HR 367: To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns

[DMK]

Awkward name.

H.R.367 - To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns.

Introduced to the 115th Congress on 1/9/17

Currently 43 cosponsers. Though only one from my state

Currently referred to the following committees: House Ways and Means, House Judiciary

At this point it doesn't matter what POTUS might do, do not let it die in Congress. Start writing your elected officials to support this people!


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ion-act-hr-367


https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-.../all-info?r=21

[Tom Servo]

Once the bill clears committee, it will be updated on PopVox. At that point, there will be a handy form for typing a letter and automatically directing it to your representatives.

[DMK]

Thanks Tom!

[Aguila Blanca]

Just to play devil's advocate -- why should "silencers" be treated the same as any kind of firearm? A "silencer" can't fire a bullet. A "silencer" is an accessory, and it doesn't even improve accuracy. Why aren't suppressors treated as parts, or accessories -- like grips or slings or buttstock cushions/pads?

If we're going to fix things, let's fix them.

[5whiskey]

Just to play devil's advocate -- why should "silencers" be treated the same as any kind of firearm? A "silencer" can't fire a bullet. A "silencer" is an accessory, and it doesn't even improve accuracy. Why aren't suppressors treated as parts, or accessories -- like grips or slings or buttstock cushions/pads?

Agreed. Don't see it happening that way, but agreed none-the-less. Seriously, when was the last time a can was reported to be used in a crime? I know they are heavily regulated, so you ^COULD^ argue that the regulation has done it's job. I reject that, however, as a crude suppressor can be easily made from a variety of materials if someone is committed to breaking the law.

[ctdonath]

I don't think it's sociopolitically practical to make the single leap from "NFA regulated" to "just another accessory". People are going to freak out enough over "making silencers legal" without going straight to "a 10 year old can just hand over $50 and buy a silencer at the hardware store" (even though they used to, and there wasn't a problem).

Also, there's ripple effects: a lot of states have laws restricting silencers, often with reference to compliance with particular federal laws. Converting silencers to "general firearm" category will transition much smoother in local/state jurisdictions than total deregulation.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be completely deregulated. Completely, as in "screw on an oil can" simple. Just isn't going to happen overnight.

[motorhead0922]

I agree completely that no NICS should be needed. But if keeping the background check can garner 60 votes in the Senate and not keeping it only gets 52, I'll do the NICS.

[cslinger]

Never let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

Baby steps bob.

[Technosavant]

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be completely deregulated. Completely, as in "screw on an oil can" simple. Just isn't going to happen overnight.

Agreed.

This is probably possible. I don't think complete deregulation is going to happen in one move. Right now, silencers (that's the legal term, and yes, I know the better word is suppressor) are the stuff of movies for most people and their knowledge of them is completely divorced from reality.

You can't just go screw a can onto ANY gun... has to be a threaded barrel, and those aren't always inexpensive, easily obtainable for a given model, or even reliable if you get your hands on one. I think of the scene from Goodfellas, where there's a bag of silencers that won't mate up to a gun... of course not, the barrel isn't threaded and you just can't throw any silencer on any gun.

They don't make things "puff" quiet. They're not that small, so you won't have criminals wanting to conceal one attached to a pistol. They're just not that conducive to criminal use.

But most folks don't know these things. It will take exposure to educate them, and just like happened with regular guns, that takes time. Regulation as long guns is acceptable to me, I think that's a great next step. Moving to complete deregulation will take some time once we take that next step. People will need to understand what they are and how they work, and that won't happen overnight.

[Skans]

What will happen to all of the registered silencers? Will they automatically be de-registered? Will they have a different status than silencers built after the law is passed (if it is passed)?

Also, how many BATFE agents will lose their jobs because they no longer have to process silencer transfers?

[DaleA]

I think they should be completely deregulated. Completely, as in "screw on an oil can" simple.

Yup. Even gun grabbers, if they gave it a RATIONAL thought would agree.

And shoulder stocks should be unregulated too.

[Tom Servo]

Also, how many BATFE agents will lose their jobs because they no longer have to process silencer transfers?

From my understanding, not many. That's why process for which they already have all the information they need takes so long.

Even if this were to pass, they'd just be given other responsibilities.

[DMK]

I'd actually be impressed if they were even treated like long guns in the first go around.

I get a feeling that there will be a huge media and political controversy about this and when the dust settles, there will have been compromise and at the very least you'll need to be 21 to buy one, like a handgun.

[DMK]

What will happen to all of the registered silencers? Will they automatically be de-registered?

It's my understanding (and I'm not sure if this is in the current draft) that if passed all NFA tax stamps for silencers purchased since the bill was introduced would be refunded.

[Hunter Customs]

Just to play devil's advocate -- why should "silencers" be treated the same as any kind of firearm? A "silencer" can't fire a bullet. A "silencer" is an accessory, and it doesn't even improve accuracy. Why aren't suppressors treated as parts, or accessories -- like grips or slings or buttstock cushions/pads?

If we're going to fix things, let's fix them.

Even though I understand the thoughts about doing things in steps I totally agree with the above statement.

We all know a suppressor does not remove all sound from a gun being fired, it does muffle the muzzle blast some but it does nothing about the noise when the bullet breaks the sound barrier.

I fail to see how a suppressor makes a gun more lethal, so I don't see why a suppressor should have any type of regulation.
If we go along with this will we agree to regulating rifle scopes?

Also I say anyone that has a tax stamp for a suppressor should get a full refund, in my opinion it an unfair tax.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[DMK]

I fail to see how a suppressor makes a gun more lethal, so I don't see why a suppressor should have any type of regulation.
If we go along with this will we agree to regulating rifle scopes?

The problem is we have gone along with this type of regulation for 82 years. An entire generation of citizens were born, raised and lived their entire lives with this just being the way it is. It's hard to undo that.

The 'why' is all about the gang wars of Chicago during the alcohol prohibition years. Suppressors were portrayed as weapons of assassins. It was the assault weapons ban of the day. Based on drama, misinformation, emotion and outright lies. Most people were duped and ignorant of the facts, as they are today.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cslinger

Never let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

Baby steps bob.

I understand, and if that's the way we have to go I even agree.

I do find it a bit ironic that so many members of this forum don't seem to take that attitude regarding the proposed universal reciprocity bill, though. It seems the response of a majority of members of TFL (at least those who have posted in the thread) is that if it's not a complete repeal of all permitting, they're against it. And yet universal (national) reciprocity would affect and benefit far more people than unrestricted access to suppressors.

[johnwilliamson062]

100 years of incremental rights destruction got us here. Be prepared for 200 years of incremental change to get them back.

Unless we can manage the break-up of California into several states. That might speed things up. It might also provide a permanent "progressive" senate.
A middle of the road northern or Eastern California sure would be a great state.

[44 AMP]

Just to play devil's advocate -- why should "silencers" be treated the same as any kind of firearm? A "silencer" can't fire a bullet. A "silencer" is an accessory, and it doesn't even improve accuracy. Why aren't suppressors treated as parts, or accessories -- like grips or slings or buttstock cushions/pads?

We GOT that in 1994!!!

Magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, heat shields ('the thing that goes up"..) etc. Not exactly the same way as the NFA 34, but still a ban. Fortunately, we had enough political power at that time to include a sunset provision (10 years and gone, unless reauthorized by vote of Congress). And, we had the political power to keep that vote from passing in 2004, so, the Fed law went away.

Various state laws that copied the Fed law, but without the sunset clause are still with us, still valid laws, and have even been added to by some states, since then.

I fail to see how a suppressor makes a gun more lethal, so I don't see why a suppressor should have any type of regulation.
If we go along with this will we agree to regulating rifle scopes?

You should fail to see how a suppressor makes a gun more lethal. Because they DON'T. What the anti gun bigots claim for their justification is the "silenced" shot allows the criminal to escape undetected...and so they should be highly regulated and taxed, if not banned outright.

However, they fail to follow their own logic to its ..logical... destination. They didn't tax & regulate knives, swords, bows & arrows, ROCKS, ropes, human hands and feet, or any of the other "silent" means of killing. Believe it or not, in the early 30s, the crime they were more worried about criminals using a silencer and getting away with, was not homicide, but poaching!!!

Regulating rifle scopes?? Already been brought up by the gun banners (scoped rifle = sniper rifle = military weapon = not for legal civilian ownership)
Didn't get any traction then, so they shifted their focus, but make no mistake, when they think the time is right, Scopes WILL be back on their hit list and demonized in the media until they get some kind of "first step" restrictions passed into law.

The 'why' is all about the gang wars of Chicago during the alcohol prohibition years.

Chicago and other places. Do note, however that the law was in 1934, after the repeal of Prohibition had removed the main profit base for the gang wars. While this was the public reason for the law, some of us believe the actual reason for the law was to give T-men who had been enforcing Prohibition something else to do.

I've heard that the original draft of the NFA 34 regulated machine guns and "short" weapons, which were sawed off shotguns, stocked pistols and HANDGUNS. "Silencers" were not in the law at that time.

Someone more politically savvy than the bill's author(s) convinced them that with handguns in the law, it would never be passed, so they took out the handgun section (mostly) and replaced it with "silencers". And that did pass.

It was the assault weapons ban of the day. Based on drama, misinformation, emotion and outright lies. Most people were duped and ignorant of the facts, as they are today.

Even I won't argue with this! Spot on!
I will add that "most people" back then simply didn't have "a dog in that fight" (also like today), and so didn't oppose something that they saw as not affecting their lives. This was not something that could have been counted on if handguns had been left in the NFA act.

In case there's anyone out there who doesn't already know, the term "Silencer" was created and owned (for some time) by Hiram Maxwell, it was the brand name of his product. Some places in the world refer to them as "mufflers", and we properly call them suppressors. "Silencer" has, over the years, become the accepted generic name for the devices, the way "Kleenex" has become the generic name for tissues.


Baby Steps..

I do find it a bit ironic that so many members of this forum don't seem to take that attitude regarding the proposed universal reciprocity bill, though. It seems the response of a majority of members of TFL (at least those who have posted in the thread) is that if it's not a complete repeal of all permitting, they're against it.

There are always the "all or nothing" folks, and they can be pretty vocal, especially around here. For me, the objection is not about the idea, its about how flawed ALL the proposals I've heard so far, are, and not examining the potential unintended consequences deeply enough.

And yet universal (national) reciprocity would affect and benefit far more people than unrestricted access to suppressors.

You're going to have to make a case for this one, to convince me, especially the "far more" part. As I see it, national carry reciprocity really affects only who carry, AND travel. Unrestricted access to suppressors affects everyone, those who travel and those who don't. I can't see how that's not the bigger number.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing against the benefits of reciprocity, only the "far more people" part.

I applaud the idea behind the bill, but I think they should have come up with a better title. Perhaps something emphasizing safety and hearing protection a bit more...

Personally, I do agree there should be no more regulation on silencers than on any other piece of pipe. However, I am willing to gladly accept the same registration as regular firearms, if that's what it took to get them out of the NFA 34 act's authority. Baby Steps.

The other side is forever going on about how each of their new laws is a "reasonable first step". This should be one of ours!

[lefteye]

"the thing that goes up"

Help, I can't remember her name.

[vicGT]

Originally Posted by lefteye

"the thing that goes up"

Help, I can't remember her name.

I think you're looking for Carolyn McCarthy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

[dakota.potts]

Being treated as long guns, in most states they could also be sold via a private party transfer or made at home for anybody savvy with a lathe.

I tend to agree that they should be sold just like muzzle brakes, but the 4473 process is not all that troublesome and may actually save us should some trouble occur. For example, if sold openly I do believe gang members and other notorious violent criminals will probably beginning using them on each other and there will probably be a media outcry about that. Keeping them transferred through a 4473 and background check allows us a defense that they are being sold with due diligence. If no such problems happen, the transaction records of the 4473 will give us a pretty cogent argument about how many are sold versus how many actually are used in crime and may be used later as an argument to deregulate them altogether.

[Skans]

they could also be sold via a private party transfer or made at home for anybody savvy with a lathe.

Might be used as an excuse by the Antis to stop private ftf arms sales.

Still, I'm wondering if all of the registered ones would be removed from the registry?

[dakota.potts]

I am wondering about the registry also. It's my understanding that it's illegal for the Federal government to maintain a registry of any firearms not explicitly put under their control (National Firearms Act). That makes me think that when their legal status changes to "long gun" it would become illegal to maintain the registry. Does the bill say anything about that?

[44 AMP]

It's my understanding that it's illegal for the Federal government to maintain a registry of any firearms not explicitly put under their control ...

This is a "yes" and a "no" thing. There are lists, and then there are lists...

And, while there are laws that prohibit the govt from keeping certain lists, the govt does not always follow its own rules. Certain agencies have been taken to court over this.

Also there are people in govt who are expert in interpreting laws, rules, and regulations. They can be very ...creative.. sometimes.

The Govt has a list of guns registered when they are made/imported. They keep that, of course, I believe a law requires it.

Govt gets a list of everyone who buys a gun and goes through the instant check over the phone. That information is something that by law, they are not allowed to keep, over a certain time limit. But they have been caught, doing so.

The ones that get caught are the clumsy, stupid ones. The smart ones obey the letter of the law, but arrange things so they get what they want, anyway.

For example, if there is a law saying the GOVT cannot keep a list that contains A, B, and C, then they don't. One dept gets a list that has A and C, another dept gets one that has B and C, another one gets A and B etc. Since there is no single list that has A, B, and C, then they are obeying the law.

Regarding the silencer registry, why would you think that list would go away if the status of silencers changes? as we have argued, they are not firearms, so a law stating the GOVT cannot keep firearms records does not apply to them.

See if they don't try to have it both ways, until/unless a court specifically orders them not to.