which these kinds of posts (on gun boards) were cited as evidence that public opinion is that silencers are the tools of assassins, gang-bangers and terrorists. It was argued that it mattered not that the opinions stated were incorrect or baseless, only that they reflected popular opinon.

[Scouse]

I believe I have stated that my position is based on instinct rather than evidence, either personal or anecdotal. I have not at any point claimed I am offering evidence against free access to suppressors - just telling you what I instinctively feel about it and have actively invited people to change my mind.

I have only ever fired a suppressed firearm once, and agree it is nothing like Hollywood, at all.

My preconceived notions are honestly held - I am not trying to support an argument.

[Scouse]

Also, I reject the idea that someone should be attacked for offering an honest opinion on the basis that some lawyers might mention them in court.

Further, I think an argument based in social utility for the outlawing of something which is not a fundamental right is fine. might not be correct, but it is not invalid. Most of the world is grey rather than black and white. Beyond the vital fundamentals, if it is best for society at least am argument can be made for it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

That's enough on Scouse's opinion. He states it in good faith. Right or wrong, it's been addressed. No more.

[kraigwy]

I guess I'm of a different mindset regarding removing supressors from the NFA.

Depending on how the next election goes or even with a satisfactory out come.

All it would take is a few knowledgable legislators to get together and attach it to a bill that everybody thinks needs to be passed.

Kind of like adding the firearms in National Parks rider that was attached to a bill the other side thought was important.

[JohnKSa]

There have been encouraging changes lately. Both Washington State and Texas have loosened their restrictions on the use of silencers in the last couple of years, and those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

As more people purchase and use silencers, there will be more impetus for more loosening of restrictions which will, it is likely, eventually reach the federal level.

[A/C Guy]

Good point. Given most economic gun crimes start with the gun presented and the victim complying, an expensive suppressor probably doesn't enter into the mind of the robber. They don't particularly care about such - any old gun would do.

Crimes of passion - having a silencer is a nonissue. They are driven by the intent and then go for the weapon. Having a silencer doesn't seem to fit into the interview studies of those who committed such crimes.

Deliberate assassinations or drive bys? Maybe in the extremely rare first case. Drive-bys probably want to make a statement by the pray and spray nature of the gun fire.

The biggest reason criminals don't use a suppressor is that they are cumbersome. Imagine your glock with a 12" barrel, it doesn't exactly fit in the old waist band or in the small of your back very well, does it?

In several European countries, suppressors are required for hunting with a high powered rifle.

The proper term is suppressor, the device does not completely silence the report of any firearm larger than a pellet gun. Using the word silencer simply feeds the ignorance and hysteria of the uneducated anti gun crowd.

Just like calling your favorite AR an assault weapon.

[A/C Guy]

There have been encouraging changes lately. Both Washington State and Texas have loosened their restrictions on the use of silencers in the last couple of years, and those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

Suppressors have always been legal to own and use in Az; except for hunting. Just this year they have been approved for legal hunting.

[Technosavant]

The proper term is suppressor, the device does not completely silence the report of any firearm larger than a pellet gun. Using the word silencer simply feeds the ignorance and hysteria of the uneducated anti gun crowd.

While you are correct, in the 1934 NFA they are referred to as "silencers," so that is the actual legal term in play even though it is not strictly correct.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by A/C Guy

The proper term is suppressor, the device does not completely silence the report of any firearm larger than a pellet gun. Using the word silencer simply feeds the ignorance and hysteria of the uneducated anti gun crowd.

Actually, that's not true. The first such commercial device in the USA was marketed as a silencer.

http://www.silencerco.com/?section=E...n&page=History

The information in that link can be found in any number of other places too.

Both terms are equally correct, in name. Silencer is less correct in function, but that is essentially irrelevant.

[hermannr]

The argument that won the day in WA State was hearing damage. It was pushed by LE, and should be pushed by LE as they probably are inpacted more than anyone else.

I will give you an illustration. LE and other shooters have been trying for years to get a large indoor/outdoor range built in the proximity of King and Snohomoish counties. They finally came up with a plan where they would build this facility on State land in a valley in the mountains between Arlington and Lake Cavinaugh. They still had enough opposition (mostly from lakefront owners) because of "noise" (and traffic) to kill the plan.

If they had done the tests with suppressed weapons I doubt you could have heard anything at the lake. As it was all you could hear was an occational pop.

Suppressors probably would save some other ranges from noise complains too.

[RAnb]

In WA last year, a basic anti (not rabid) democrat gov signed a bill to allow legally held silencers in WA State...repealing part of what another (rabid) anti demo govenor had banned them (and other NFA items) in 1994)

The argument that won...Hearing damage.

Bill 1016 allowed the use of registered silencers on firearms. Use was banned back in the 1930's, not in 1994. The 1994 ban was SBS and SBR. The police and military were not allowed to use silencers either although it was "common knowledge" that they were exempt from prosecution by the AG. When I wrote to the AG requesting the same exemption I was told that no such exemption existed.

After hearing this I let every police officer I saw know it. I was also present and speaking at the House Judiciary Committee hearing when Brian Wurst, a WACOPS representative spoke out in support of the bill. His major points were hearing protection.

I think what made the bill pass was that there was very little silencer associated crime in WA and no evidence that any used in crime were registered. Even "anti-gun nut" Senator Adam Kline urged the Senate to show bill 1016 "a lot of love" on the Senate floor. In my opinion this was not done out of a desire to see the bill passed, but that he knew passing the bill would not affect WA crime at all and it was a chance for even the anti-gun legislators to look good to their gun owning constituents and at the same time not look bad to the anti-gun people in their district. It is likely that very few people knew about the bill passing anyway.

Ranb

[RAnb]

In several European countries, suppressors are required for hunting with a high powered rifle.

I think this is a myth. I am not aware of any country that requires a silencer to hunt. Got any proof?

The proper term is suppressor, the device does not completely silence the report of any firearm larger than a pellet gun. Using the word silencer simply feeds the ignorance and hysteria of the uneducated anti gun crowd.

The proper term is silencer, it is a noun and a legal term, not a verb. The word muffler is equally correct legally. I always thought those people who got upset about the word silencer were ignorant and hysterical. I have 15 ATF form 1's with the word silencer in block 4b. Not going to risk a delay of approval by using the word suppressor.

Ranb

[Tom Servo]

Silencer is less correct in function, but that is essentially irrelevant

Maxim's trademark is still used in the NFA laws, and on some of the contemporary paperwork. Wrong or not, "silencer" is here to stay.

[hermannr]

Thank you RAnb, I did not know that silencers had not gone with the other NFA items in 1994. I do remember the 1994 session though.

[RAnb]

The word silencer is synonymous with the word muffler. No rational person will say that a car engine is noiseless when equipped with a muffler or silencer. There is no reason to object to using the word silencer for a gun muffler just because noise is not eliminated or silenced. Gun owners are our own worst enemies when they proclaim that silencer is an inappropriate word to use. A silencer suppresses noise.

Ranb

[RAnb]

I did not know that silencers had not gone with the other NFA items in 1994. I do remember the 1994 session though.

Did you attend any of the committee hearings? I did not move to WA until 1999. I have been working on HB 2099 (SBS/SBR) by writing and talking to those who voted for the ban. I wrote to the authors of the bill (HB2319) that banned them, but only Appelwick wrote back. He said SBS/SBR were banned as part of a feel good plan to placate the gun grabbers and claimed that no one opposed the SBS/SBR ban portion of the bill. I did hear of much opposition to the AWB portion of the bill though.

What else did you hear about bill 2319 back in 1994?

Ranb