Time to change silencer laws?

[Yellowfin]

A lot of people don't have them because the NFA process is unfamiliar, complicated, and legally intimidating, as was specifically intended. A lot more people would want them if they knew they were legal, could find them at where THEY shop for guns, and knew how to go about it. The significant market impediments still hurt anyone who isn't so into guns that they look up all info on the Internet--there's plenty of people who only buy from Academy Sports, Dick's Sporting Goods, etc. and read Outdoor Life or American Rifleman. I myself for a long time only had guns that either my dad bought me as a kid and/or family heirlooms.

As for usefulness, a big use as mentioned above is home defense. Other big uses are:

1) predator hunting and other shooting during deer and turkey seasons as to not disrupt other hunters

2) minimizing noise pollution from range shooting

3) varminting around farms and semi-residential areas where centerfire cartridge noise is a BIG concern to people living there who may not necessarily like the idea of guns around them yet want woodchucks and coyotes shot

4) reducing intimidation for new shooters

5) target shooting of high noise and blast cartridges like .338 Lapua and .50 BMG (Some already own cans for this specific purpose)

[Skans]

I've gone through the NFA transfer process when I purchased my AC556. I also had to register my USAS-12 on a Form 1. I could do the trust thing to get a suppressor, but I'm just not that motivated to create a trust, get fingerprinted again, get a passport photo, fill out the BATFE transfer form, pay $200.....and wait 4 months to get the OK to pick up a suppressor I had to pay $800+ for.

If they increased in value like machineguns, I'd probably get off my lazy ass and do it. If I could purchase a suppressor at a gun show and take it home the same day, I'd probably own one or two. But, you guys are right - the NFA requirements are a barrier, for me it is anyway.

[KSFreeman]

We at TFL have advocated, for many years, moving suppressors to Title I with federal preemption. In fact some TFL members have written articles submitted to gun rags about such a proposal, many years ago now.

This was because poachers were using silencers to get game without being heard by the game warden.

Not so much, because handguns were included in the NFA and suppressors were a substitute.

[Technosavant]

For three things, my understanding is that they don't really work very well, from a pure functional standpoint. Most times, the noise is still well beyond the level that would allow for no hearing protection. Even when the round is loaded sub-sonic, the dB level is still usually well above the safe threshold.... and who wants to limit their firearms to subsonic loads anyway?

Some rounds suppress better than others. Rifles just don't quiet down all the way, but you can get them down to where they aren't quite as shockingly loud. .22LR, quiets down nicely, especially subsonic out of a pistol. .45ACP suppresses pretty well- it's subsonic anyway.

They're just fun to play with- a suppressed .22LR pistol or rifle may well be the best thing ever to use to introduce new shooters to the sport. There's just no way to introduce a flinch- no loud report, no recoil.

[RAnb]

I do not think any of the restrictions will be eased for a while, if ever. I have been trying to amend the law in WA making silencer use a crime for the last few years. The problem is that most of the gun owners I have talked to about it think silencers are illegal in the USA, and most of those who know they are legal have no interest in them or think they give gun owners a bad image. I have only met a few people in person who own or want to own silencers.

While I have gathered data on silencer related crime in WA and obtained the support of various police and gun control organizations in the state, my legislators remain uninterested in changing the law. I am told that it is the Democrats that are the problem. This is false. While most of the letters I write go unacknowledged, the only ones in Olympia that refuse to support a silencer use bill in WA are Republicans; Senator Roach and Rep-elect Hargrove. The common response from the Democrats in the House has been that they support it but will not make it a priority.

The WAC thinks the political climate is unsuitable to spend time lobbying Olympia and that I should wait for the silencer use opponents to be replaced in the House and Senate. Pedersen and Kline are the two main obstacles to the silencer bill; they are also two of the most popular men in Olympia. The NRA has not responded to my request for advice and the NFATCA says I need grass root support and money. Since gun owners are largely apathetic in WA and I am limiting my gun control lobbying budget to less than $1000 a year, the grass root support and cash are just not there.

Ranb

[dlb435]

RAnB,
One of my concerns is that if silencers are made legal then they could become manditory. The cost of gun ownership would go up and concealled carry could be impractical. It could be very tricky getting legislation through that would allow or encourage silencers without going so far as to require them.

[carguychris]

One of my concerns is that if silencers are made legal then they could become manditory. The cost of gun ownership would go up and concealled carry could be impractical.

I don't think that a mandatory suppressor law could threaten CCW. IMHO it could easily be challenged in court for an ironic reason- suppressors have not been commonplace anywhere in the USA for generations, which makes it hard to argue that suppressors are somehow suddenly necessary for legal self-defense.

OTOH I think a mandatory suppressor law could theoretically be a threat to legal hunting; I could easily see well-heeled NIMBYs with fancy country weekend homes pushing this so that their idyllic peace and quiet wouldn't be disturbed by (gasp!) gunfire, not to mention the fact that those nasty hunters are killing cute furry animals and pretty birds. Of course, hunting is NOT constitutionally protected, making court challenges more problematic.

I could easily see gun-control advocates using this issue to derail any reform by driving RKBA advocates and sportsmen apart. This is unfortunate because I would really like to see suppressors made more accessible and less expensive.

BTW if this idea were seriously pursued, IMHO it's very important to start using the term "suppressor" rather than "silencer" because the latter term has a negative connotation and isn't an accurate description anyway.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by RAnb

Silencers are legal in 37 states, but Washington is the only state that bans their use.

I don't understand this sentence....

If they're legal in 37 states then they're illegal in 13 states, yes? Do those 13 states not ban their use? How could they be illegal, but not banned?

I know for a fact that NY does. It is illegal to possess a silencer, say nothing of use it. The law was recently changed to allow the manufacture and repair of silencers in state, but it is still illegal for a "regular" citizen to own or use one.

[Joat]

Peetza- Silencers can legally be owned in WA. But, the use of (or even attaching the legally owned suppressor to a firearm) is a crime. So you can own it, you just can't use it in the state of Washington.

Joat

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ah, I see. That sentence should definitely be reworded. No one who doesn't know that WA is one of the 37 would ever make that connection....

[RAnb]

One of my concerns is that if silencers are made legal then they could become manditory.

I think that is very unlikely to happen. Silencers have been around for over 100 years and no jurisdiction in the USA has ever suggested making their use manditory as far as I know.

Ranb

[RAnb]

I don't understand this sentence....

If they're legal in 37 states then they're illegal in 13 states, yes? Do those 13 states not ban their use? How could they be illegal, but not banned?

I intended it to mean that WA is the only state that allows ownership, but also bans their use. I changed my signature. WA does not even make an exception for their use by the police military and dealers. Attaching the silencer to the gun is not a crime in WA, but the police might decide that it is intent to use and arrest you for it.

In fact, the use of any device that suppresses the report of a gun is banned. It does not matter if it is attached to the gun or not. I built a box to reduce the report of 50 bmg rifles at my local range. We are being sued in part over noise complaints. I was told by the local prosecutor that using the box would be a crime due to the broad nature of the law. RCW 9.41.250(c). I am trying to obtain an opinion from the state AG on whether the law includes devices not attached, but it is hard as he does not give opinions to the public and my district Reps do not want to ask.

Ranb

Edited to add; I just got off the phone with Representatives Finn's aide. He did write, but the AG refused to give an opinion. It had something to do with the request not being appropriate for an opinion. This sucks. I can't think of any other way to find out what the law actually means other than hearing what the judge and jury say to me if I was to get arrested for breaking it. And that is something I am not willing to do. This is just another reason why WA sucks.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by carguychris

OTOH I think a mandatory suppressor law could theoretically be a threat to legal hunting; I could easily see well-heeled NIMBYs with fancy country weekend homes pushing this so that their idyllic peace and quiet wouldn't be disturbed by (gasp!) gunfire,...

I don't think noise pollution is a matter so trivial we should deride concerns about it. Why annoy your neighbors if courtesy has a low cost?

I also don't see the theoretical threat to hunting. If you hunt with a supressor, you are still hunting, right?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by RAnb

In fact, the use of any device that suppresses the report of a gun is banned. It does not matter if it is attached to the gun or not. I built a box to reduce the report of 50 bmg rifles at my local range. We are being sued in part over noise complaints. I was told by the local prosecutor that using the box would be a crime due to the broad nature of the law. RCW 9.41.250(c). I am trying to obtain an opinion from the state AG on whether the law includes devices not attached, but it is hard as he does not give opinions to the public and my district Reps do not want to ask.

That seems odd.... wouldn't that sort of mean that shooting indoors would be illegal? After all, all a building essentially is is a 3 dimensional box which "suppresses" the report of the firearm?!

NY's law is very similar except that, I think, it does stipulate that the device actually needs to be attached to the gun.

Makes no sense to me. I could see "silencers" being illegal, but if all your doing is taking the noise from a deafening roar to an earsplitting boom, why should that be illegal? I mean, if a 22LR is legal, why isn't (theoretically) a 50BMG that's reduced to the sound level of a 22LR also legal?

[KenpoTex]

-Yes, one should be able to buy/own/transfer a suppressor without any of the hoops to jump through, or the federal oversight that currently exists. (Since that's not the case, LE departments should be subject to the exact same restrictions/requirements as any private citizen)

-NO, they should not be required don't give the gesta...oops, I meat the BATF, any more ideas.

-NFA '34 should never have happened.

And finally, "common sense" has never had anything to do with the restrictions that are in place. Those that make such laws are concerned with control; logic and reason are irrelevant to them.

[RAnb]

That seems odd.... wouldn't that sort of mean that shooting indoors would be illegal? After all, all a building essentially is is a 3 dimensional box which "suppresses" the report of the firearm?!

Sure is odd. I wonder how far the state is willing to go with it? Are ear plugs illegal too? I do not think they will go that deep, but I have been unable to get an opinion from the Attorney General on exactly what the law means. The AG even refused to give an opinion on RCW 9.41.250(c) to Representative Finn in district 35.

Ranb

[Cosmik de Bris]

Here in New Zealand we are encouraged to use suppressors as part of being a responsible shooter. You are not so annoying to others, hunting dogs really appreciate it as they hate carrying around those giant earplugs. A lot of rabbit shooters use suppressors and subs. Bush hunters are not so keen because of the length issues but many are now using the over barrel ones, and who doesn't want to reduce recoil?

Cheers

[Erik]

"Well, it's 2010 and we don't have a big problem with poachers."

I disagree.

[dlb435]

Erik, can you please share more about this?
I live in Louisianna and we don't have much of a poaching problem here. We get a few cases a year that usually are folks hunting without a current license or going over their points with a duck license. An other problem is people hunting on their own land out of season but even that is not a big problem. We have even had success with bring the black bear population back from the brink. They had been poached to the edge of extinction here.

[ohen cepel]

Poachers and other bad people will do what they do no matter. I would like to see actual numbers on poachers using a registered suppressor.

Few gun laws make sense to me but this one is a real dozy for me.
If I rip the exhaust off my Harley you'll give me a ticket for making noise.
Yet, if I put an exhaust on my weapon I have to do a ton of crap and beg for permission. Something there just doesn't make sense to me!

[BlueTrain]

Were silencers ever common? If they were only made illegal in 1934, along with a host of other things like detachable stocks, full auto and sawed off shotguns, what had been the availability of them earlier and what was the general level of interest in them? Did the FBI, which is to say, J. Edgar Hoover have a lot to do with the National Firearms Act?

[dlb435]

Blue Train,
In 1933 oranized crime was out of control. The big push for some type of control on firearms came when a 12 year old Chicago girl was killed by stray machine gun fire. There was also Bonny and Clide, the St. Valentine's day massacre, Machine gun Kelly and a host of other trouble makers.
Yes, silencers were fairly common before 1934. Most were purchased by hunters.
There was little regard given to hearing loss in 1934. It was considered just a normal part of aging. We now know that hearing loss is caused, in most cases, by exposure to high sound levels. OSHA, the EPA and other Federal and state agencies now issue noise level standards. There is no exception given to firearms, however, gun fire is noted to be at 140db or more at 3 feet from a gun barrel. Today, almost all shooters use some type of hearing protection but that doesn't help someone who happens to be near by when a firearm is discharged. I'm sure you are all aware of how hard it can be to find a shooting range these days because of the noise problems it causes for people that live near by.
When the NFA was debated, game wardens jumped in with the request to add silencers to the list of controlled items. It was the Great Depression and poaching was out of control. People were hungy. The NFA has been re-visted twice since 1934. It was modified in 1968 and again in 1986.
There are electronic listening devices made today that can detect gun fire (supressed or not) that are cheap and available. The need to regulate silencers simply no longer exist.
The question is: Do we want to change the law and what would the consequence be?

[BlueTrain]

"Out of control." Sounds like a handy expression.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by dlb435

When the NFA was debated, game wardens jumped in with the request to add silencers to the list of controlled items. It was the Great Depression and poaching was out of control. People were hungy.

Interesting. Ordinarily, I wouldn't consider it "poaching" if it were legitimately done to feed your family but I've got to wonder, how did people who couldn't afford food, afford silencers?

I don't think that "gun fire detection" devices have any relevance. Unless they're going to be permanently mounted all over God's green earth to just... listen... all the time, I don't see how they would make any difference at all. Even then, firing a gun at night is not illegal, there are a number of animals that are hunted at night and people even poach during the day. How would one distinguish "illegal" gun fire from "legal" gunfire.


The current status of silencers is what it is because "that's the way it's always been". It's remarkably hard to change "the way it's always been", even when there's no rationale for it to have always been that way.

[Yellowfin]

The reason poaching was considered a big deal was because FDR was imposing price and supply controls on food at the time and wanted to keep a tight grip. A silencer was less than half the cost of a rifle and with rising food prices and artificially fixed supply it was probably a smart buy. So FDR put a stop to that.