The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 20, 2008, 02:13 PM   #101
MisterWilson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
Okay, so after we're forced to register, after we're treated like criminals, good GOD you'd better not lie on your ATF form and say that it's for "Research purposes" or whatever stupid phrase they require, because that'd be lying and wrong.

Did you bump your head?
MisterWilson is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 02:24 PM   #102
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
Quote:
I am retired now. I do not know the disposition of the case, or whether or not it has been officially closed. Not being in the loop anymore precludes me from gaining access to any official records concerning the investigation. Consequently, what information I do have, is confidential, and I am not at the liberty to discuss it. There was a brief story of the account in the local rags, NY Daily News, NY Times, NY Post, to name a few. If you wish to pursue the incident, those rags are a good place to start. Perhaps you can contact the NYPD homicide division at the NYPD headquarters building in lower Manhattan, NYC. The ATF based in lower Manhattan was also part of the investigation. Perhaps an inquiry to them would help. That's the best I can do for you.
Maybe regarding this isolated case this is the best one can do but regarding actual prosecuted crimes committed where silencers are mentioned, well, we can do better than that.
And we don't need any special hot shot credentials to do so.

We also don't need to call NYPD or the anti-gun NY liberal press to get unbiased information on criminal cases involving firearms.

Actually, I've visited 1 Police Plaza, in Manhattan, many times and seen with my own eyes the disrespect shown by officers and clerks, of the Licensing Division, towards the law-abiding applying for a permit. The only thing that you have to do is walk into their buildings for them to start looking at you like a criminal. And this was during the scum Guiliani administration. Today under the anti-gun twerp Bloomberg things are 10 times worse. And Newark PD is not far behind. I dealt with them, on a daily basis, before, during and after 911.

It's true that crimes have been committed by folks possessing silencers (legally or otherwise) but statistics do show that the number of crimes committed with a firearm that hosted a silencer is almost null and NOT an LE or a society concern.

Information on criminal silencer use and conviction is not available from ATF as the machinegun reports.

The Lexis/Westlaw database contains 153 cases over the past ten years in which the evidence suggests a silencer was used for a criminal purpose — including unlawful possession of a silencer where no other crime was committed. That gives an average of about 15 reported cases each year, and assuming this represents close to half of all prosecutions, one can assume 30-40 total cases per year (to be conservative). This is out of 75-80,000 overall federal criminal prosecutions each year. Overall numbers certainly suggest that silencers are a very minor law enforcement problem. Moving from the overall numbers and looking at more specific offences, it appears that use of silencers in truly violent crime is even more rare. Thirty-six of the 153 defendants (23%) had prior criminal records, although many were for relatively minor offenses. For 17 of those the prior offense was not listed.
The 19 whose prior records were listed broke down as follows (if there was more than one prior then the most serious prior conviction is listed): 4 drug trafficking, 3 misdemeanors (disorderly conduct, domestic violence, possession of marijuana), 2 felony possession of drugs (but not trafficking), 2 assault, 1 murder, 1 arson, 1 rape, 1 burglary, 1 attempted grand larceny, 1 DWI, 1 carrying concealed weapon, 1 (previ-ous) possession of silencer. So even for the 23 percent of defendants with a prior record, almost half of them (8 out of 19 reported) had fairly trivial, non-violent prior crimes. There were 20 cases (13%) in which possession of silencer was the only charge (state or federal). These would not be subject to the 30-year enhanced sentence. Thirty-seven cases (24%) included other illegal weapons charges (such as possession of “short barrel” rifle, or an automatic weapon), but by a person who had no criminal record and no apparent intention to use the weapons for a violent purpose. Not surprisingly, many people who manufacture silencers also manufacture other firearms, which is illegal without a permit. There were 50 cases (32%) in which silencers were found during drug raids, and in which drug trafficking was the most serious charge. Almost without exception the silencer was simply found on the premises when the residence was searched for drugs. In these 50 cases there is no evidence that the silencer found during the drug raid was ever used to injure anyone. In 32 cases (21%) some crime other then drug trafficking was charged: 7 Continuing Criminal Enterprise, 6 robbery, 5 illegal sale of weapons, 4 murder, 2 attempted murder, 2 conspiracy to murder, 2 extortion, 1 sexual assault (state crime), 1 bank robbery, 1 assault and 1 burglary (state crime). If we include sale of weapons in the victimless category (along with possession of illegal weapons, drug trafficking, and mere non-violent possession of weapons by a felon), then more than 80 percent of federal silencer charges are for non-violent, victimless crimes. If we consider all those convicted of Continuing Crimianl Enterprise, CCE, extortion, robbery and conspiracy as “professional” criminals, these still represent less than 20 percent of defendants prosecuted. In 14 cases of 160 silencer prosecutions (about 9%) the defendant was acquitted of all charges (7 cases) or the case was dismissed due to illegal search (7 cases). It should also be noted that there were 3 other acquittals in which the defendant was acquitted of use of a silencer during a crime but convicted of simple possession of an unregistered silencer. The guns found with silencers were overwhelmingly small caliber, low power semi-automatic pistols. Of the reported cases, 46 listed the caliber of the firearm associated with the silencer. For those cases in which caliber is noted, 52 percent were .22, 32 percent were 9mm, 10 percent were .38, 2 percent were .25 caliber, 2 percent were .45 caliber, and 2 percent were either 9mm or .22. So of the 46 cases with listed calibers we have only one large caliber handgun—the .45. While a 9 mm could make up for its small caliber by using a higher-velocity bullet, a silenced 9mm would need to fire a subsonic round and thus would not be a deadly as a non-silenced 9mm.

You see this, is not a simple question to answer. Specially with one case, which as TPAW mentioned, is still under investigation.

Last edited by MOS11C; July 20, 2008 at 04:43 PM.
MOS11C is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 03:20 PM   #103
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
IMO, silencer crimes are a non-issue even by Criminal Justice standards.

One of the harshest penalties in the federal system is a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a silencer during a violent crime or drug trafficking:
Quote:
Whoever, during and in relation to any violent crime or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly weapon or de-vice) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)).
That's 30 years of enhanced sentence!
This can result in lengthy prison sentences for otherwise minor crimes.

The legislative history of silencer statutes indicates that these provisions were adopted with little or no debate. Probably done while watching some Hollywood movies.
The silencer provision is very obscure, and the average stupid criminal has no idea that there is a 30-year enhanced sentence for their use in the commission of a crime. Even if the “professional criminal” (the ones that Harry probably eludes to from watching too many TV shows) is more likely to know the penalty than others, the result could simply be that these perps will use disposable objects for silencers to avoid being caught (heck even a pillow or cushion), and so the law will most likely affect non-professionals who lack knowledge of both the law and the ease with which it can be avoided. It may be that people who consider using silencers think that if they do they will not be caught, or that their chances of being apprehended are so greatly reduced by using a silencer that it is worth the risk. So despite the harsh sentence attached to silencer use, the statute and the small number of criminal convictions may still have little or no deterrent effect.

So the huge sentencing deters nothing. Not the dumb common perp who lacks the knowledge of it...and not the so called "professional" who has the knowledge but rather use other readily available and non-traceable means to commit the crime.

MOS11C is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 03:25 PM   #104
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.


BTW, Kudos to Harry for not backing down to the little Rambo wannabes and, more than that, those manufacturing and selling to them.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 03:33 PM   #105
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
Quote:
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.
They are legal.

And it's not a permit.
At least not at the Federal level.

Although a very small number of States and counties may require a permit.

Last edited by MOS11C; July 21, 2008 at 08:16 PM.
MOS11C is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 03:37 PM   #106
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
And it's not a permit.

OK, whatever you call it. Why do you need it?
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 03:53 PM   #107
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
Quote:
OK, whatever you call it. Why do you need it?
Why do we need an approval or application or tax stamp?
Another way of the Government to collect taxes. LOL

The BATF "needs" to collect a tax fee for the registration of the NFA item. They attach the paid tax stamp to the approved application and mail it to you.
In other words, we need to apply and pay for the registration of transfer or "make" of the NFA item.
...in a nutshell.

No one here denies that certain approvals and signatures will be required for the application form...but special permits perse are not required. And State/localities laws for NFA items must be also be followed, here is where some States or counties may require registration permits and restrictions...But these a very few scummy municipalities.

Botomline is that the firearms industry in America is the most over-regulated industry. Nevertheless, I rather live here than anywhere else. The vast majority of the gun enthusiasts here are very knowledgable about the laws.

Imagine that someone spends above $700 bucks for a tactical firearm with a threaded barrel, $700-$1000 for a good silencer, $200 for an ATF tax stamp, wait 2 to 3 months for an ATF application approval, study the laws on what "you can and cannot do" regarding transporting, storing and using the silencer...wouldn't this be an indication of a responsible law-abiding person?

I tend to believe that people taking possession of NFA items show a lot more restraint, patience and knowledge about the use and consequences of misuse of these items than the folks who don't.

Last edited by MOS11C; July 21, 2008 at 08:18 PM.
MOS11C is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 03:56 PM   #108
MisterWilson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
Quote:
Why do you need it?
Did you really just say that!?

Zero, sell your guns, move to California, register as a "D", and destroy your mancard.

Gun owners have NO BUSINESS ever uttering those god-forsaken words.

What is God's name is wrong with you?
MisterWilson is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 04:27 PM   #109
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Zero, I've been watching your posts in this thread and while I don't agree with some of them, you are generally well spoken. However, your statement of
Quote:
Simple point. If they weren't illegal, you would not have to get a special permit to start with.
shows that you are not aware of all the facts that you continue to argue against. You need a permit to carry a gun. You don't need a permit to purchase a NFA firearm, what you need is to pay a tax on the transfer of that weapon. It is a tax, the same as a sales tax is a tax. It doesn't mean that a suppressor is an illegal item any more than the candy bar you just bought is a prohibited item, because you had to pay a tax on it...
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 04:32 PM   #110
MisterWilson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
Except with any other form of tax evasion you're not generally stuck with 30/$300,000.

I'll take "8th Amendment" for $100, Alex.
MisterWilson is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 04:54 PM   #111
swingset
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2001
Location: Granville, OH
Posts: 344
How many ways can a person be shown to be hysterical, emotional, and wrong and STILL keep punching at the air wildly?

Keep on boxing, Zero.
__________________
Life is a big, black hole of sucking disappointment.
swingset is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:21 PM   #112
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
hysterical, emotional
LOL, have a problem understanding English? I promise, I don't care if everybody has a whole house full of silencers. But, the derogatory nature of the pro silencer bunch on this thread doesn't say much for any capability of explaining a silencers purpose in any convincing manner, other than I make money selling them.

But that is beside the point, you keep trying to tell me they are legal when the NC law that I posted says they are not. If they are not illegal why does it specifically list them as illegal.

I admitted it is nit picking. But, if I go down to the shop and fabricate a rudimentary silencer and attach to one of my rifles, I am breaking the law. What is complicated about this?
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:21 PM   #113
Hugh G Rection
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 9
Quote:
Mister Wilson;
Go take a leap at a flying donut buddy!
Harry B.
I don't think that someone that posts has Hairy Boner should be talking about leaping at flying donuts . . . Just sayin'

Hugh G. Rection
Hugh G Rection is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:30 PM   #114
MisterWilson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
Many states list these kinds of toys as being against the law with a clause stating that being registered in the NFA registry is a defense against the law.


Not being registered is against the "law". I legally have a registered short barreled rifle, yet if I were to go into a machine shop and manufacture a sub-16" rifle, that would be against the law.

What's so hard about this? People have legal cans in NC.
MisterWilson is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:31 PM   #115
Conqueror
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 9
Quote:
But that is beside the point, you keep trying to tell me they are legal when the NC law that I posted says they are not.
You posted around two lines of the law, without citing their source, and without their context or subsequent listed exceptions. The NC firearm statutes comprise like 50 pages of legislation. The ATF doesn't approve illegal transfers. For example, if you applied to transfer a silencer in CA, where only SOTs may possess them, you would be denied. Yet ATF happily approves thousands of transfers in NC every year. No person in NC history has been convicted of a crime under 14-288.8, and I doubt anyone has even been charged under that statute.

The most you could possibly claim is that silencers in NC are illegal to the few people who do not fit within any number of broad and poorly-defined categories like "collectors", "inventors", or "other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge." They are FAR from "illegal, period" which you have claimed throughout this thread.
Conqueror is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:34 PM   #116
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
But, if I go down to the shop and fabricate a rudimentary silencer and attach to one of my rifles, I am breaking the law. What is complicated about this?
And if you carry a pistol without a license you are breaking the law, and if you drive without a license you are breaking the law, and if you hunt without a license you are breaking the law, and if you fly without a license you are breaking the law. All these things are inherently legal, but can become illegal if you don't go through the proper channels. That's all I'm saying!
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:41 PM   #117
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
And if you carry a pistol without a license you are breaking the law, and if you drive without a license you are breaking the law, and if you hunt without a license you are breaking the law, and if you fly without a license you are breaking the law. All these things are inherently legal, but can become illegal if you don't go through the proper channels. That's all I'm saying!
I agree with all of that 100%. And since you are the only one left particpating in this thread that is worth having a discussion with, I will surrender to the others.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:43 PM   #118
MisterWilson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
Well whatever you do, don't admit that you were wrong...
MisterWilson is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 05:48 PM   #119
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
It's kinda humorous that the NFA '34 restricted suppressors because of fears of people poaching game animals during the depression years, yet most people think they are restricted because of their use in murders and other violent crime. I'm convinced that is 100% Hollywood's fault. I enjoy these things because they are interesting and I am a 'gadget guy'. I like all things mechanical and I especially like to learn about things that a vast majority of people know nothing about. I won't lie to you about hearing protection, and noise pollution. I like 'em becaue I think they are cool and interesting. That should be reason enough........
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !

Last edited by VUPDblue; July 21, 2008 at 06:41 AM.
VUPDblue is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 06:40 PM   #120
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Glad you finally figured out the point I made in post #50.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 06:40 PM   #121
Conqueror
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 9
Careful with your acronyms. The 1934 law is the National Firearms Act, NFA. The GCA (Gun Control Act) is a specific law enacted in 1968.
Conqueror is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 08:47 PM   #122
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,226
Sound suppressors are great and I wish they were mandatory on all rifles.
Check out http://www.silencertests.com/ - I participated in that event back in '06

I shot my CRAZY HORSE® US NAVY MK14 SEI MOD 0 and a Fisher suppressor - Video Link




I'll soon be running the same can on my 7.62 x 39 AKs.
SR420 is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 09:29 PM   #123
MGRacer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2005
Posts: 129
ZeroJunk:

Quote:
LOL, have a problem understanding English? I promise, I don't care if everybody has a whole house full of silencers. But, the derogatory nature of the pro silencer bunch on this thread doesn't say much for any capability of explaining a silencers purpose in any convincing manner, other than I make money selling them.
Did you miss post numbers: 43, 62, 86, 87, 95, 97 and probably others where the use of silencers was explained.


ZeroJunk:

Quote:
BTW, Kudos to Harry for not backing down to the little Rambo wannabes and, more than that, those manufacturing and selling to them. emphasis added
???

Do you find that your inflammatory characterization of those who are posting on this thread helpful to the discussion? I expected better from you. I neither make nor sell silencers and I am not a Rambo wannabe, whatever that is. I am an engineer and a project manager by training and license. Do you watch too much TV? This kind of perspective can come from the false presentations of lawful gun use by Hollywood.
__________________
"A man's gotta do what he thinks is best."

Last edited by MGRacer; July 21, 2008 at 12:55 AM.
MGRacer is offline  
Old July 20, 2008, 09:36 PM   #124
MOS11C
Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
Quote:
And since you are the only one left particpating in this thread that is worth having a discussion with, I will surrender to the others.
Wait a minute, ZERO, I thought that I posted a bunch of information here.

-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-!!!!!


Last edited by MOS11C; July 21, 2008 at 10:27 AM.
MOS11C is offline  
Old July 21, 2008, 01:47 AM   #125
Ridge_Runner_5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
I don't think that someone that posts has Hairy Boner should be talking about leaping at flying donuts . . . Just sayin'

Hugh G. Rection
Seeing as you joined yesterday, have about all your posts in this 1 thread, and have an equally immature name;

1. You have no room to talk
2. You are probably the same person with a 2nd account
3. You shouldnt be posting on these forums until you get your GED
Ridge_Runner_5 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12472 seconds with 8 queries