Are Silencers legal? why?

[hdaackda]

Are silencers/suppressors legal in most of the USA?

Here is Pakistan, they have been outlawed (only Military can carry them because of the bad security situation here) and I recently had the chance to talk to a high official who asked me "Why should it be legal"?

I had no points apart from the fact that it helps reduce noise pollution!!

[JohnKSa]

Moving to NFA Guns & Gear. NFA refers to the National Firearms Act of 1934 which introduced U.S. federal regulations on certain items including fully automatic firearms and silencers.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by hdaackda

Are silencers/suppressors legal in most of the USA?

Yes, they're legal in 38 states.

Originally Posted by hdaackda

I recently had the chance to talk to a high official who asked me "Why should it be legal"?

I had no points apart from the fact that it helps reduce noise pollution!!

I'd say that's a pretty big plus; noise pollution is a big issue. After all, how many outdoor ranges around the country have issues with their noise pollution bothering neighbors? Many ranges around the country are constantly threatened with being shut down because of that.

Also, they reduce recoil and drastically reduce muzzle blast and sound, making shooting a lot more pleasant. And they help protect people's hearing, especially when combined with traditional hearing protection.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

NFA refers to the National Firearms Act of 1939

It was 1934.

[B.L.E.]

I think a better question would be "Why are they illegal?". Silencers only reduce the sound of a rifle, they don't eliminate it, and they do nothing for the sound that the supersonic bullet itself makes while flying through the air. It's not like a silencer will make it possible to practice with your .30-06 in your back yard without your neighbors noticing.

I have read that in some European countries, silencers are not only completely legal, but required for hunting in some areas, just like our motorcycles are supposed to have mufflers on them.

Silencers rank right up there with smooth bore pistols and switch blade knives in the "things that are needlessly illegal" category.

[Machineguntony]

Hdaackda,

It is nice to have a citizen of the world on here. As-salamu alaykum.

My neighbor is a rather wealthy Pakastani. I showed him my machine gun collection, to which his response was, 'We have all this and more in Pakistan'. Lol. As usual, if you are wealthy enough, anything is 'permissible'.

[weblance]

They are legal, but also heavily regulated. Its not something you can go into a gun shop, purchase, and walk out with the same day. It takes time, generally months to obtain. There are 2 ways to legally obtain a suppressor in the USA. One way, you find a gun shop that is licensed to sell suppressors. You purchase your suppressor. The dealer gives you the paperwork you need to complete the approval. It includes fingerprint cards, and forms that include the manufacturers info, model, caliber, and serial number. You go get fingerprinted at the police station, and pay for a background check. You go get 2 passport style pictures taken. After the background check results come back, you then need to visit your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer. It could be the Sheriff or Police Chief, or other high ranking Law Officer. He will conduct an interview with you, and if he decides everything is in order, and you dont have any criminal issues in your background history, he signs your forms stating he sees no reason why you should be denied. You then send all the paperwork, pictures, and fingerprint cards to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, along with a $200 check. They review all the info, do a second background check, and several months later(4-12 months) they make a determination. If approved, they send the approved paperwork back to your dealer(who has held your suppressor in his possession). The dealer then contacts you to come pick up your paperwork, and suppressor.

There is another, different path to obtain a suppressor, which involves setting up a Trust, but I dont know how that actually works, so I wont offer an explanation.

[Skans]

Why should silencers be legal?

1. No one has ever been killed or injured by a silencer.
2. Enforcing a silencer ban is about as easy as enforcing a ban on plastic bottles and oil filters. In otherwords, many household items make effective firearm suppressors.
3. Silencers do not "silence" a firearm, except perhaps a bolt-action .22lr using subsonic ammo.
4. Silencers save hearing.
5. Silencers are "cool". If James Bond can have one, why can't I?
6. A modern Mathews compound bow is far more "silent" than a silencer screwed onto the end of a 9mm pistol - and even more effective at killing large animals than a 9mm. Should we outlaw powerful compound bows and crossbows too?

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by weblance

There are 2 ways to legally obtain a suppressor in the USA.

There's a third way: Purchasing it through a corporation. But almost nobody does it that way because if the corporation isn't maintained then all of a sudden you have an NFA item that's registered to a non-existent entity, and that means you have an illegal NFA item. That's why trust are much more common, a trust doesn't need to be kept up; once it's set up that's it.

Originally Posted by weblance

There is another, different path to obtain a suppressor, which involves setting up a Trust, but I dont know how that actually works, so I wont offer an explanation.

Actually you pretty much explained it right there, it's almost that simple: Get your trust set up (it's recommended to have a lawyer do it), make a copy of the trust, give that copy to your SOT dealer along with your $200 check, fill out and sign two copies of the Form 4 (your SOT should help you with this or even do it for you; all you really need to do is sign the back), then all that is sent to the ATF. Then when the Form 4 comes back in 3 - 4 months with the tax stamp affixed, you come back in to your SOT and fill out the 4473 and they do the FBI background check like with a normal fiream. At that point there's a few trust pages they need a copy of and a trust disposition form to fill out, and that's it.

I know it sounds complicated, but any SOT worth their salt should make it a pretty quick and easy process. The hardest part is getting the trust set up, but even that can be pretty simple if you use a law firm that specializes in NFA trusts. And even then, the trust is a one-time deal; you just use that same trust for any future NFA purchases.

[hdaackda]

THANK YOU FOR ALL THE REPLIED!! esp @Machineguntony

Walykum Salam

Yeah, unfortunately the law doesn't apply of the super rich.. (at least in my country)

They are strictly illegal here and anyone found in possession of one directly gets sent to jail for 7 years under the anti-terrorism act!

Although there are NO stats to prove that they have been used in terrorists activities (on the contrary, terrorist usually prefer loud guns because they create more "terror") people automatically assume that "silencers" completely kill the sound (which as many people here have stated is not true).

Besides, even without silencers, the crime rate is already too high.. dont think it can get any higher with the aid of silencers! aahhh but who to explain this to our lawmakers maybe if some rich dudes have difficulty in obtaining one, they can bribe a lawmaker to repeal the law..

[egor20]

B.L.E.
I have read that in some European countries, silencers are not only completely legal, but required for hunting in some areas, just like our motorcycles are supposed to have mufflers on them.

My wife's from England and found it amusing that she can walk into a store and purchase a handgun (something obviously she can't in England) but she would have to wait 6 months to get a suppressor (something she hunted with everyday in England)

[Bongo Boy]

I imagine that in many countries, if not all of them, many laws are written that have little or no basis in facts of any kind, and that are enacted only because elected politicians care a great deal about giving the impression they are taking action to solve some problem or prevent one.

The notion that something bad is prevented by ensuring citizens have to pay the government for the privilege of owning a suppressor is about as absurd as it gets--almost. The outright banning of weapon ownership because of the physical appearance or configuration of the weapon I think takes the prize for lunacy.

One could well ask, "How many crimes go unsolved specifically because a firearm was used and that firearm was fitted with a suppressor, and how many crimes would not be committed with firearms in the first place if suppressors were banned?"

Both questions seem obviously absurd (to me), but if anyone asked them or if anyone actually cared about the answers, law prohibiting ownership and use of suppressors would never see the light of day. That's the point--no one cares about the answers because such laws are not passed to solve the problems they appear to be aimed at. They are aimed at helping politicians appear effective.

[Machineguntony]

Sometimes, we really have to be careful of what we wish for.

Like it or not, the NFA has practically elminated suppressors from being used in crimes. In that sense, it has done some good.

Laws are always bad if you disagree with them; Judges are always activist judges when you disagree with them; otherwise, when you agree with them, they're standing up for the Constitution and common sense.

I don't take a position either way.

Now...the Hughes Amendment...that's really bad law signed by an activist president, who probably consulted Joan Quigley before he signed it...and people knock Obama. Lol. Jk, sort of.

[manta49]

England) but she would have to wait 6 months to get a suppressor

As you probably already know in England and the rest of the UK you need a firearms certificate when getting a firearm, when you are applying for a rifle you just add a moderator in the application, it will be added on your FAC, its not an issue here. They are not allowed for handguns.

Sound Moderator in UK This "accessory" is generally known as a moderator or "silencer" and is subject to certificate control. Thus, first acquire and then possess a moderator you will need to have the authority on your firearm certificate, the same as you would for any firearm. You cannot legally possess a moderator unless you have the authority on your firearm certificate.

[Tom Servo]

Like it or not, the NFA has practically elminated suppressors from being used in crimes. In that sense, it has done some good.

Neither of those statements is really verifiable.

Now...the Hughes Amendment...that's really bad law signed by an activist president

That's the first time I've heard Ronald Reagan referred to that way.

[James K]

This is about a lot more than suppressors/silencers. In a top-down government (a dictatorship at least in part) the question is always "why should X be allowed?" In a democratic society, the question properly is "why should X be banned?" In one case the people are allowed to own only what a presumably benevolent government allows them to own; in the other case, the people can own anything until the government proves to the people or their representatives that something should be illegal.

Suppressors were banned by the NFA not because of any significant use in crime (even in the Prohibition gangster era), but because Homer Cummings, FDR's fanatically anti-gun AG, convinced Congress that they were "sneaky" and "un-American."

Jim

Edited to add:

The Hughes amendment was accepted by the NRA because it was attached to the FOPA, which the NRA wanted very badly. Reagan asked the NRA lobbyists if they wanted him to veto the bill after it had been passed with the machinegun restriction. They told him no, saying that they could work to have the MG ban removed later and they needed the FOPA more. They were wrong, one of the major NRA errors over the years. The FOPA has had little effect, mainly because some states choose to simply ignore it and there are no penalties for doing so. Now we have the MG registration ban and are likely to have it for a long time, especially since the anti-gun gang can claim that there are millions of ISIS recruits in the US, just itching to get machineguns and "assault rifles".

Jim

[Pilot]

Silencers/Suppressors were never a crime issue, just a media/lawmaker issue.

[cslinger]

Well they shouldn't be since without ANY noise it makes anybody an assassin err some such ignorant uneducated drivel I have heard.

You know full auto, you can sell me on levels of restrictions to a point. Maybe even SBR,SBS. Certain IOWs etc. frankly those would be a hard sell too since they have no real criminal use statistics above background noise levels but at least one can argue they are dangerous weapons on their own.

Suppressor use should be damn near encouraged as far as I am concerned. Barring very specific calibers in specific loadings suppressors still are not exactly pffffffft quiet. But would do wonders to aid in hearing protection and range noise pollution.

[Machineguntony]

I was being sarcastic, Tom. That's why I said JK.

But as to the first statement, I agree that absence of evidence isn't evidence, and that there are causal issues within the NFA crime, or lack of crime, statistic. We could spend all day arguing arguendo; however, these arguments inevitably get nasty and personal, so I will make no further comment on this issue.

I will not forgive the NRA for the machine gun ban.

[Unclenick]

The lack of crime connection evidence in this country is a chicken or egg problem. Too few suppressors around to test the hypothesis. Other countries have not found it an issue though. In Finland, suppressors are over-the-counter firearm accessories requiring no permit. Finnish police say they just don't figure in crime enough to be an issue. They make the gun heavier, less pointable and less compact. You can't run from the crime scene any faster with one. It doesn't hide you from security cameras. It doesn't make victims any more or less compliant. But it does make it more awkward to tuck the gun in your belt or in a pocket. And then, except for locked breech .22 rimfire weapons, they aren't silent. It's more like having a loud cap gun. So there seem to be many minuses for the bad guys for little benefit.

I always crack up when I see the old B&W crime movies where someone screws a suppressor onto a revolver and it goes "pftttt". The amount of gas escaping the barrel/cylinder gap of a revolver is plenty for a fairly loud report. A fellow I knew who used to work on these kinds of things for the military commented that the TV show silencers he'd seen would have to be the size of an oil drum to suppress sound as much as they do. But that's Hollywood imagination vs. reality, and we seem to have made the law to Hollywood standards.

[Skans]

I don't really see the relevance between whether or not silencers are used in crimes and whether they should be highly regulated. A silencer is perhaps the easiest gun-part to make legally or illegally. If someone is determined to commit a murder using a silenced firearm, what difference does it make whether he is using a legal or illegal silencer? Is the penalty for having an illegal silencer going to be any more severe than the penalty of murdering someone? I just don't get it. You might as well make the bow and arrow illegal, or at least a device that must be registered with BATFE, albeit even a decent bow is harder to make than a firearm sound suppressor.

[Theohazard]

It drives me nuts when I hear about a long-established outdoor gun range that gradually has more and more houses built near it, and those new neighbors decide to band together and try to get the range shut down because of the noise pollution. A perfect solution to that problem would be to remove silencers from the NFA and make them easier to get, but I wonder how many of those same neighbors would balk at that suggestion?

[TimSr]

Like it or not, the NFA has practically elminated suppressors from being used in crimes.

I think drawing that conclusion is a stretch.

I imagine that in many countries, if not all of them, many laws are written that have little or no basis in facts of any kind, and that are enacted only because elected politicians care a great deal about giving the impression they are taking action to solve some problem or prevent one.

In this country we enact laws to stop things that have only occurred in movies made without technical consultants.

[Double Naught Spy]

To be honest, I am surprised that they are not mandatory here in the US for reasons of health safety, and disturbance to others.

[Cosmodragoon]

I don't know if anyone here listens to Gun Talk but they flew over to Germany and broadcast from the European IWA show last month. Tom Gresham had some nice discussions with people over there about the differences in laws. There are misconceptions about both sides of the Atlantic, and some people were surprised that suppressors are so... suppressed here. Even in places with much more severe gun control than we have, silencers can not only be legal but encouraged. "Noise pollution" is a big part of it, as is your own hearing protection. It is simply good manners!

[tahunua001]

to name a few uses.
1. protects the user's hearing from unnecessary damage.
2. in low light situations, reduces muzzle flash, preventing temporary night blindness.
3. you don't have to hear the gun shots ringing throughout the countryside.
4. since you can't hear the shot as well, it is easier to continue hunting after a shot is taken because the animals are less likely to become spooked by the report.
5. why the heck not?

silencers are legal in most states, but some regions have an unconstitutional ban on them. even if you get your paperwork from the federal government authorizing you to use them, some local government organizations criminalize the possession or use of silencers which is technically illegal. federal trumps local in every single area but apparently whenever firearms are concerned it is tolerated to have local supersede federal.