July 20, 2008, 02:13 PM | #101 |
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? |
July 20, 2008, 02:24 PM | #102 | |
Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 20, 2008, 03:20 PM | #103 | |
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:
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. |
|
July 20, 2008, 03:25 PM | #104 |
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. |
July 20, 2008, 03:33 PM | #105 | |
Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 20, 2008, 03:37 PM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
|
Quote:
OK, whatever you call it. Why do you need it? |
|
July 20, 2008, 03:53 PM | #107 | |
Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 20, 2008, 03:56 PM | #108 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
|
Quote:
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? |
|
July 20, 2008, 04:27 PM | #109 | |
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:
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal ! |
|
July 20, 2008, 04:32 PM | #110 |
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. |
July 20, 2008, 04:54 PM | #111 |
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. |
July 20, 2008, 05:21 PM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
|
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. 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? |
|
July 20, 2008, 05:21 PM | #113 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 9
|
Quote:
Hugh G. Rection |
|
July 20, 2008, 05:30 PM | #114 |
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. |
July 20, 2008, 05:31 PM | #115 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 9
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 20, 2008, 05:34 PM | #116 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal ! |
|
July 20, 2008, 05:41 PM | #117 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
|
Quote:
|
|
July 20, 2008, 05:43 PM | #118 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2008
Posts: 175
|
Well whatever you do, don't admit that you were wrong...
|
July 20, 2008, 05:48 PM | #119 |
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. |
July 20, 2008, 06:40 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,682
|
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.
|
July 20, 2008, 06:40 PM | #121 |
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.
|
July 20, 2008, 08:47 PM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
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. |
July 20, 2008, 09:29 PM | #123 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2005
Posts: 130
|
ZeroJunk:
Quote:
ZeroJunk: Quote:
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. |
||
July 20, 2008, 09:36 PM | #124 | |
Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]!!!!! Last edited by MOS11C; July 21, 2008 at 10:27 AM. |
|
July 21, 2008, 01:47 AM | #125 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 8, 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,925
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|