Silencers
- Thread starter 45YearsShooting
- Start date
Technosavant
New member
While you are correct, in the 1934 NFA they are referred to as "silencers," so that is the actual legal term in play even though it is not strictly correct.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
A/C Guy said:
Actually, that's not true. The first such commercial device in the USA was marketed as a silencer.
http://www.silencerco.com/?section=Education&page=History
The information in that link can be found in any number of other places too.
Both terms are equally correct, in name. Silencer is less correct in function, but that is essentially irrelevant.
The argument that won the day in WA State was hearing damage. It was pushed by LE, and should be pushed by LE as they probably are inpacted more than anyone else.
I will give you an illustration. LE and other shooters have been trying for years to get a large indoor/outdoor range built in the proximity of King and Snohomoish counties. They finally came up with a plan where they would build this facility on State land in a valley in the mountains between Arlington and Lake Cavinaugh. They still had enough opposition (mostly from lakefront owners) because of "noise" (and traffic) to kill the plan.
If they had done the tests with suppressed weapons I doubt you could have heard anything at the lake. As it was all you could hear was an occational pop.
Suppressors probably would save some other ranges from noise complains too.
I will give you an illustration. LE and other shooters have been trying for years to get a large indoor/outdoor range built in the proximity of King and Snohomoish counties. They finally came up with a plan where they would build this facility on State land in a valley in the mountains between Arlington and Lake Cavinaugh. They still had enough opposition (mostly from lakefront owners) because of "noise" (and traffic) to kill the plan.
If they had done the tests with suppressed weapons I doubt you could have heard anything at the lake. As it was all you could hear was an occational pop.
Suppressors probably would save some other ranges from noise complains too.
Bill 1016 allowed the use of registered silencers on firearms. Use was banned back in the 1930's, not in 1994. The 1994 ban was SBS and SBR. The police and military were not allowed to use silencers either although it was "common knowledge" that they were exempt from prosecution by the AG. When I wrote to the AG requesting the same exemption I was told that no such exemption existed.
After hearing this I let every police officer I saw know it. I was also present and speaking at the House Judiciary Committee hearing when Brian Wurst, a WACOPS representative spoke out in support of the bill. His major points were hearing protection.
I think what made the bill pass was that there was very little silencer associated crime in WA and no evidence that any used in crime were registered. Even "anti-gun nut" Senator Adam Kline urged the Senate to show bill 1016 "a lot of love" on the Senate floor. In my opinion this was not done out of a desire to see the bill passed, but that he knew passing the bill would not affect WA crime at all and it was a chance for even the anti-gun legislators to look good to their gun owning constituents and at the same time not look bad to the anti-gun people in their district. It is likely that very few people knew about the bill passing anyway.
Ranb
I think this is a myth. I am not aware of any country that requires a silencer to hunt. Got any proof?
The proper term is silencer, it is a noun and a legal term, not a verb. The word muffler is equally correct legally. I always thought those people who got upset about the word silencer were ignorant and hysterical.
I have 15 ATF form 1's with the word silencer in block 4b. Not going to risk a delay of approval by using the word suppressor. Ranb
The word silencer is synonymous with the word muffler. No rational person will say that a car engine is noiseless when equipped with a muffler or silencer. There is no reason to object to using the word silencer for a gun muffler just because noise is not eliminated or silenced. Gun owners are our own worst enemies when they proclaim that silencer is an inappropriate word to use. A silencer suppresses noise.
Ranb
Ranb
Did you attend any of the committee hearings? I did not move to WA until 1999. I have been working on HB 2099 (SBS/SBR) by writing and talking to those who voted for the ban. I wrote to the authors of the bill (HB2319) that banned them, but only Appelwick wrote back. He said SBS/SBR were banned as part of a feel good plan to placate the gun grabbers and claimed that no one opposed the SBS/SBR ban portion of the bill. I did hear of much opposition to the AWB portion of the bill though.
What else did you hear about bill 2319 back in 1994?
Ranb
45YearsShooting
New member
I sure wish the NRA would get involved in this fight. I have been an NRA Life Endowment member since forever and have never heard a peep out of the NRA on this issue. Maybe we should start a letter/e-mail writing campaign to the NRA.
I'm going to write them. I ask you to please do the same.
I'm going to write them. I ask you to please do the same.
Well, it sure won't hurt to write them, but they're definitely involved in the fight already.
http://www.nraila.org/search.aspx?s=silencers
When I was working on easing silencer restrictions in WA I couldn't get the time of day when asking the NRA for advice. After bill 1016 was passed and we could use them once again, an NRA rep asked me for advice on easing restrictions in MT. I am trying to get advice on the SBS/SBR bill now.
Ranb
Ranb