Stupid Regulations of Suppressors

T

tighty whitey

New member
I am relatively new to gun ownership and will always be grateful that when I was introduced to gun ownership, I also learned about many gun laws through courses and books.

I don't understand the regulations regarding suppressors. I know that the general public often calls suppressors, "Silencers", but nothing could be further from the truth. It is my understanding that the best suppressors only reduce the noise by about 30 decibles, enough to help reduce ear damage but not so much that a person would go without ear protection all together.

The point is that any reduction in ear damage is important to me. For whatever reason I am highly prone to ear damage and I have already had bouts of tinnitus, (the sound of ringing or static in the ear).

This issue reminds me of a debate locally where there was a push to require airboats to have mufflers. Sure the engine and fan blades still make a racket, but the muffler would help to some degree.

I just can't fathom why suppressors are regulated at all. The notion that someone would be able to fire a gun and the sound go unnoticed is rather comical, but the safety of the gun public would increase tremendously. In essence I view this regulation as threatening my health, safety and welfare.
 
You're absolutely right that the way silencers are regulated is just rediculous - but no one ever claimed that our laws have to make sense. Sadly, because of the lack of access, and the involvement of Hollywood, most people think suppressors aren't good for anything other than assassinations.

Personally, I think they should be sold off-the-shelf, similar to flashlights or other accessories...
 
If hunting was regulated by OHSA, suppressors would be required, like they are in many foreign countries.

I doubt the ATF is going to push for no papers needed suppressors anytime soon. Govt agencies don't like to give up any power...
 
WA state restricted suppressors in 1994 when an anti was governor, and this year they took those restrictions off...even though another anti was gov.

How did this happen? All the sports shooters and LEO presented it as a hearing health issue. Passed with ease, and was even signed by the gov.

If your state has these retrictive laws on suppressors, attack the law as a hearing health issue, not a 2A issue. Get LE on board, as well as all the shooting sports and hearing doctors...it will find little resistance, except from those that want total control.

Remember, laws do not stop crime or criminals. The criminals do not care what the law is,,,,that is why they are criminals. So the only people you hurt with these laws are those that abide the law.
 
Personally, I think they should be sold off-the-shelf, similar to flashlights or other accessories...
Click to expand...

Oh, to see that glorious day... :)

The general reason for their regulation is because people are under the impression that their only purpose is so you can shoot somebody without being found out. As you know, this is full of baloney.

The interesting thing is what it has done to the suppressor market. In Europe, I understand that some nations pretty well require suppressors for most uses, and the result is they are very easy to get, very inexpensive, and relatively low quality. In the US, the cost and hassle involved means our suppressors are darn near heirloom quality; you don't want one to break on you after 50 rounds because you're looking at $200 and nearly six months (at best) to get another. So it's kinda hard to buy a truly low quality suppressor in the United States.

I would love to see the day when people realize that the hearing issue is a very real one and we could treat them as any other firearm accessory; just hunt up a dealer, plunk down the cash, and take it on the spot.
 
The most convincing argument I've heard for the continuing restrictions on suppressors in the USA is prevention of poaching.

While it's true that a suppressor won't completely mask the sound on a gunshot in a typical urban environment, this isn't necessarily the case out in the boonies where there aren't typically any witnesses nearby.

That said, I'd personally like to see the regulations relaxed, but this issue will need to be addressed somehow.
 
Personally, I think they should be sold off-the-shelf, similar to flashlights or other accessories.
Click to expand...

They ARE - just not here. Countries with strict gun control laws allow suppressors to be sold OTC - somewhat ironic, isn't it?

Here it is a holdover from those who like to poach at night
 
Yes that sure is ironic

It is very ironic that countries that severally restrict firearms sales permit the sale of suppressors. I'm just left shaking my head and wondering when my ears are going to stop working.

I think I'm going to try to do something about this issue.
 
The most convincing argument I've heard for the continuing restrictions on suppressors in the USA is prevention of poaching.

While it's true that a suppressor won't completely mask the sound on a gunshot in a typical urban environment, this isn't necessarily the case out in the boonies where there aren't typically any witnesses nearby.

That said, I'd personally like to see the regulations relaxed, but this issue will need to be addressed somehow.
Click to expand...

By banning guns? :p

IMO, poaching as a reason to restrict suppressors is even weaker an argument than that of increased likelihood of undiscovered firearm assisted murder. Sure, it would make it easier, but there's laws against such things as it is. I'm not sure that the noise difference between a suppressed shot and an unmuffled one is going to make that much of a difference with poaching; if you're in a rather rural area the unmuffled shot would not be all that likely to be heard anyway. Besides, if somebody is dead set on poaching, I note that a bow and arrow is also notoriously silent yet plenty effective.

Extra game wardens would seem to be the answer if we're really worried about poaching, not restriction of a safety device.
 
I have heard that the original draft version of the NFA 34 did not include andy restrictions or regulations on "silencers" ("Silencer" is actually the product name of the sound muffler developed my Hiram Maxim), but it DID contain restrictions on handguns!

Realizing that while the public might accept severe restrictions on ownership of machine guns, and sawed off shotguns, etc, including handguns would be a poison pill, they dropped the handgun section and substituted "silencers".

Yes, in the day the argument was to prevent silent murder, and poaching. Weak arguments, to be certain, but with the depression, and the crime problem that went with it, and the need to "gainfully" employ a bunch of Treasury agents that were suddenly without much to do, because of the repeal of Prohibition, it passed. And the fact that it survived court challenge is another story.
 
When I was assisting the USDA in managed deer hunts, one of the guns we used had a suppressor on it. Although not quiet, it was amazing how much quieter the gun was.

I would love to have a suppressor for some of my rifles, but have never really looked in to it more than examining how they are built. I do get a chuckle from people who call them silencers.
 
Here it is a holdover from those who like to poach at night
Click to expand...
While suppressors are legal in my state, it is not legal to hunt with them. Repeated attempts to change this have failed because the conservationist bloc points to them as tools of poachers. I can point out that poachers tend to use unregistered, improvised suppressors all I want; it doesn't help.

I have been to shoots in several countries in northern Europe, and suppressors are widely encouraged. In one Danish range, they were required.

I have heard that the original draft version of the NFA 34 did not include andy restrictions or regulations on "silencers" ("Silencer" is actually the product name of the sound muffler developed my Hiram Maxim), but it DID contain restrictions on handguns!
Click to expand...
You're correct. This was the first real test of the NRA's lobbying power on the Federal level. At the time, they really didn't have any resources dedicated to political action, but they gathered enough clout to raise a great deal of ire at the concept of handgun restriction and registration.

The truth of the matter was that the NFA was a tax-collection measure draped in the trappings of "crime prevention." 1934 was the worst year of the Depression, and FDR was having trouble gathering revenue to fund many of his programs (especially with the Supreme Court striking many of them down). Machine guns and Silencers were largely owned by folks with money, so he went after them.
 
What's the prognosis on Montana's Firearms Freedom bill federal lawsuit?

According to the MT law, you can make a suppressor yourself for personal use and even buy them from in state manufacturers for in state use. Because they don't cross state lines, the feds don't have any say in the matter. Naturally Richard Holder our criminal AG thinks otherwise.
 
WA state restricted suppressors in 1994 when an anti was governor, and this year they took those restrictions off...even though another anti was gov.
Click to expand...

Actually silencer use was banned back in the 1930's for miltary, police, dealers and the rest of us. SBS/SBR were restricted back in 1994 by bill 2319.

Bill 1604 (to allow registered silencer use) died year after year and nothing happened until Blake introduced bill 1016. All it takes is for one legislator to actually give a damn about a bill and it gets a hearing.

The same thing is happening next session for SBR/SBS. Check out bills 2098 and 2099. If you want to help, let me know if you have any questions.

Ranb
 
I would love to have a suppressor for some of my rifles, but have never really looked in to it more than examining how they are built. I do get a chuckle from people who call them silencers.
Click to expand...

I get a chuckle out of people that chuckle at the word silencer. "Silencer" and "muffler" are the legal terms in the US code for devices that reduce muzzle noise levels.

Listen to a subsonic 22lr shot through a suppressed rifle and you will not be chuckling at that word anymore I think. When I use the word silencer, everyone knows I am speaking of a gun muffler. While the word suppressor is more technically correct, silencer is legally correct.

I am awaiting forms back from the ATF to make silencers #13 and #14. I hope to suppress most of the rest of my gun collection within the next five years.

Ranb
 
RAnb said:
While the word suppressor is more technically correct, silencer is legally correct.
Click to expand...

The most accurate analogy is that of "cotton swab" and "Q-Tip".

Q-Tips are cotton swabs but not all cotton swabs are Q-Tips. Q-Tip is a BRAND NAME of cotton swab, that has come to be used as a generic term for all cotton swabs. "Silencer" is a brand name of suppressor, that has come to be used as a generic term for all suppressors.
 
"Silencer" is a brand name of suppressor, that has come to be used as a generic term for all suppressors.
Click to expand...

I have not heard that claim before. Got any anecdotal evidence to support it?

Here is mine. GCA 1968 Title 18 Chapter 44
(24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm,.....
Click to expand...
Silencer has been a legal term used by the US code since 1934 in the NFA.

Before that it was used as a marketing term by Maxim when he was promoting his gun mufflers back in 1905. Silencer is also synonymous with the word muffler as used for internal combustion engines.

If we gun owners do not take this word back, it will be used by anti-gun zealots to demonize our firearms.

Ranb
 
OK, but I still chuckle.

Most people that are not familiar with the gun and different types of ammo think a "Silencer" makes ever shot whisper quiet.

I also chuckle at the the people who insist there is no such thing as a .45 LONG Colt. The insist it must be a .45 Colt, because A: There never was a short colt, the army nor Colt manufacturing never stamped any of their rounds or official forms as "Long" Colt.

I have brass with .45 Long Colt stamped on it.

If you don't chuckle now and then, we'll get ulcers and have to many problems in our lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top