Supressors maybe removed from NFA

[fourbore]

There seem to be several forces working in parallel

Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). This historic piece of legislation will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015.

http://americansuppressorassociation...-from-the-nfa/

ATF Associate Deputy Director: Time To Reconsider Regulations On Suppressors, “Assault Weapons”

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ssault-weapons

If this happens it will be a major game changer. Obviously more built in and factory options and no doubt inexpensive imports from (you know where). Unless those are import banned. And, they are so easy to DIY build.

I guess in 8 of the blue states, it wont matter.

[Apple a Day]

And barrel makers will be churning out retrofit threaded barrels for existing guns. LOTS of barrels

[mdcmn7]

That would be awesome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Ricklin]

And perhaps Walther will start shipping the factory suppressor for my G-22 to this side of the pond. And the threaded barrel.
Always wanted a suppressor for the little bullpup, it's my favorite plinker.

In the USA the general public thinks "silencers" are somehow associated with criminals and gangsters. Yet in Europe there are viewed as polite. The suppressor for my G-22 is an over the counter item, in Germany.

Kind of odd that the law requires a muffler on your car, yet a 200 dollar tax, a 6 month wait, and your own states approval are the requirements to put a "muffler" on your firearms.

Glad to hear it MAY be changing.

[Skans]

Is there any reason to be concerned that the wording of this suppress law could come back to bite us in the butt? Assuming a Dem controlled congress and president, could they get smart and require that ALL FIREARMS be suppressed to a certain db level to comply with certain health legislation?

Remember, this law is being sponsored by the folks who make money building suppressors. Is there any protection in the law that gives us gun owners the "freedom" to choose not to have suppressed firearms?

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think I would worry about that any more than at any other time.

[DaleA]

and require that ALL FIREARMS be suppressed to a certain db level to comply with certain health legislation?

Dang Skans, don't give 'em any ideas!!!

I can just see my friends over at Public Radio going "Eh??!! What???!!! YES, WE NEED TO DO THAT!!!" And the fact that they have been VEHEMENTLY opposed to suppressors for, well forever, wouldn't bother them in the least.

Your post made me shudder.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Skans

Is there any reason to be concerned that the wording of this suppress law could come back to bite us in the butt?

Anything is possible, but as currently written, IMHO no.

The bills currently under consideration are very brief and simply exempt suppressors from NFA taxes and registration. Seriously, the bills are only slightly more than 1 page long. More here.

However, take note that the bills do NOT address the 30-year federal mandatory minimum sentence for a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime" using a silencer. This will presumably remain in force.

[44 AMP]

the 30-year federal mandatory minimum sentence for a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime" using a silencer. This will presumably remain in force.

This sounds fierce, but I fear the reality is that its more likely to be one more chip to be thrown out to get a plea bargain.

A lot of people think that these "mandatory sentences" mean tis a done deal and the bad guy is going to do the time, no getting out of it, but reality is often somewhat different.

Although, in the case of silencers, a prosecutor who declined to make the charge might have some explaining to do, if such information became public...

[carguychris]

^^^ Yes, it's mandatory in the sense that the judge can't sentence the defendant to less than 30 years once convicted; it's NOT mandatory in the sense that the prosecutor or judge is required to prosecute the defendant for the crime.

Federal gun charges are often dropped in plea bargains involving multiple charges. This is a relatively unheralded and somewhat misunderstood aspect of the statistics about how few federal gun crimes are actually prosecuted.

[Double Naught Spy]

For those interested, there are Hughes and NFA petitions that can be signed to repeal these...

http://www.gunowners.org/white-house-petitions.htm

[JWT]

I struggle to understand why anyone would want a suppressor on a gun. They are hardly a thing of beauty. Perhaps a good idea for criminal intent, but beyond that I just don't get them.

[ShootistPRS]

JWT I struggle to understand why anyone would want a suppressor on a gun. They are hardly a thing of beauty. Perhaps a good idea for criminal intent, but beyond that I just don't get them.

Guns make a lot of noise. They damage hearing. With a suppressor it can be a lot easier on a persons hearing, especially when hunting. They don't make a gun quiet enough to use without letting people around you know that you have fired a gun.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by JWT

I struggle to understand why anyone would want a suppressor on a gun. They are hardly a thing of beauty. Perhaps a good idea for criminal intent, but beyond that I just don't get them.

I struggle to understand why anyone wouldn't want a silencer on a gun. They help protect people's hearing, they drastically lower muzzle blast and recoil, and they make a huge improvement in noise pollution.

Silencers are some of the most sensible firearm accessories there are. The only time I ever shoot any of my guns unsuppressed is when I'm practicing with my carry gun.

[dakota.potts]

I struggle to understand why anyone would want a suppressor on a gun. They are hardly a thing of beauty.

How many suppressed firearms have you fired?

Firing a wood stocked .300 win mag at right around 8 pounds with no pain in the recoil and no ringing ears is definitely a thing of beauty to me.

[Skans]

I struggle to understand why anyone wouldn't want a silencer on a gun.

Impractical for carry. Not something I want on my semi-auto pistol for home defense. Muzzle heavy. Unwieldy. Only marginal noise reduction.

If silencers truly silenced non-22lr guns, were small and compact, I might be interested.

[Theohazard]

Skans, your points are mostly valid, but it seems to me that you just haven't shot the right setups yet. My 10.5" LMT SBR with my Saker on it handles very similarly to a 16" rifle except it's a lot quieter. And my 10/22 with a 16" Tac Sol barrel feels and looks like a regular .22 rifle when I put my Mask on it, but it's ridiculously quiet.

I understand the downsides to shooting suppressed and I accept them. And in the process I get a much more pleasant shooting experience, both for myself and for the people around me.

[fourbore]

I discussed this briefly with a friend who does not like the idea of a suppressor because of the bulk, weight&balance and image. So; I pointed out he could shoot all day in his back yard where now he will never fire more than one shot at some bothersome critter. Or, instead of coming to my place for a brief bit of shooting. Or meeting at the club where there maybe others shooting very annoying ARs. I can shoot at home, but; I keep it limited. I belong to a club and its close enough. At home is sure convenient and a suppressor would keep that very low key for more hours of more shooting.

I shoot for accuracy or target shooting, as a sport and I love shooting. I am not practicing for self defense or a hunt. It makes a difference. If you shoot for the joy of it, the suppressor adds more options. If just to be prepared for some other purpose, not so much.

You can buy a 2nd gun, its not an either or situation.

[weblance]

For those people who don't like the weight, extra length, balance, and image that a suppressor ads to a firearm, if this passes, it should also include integrally suppressed barrels. There is nothing better than an integrally suppressed 10/22 or Mark pistol

[Double Naught Spy]

I struggle to understand why anyone would want a suppressor on a gun. They are hardly a thing of beauty. Perhaps a good idea for criminal intent, but beyond that I just don't get them.

If I wanted art, I would buy a painting, LOL.

Criminal intent? Oh, you mean like a firearm is a tool of criminals, right? Otherwise, I would say that you have been taking too much direction from Hollywood movies. Suppressors are using by 1000s if not 10s of thousands of people on a very regular basis for shooting enjoyment, hunting, etc., all perfectly legal pursuits.

[Technosavant]

Muzzle heavy. Unwieldy. Only marginal noise reduction.

The weight at the end of the muzzle helps stabilize the pistol. When wearing the can my groups tighten up. Considerably. As for the noise reduction, decibels are a logarithmic scale, so a few knocked off the top end is a bigger deal than it sounds like. (Sounds like... see what I did there? ) It can take a pistol from "permanent hearing damage" territory down to "loud, but no lasting damage." I know mine (an Octant .45) can make it so that a .45ACP can be fired indoors without hearing protection and it won't cause a problem. No, it's not silent. Yes, it's quiet enough.

Unwieldy? Sure, if you're talking concealment... that's why they're not really a thing for criminals. Doubling the length of a full size 1911 is hardly a great thing for somebody trying to remain inconspicuous. But in your own home there's a reason to do it.