Time to change silencer laws?
- Thread starter dlb435
- Start date
The best approach would be to get silencers taken off the NFA list because they're not guns and there's no reason to treat them that way. Further, they ARE useful as pointed out above for home defense, as a means of protecting one's hearing when shooting indoors. Home defense has been established as a fundamental Constitutional right. Now, where in a right is the requirement that it MUST be done WITHOUT safety equipment? Why MUST it injure the person who exercises it? The courts might very well accept that argument. At very least it should open up the remaining few states (13, I think) that don't currently allow silencer ownership. There's no justifiable reason at all for a state to Grinch people on something they have to pay $200 and file federal forms on.
The loss of the $200 stamp tax would be well easily made up for by the income and business taxes from vastly increased production. It's estimated that there may be as many as 90 million gun owners in the US--what do you think it would be like to open up a market for something that over 90% of them don't have?
The loss of the $200 stamp tax would be well easily made up for by the income and business taxes from vastly increased production. It's estimated that there may be as many as 90 million gun owners in the US--what do you think it would be like to open up a market for something that over 90% of them don't have?
From Blue Train
"So, I wonder why the army doesn't use surpressors on anything? "
They do, just not very often. In most cases, the size and weight of a suppressor is seen as too much of a price to pay for less noise. There is also the matter of added cost and extra gear to keep clean. The army has and uses suppressors when they see fit to use them. Part of combat is to scare the cr*p out of the other guy; that works best with loud guns.
I saw a film of a suppressor that was built for the Uzi. It worked great but the little Uzi was then the size of a carbine. The weapon lost all of its close combat advantage with it mounted on the gun.
You will note that the original M16 with its 20" barrel and fixed stock has now been trimmed down to a 14" barrel with a collapsible stock. In battle, size matters. Small and deadly is just better than big and deadly.
"So, I wonder why the army doesn't use surpressors on anything? "
They do, just not very often. In most cases, the size and weight of a suppressor is seen as too much of a price to pay for less noise. There is also the matter of added cost and extra gear to keep clean. The army has and uses suppressors when they see fit to use them. Part of combat is to scare the cr*p out of the other guy; that works best with loud guns.
I saw a film of a suppressor that was built for the Uzi. It worked great but the little Uzi was then the size of a carbine. The weapon lost all of its close combat advantage with it mounted on the gun.
You will note that the original M16 with its 20" barrel and fixed stock has now been trimmed down to a 14" barrel with a collapsible stock. In battle, size matters. Small and deadly is just better than big and deadly.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Honestly, they ought to be legal, but I can't see a huge demand for them.
For one thing, the $200 tax stamp is not a big deal if you're already willing to pay several hundred, or even $1000 or more, for a suppressor. Sucks, yes, deal breaker, no.
For two things, I think most people who want them already have them, with the exception of those who live in states where they're not allowed at all. I would imagine that would be a relatively small number.
For three things, my understanding is that they don't really work very well, from a pure functional standpoint. Most times, the noise is still well beyond the level that would allow for no hearing protection. Even when the round is loaded sub-sonic, the dB level is still usually well above the safe threshold.... and who wants to limit their firearms to subsonic loads anyway?
Personally, I wouldn't have one on my gun if they were free.
For one thing, the $200 tax stamp is not a big deal if you're already willing to pay several hundred, or even $1000 or more, for a suppressor. Sucks, yes, deal breaker, no.
For two things, I think most people who want them already have them, with the exception of those who live in states where they're not allowed at all. I would imagine that would be a relatively small number.
For three things, my understanding is that they don't really work very well, from a pure functional standpoint. Most times, the noise is still well beyond the level that would allow for no hearing protection. Even when the round is loaded sub-sonic, the dB level is still usually well above the safe threshold.... and who wants to limit their firearms to subsonic loads anyway?
Personally, I wouldn't have one on my gun if they were free.
Last edited:
I think they should be legal, maybe with qualifications as a CCP though.
BUT, we are talking about the government here, common sense rarely comes within light years of what is in their minds, proposed, or passed!
When they go to changing things; they most likely will change for the worse!
BUT, we are talking about the government here, common sense rarely comes within light years of what is in their minds, proposed, or passed!
When they go to changing things; they most likely will change for the worse!
A lot of people don't have them because the NFA process is unfamiliar, complicated, and legally intimidating, as was specifically intended. A lot more people would want them if they knew they were legal, could find them at where THEY shop for guns, and knew how to go about it. The significant market impediments still hurt anyone who isn't so into guns that they look up all info on the Internet--there's plenty of people who only buy from Academy Sports, Dick's Sporting Goods, etc. and read Outdoor Life or American Rifleman. I myself for a long time only had guns that either my dad bought me as a kid and/or family heirlooms.
As for usefulness, a big use as mentioned above is home defense. Other big uses are:
1) predator hunting and other shooting during deer and turkey seasons as to not disrupt other hunters
2) minimizing noise pollution from range shooting
3) varminting around farms and semi-residential areas where centerfire cartridge noise is a BIG concern to people living there who may not necessarily like the idea of guns around them yet want woodchucks and coyotes shot
4) reducing intimidation for new shooters
5) target shooting of high noise and blast cartridges like .338 Lapua and .50 BMG (Some already own cans for this specific purpose)
As for usefulness, a big use as mentioned above is home defense. Other big uses are:
1) predator hunting and other shooting during deer and turkey seasons as to not disrupt other hunters
2) minimizing noise pollution from range shooting
3) varminting around farms and semi-residential areas where centerfire cartridge noise is a BIG concern to people living there who may not necessarily like the idea of guns around them yet want woodchucks and coyotes shot
4) reducing intimidation for new shooters
5) target shooting of high noise and blast cartridges like .338 Lapua and .50 BMG (Some already own cans for this specific purpose)
I've gone through the NFA transfer process when I purchased my AC556. I also had to register my USAS-12 on a Form 1. I could do the trust thing to get a suppressor, but I'm just not that motivated to create a trust, get fingerprinted again, get a passport photo, fill out the BATFE transfer form, pay $200.....and wait 4 months to get the OK to pick up a suppressor I had to pay $800+ for.
If they increased in value like machineguns, I'd probably get off my lazy ass and do it. If I could purchase a suppressor at a gun show and take it home the same day, I'd probably own one or two. But, you guys are right - the NFA requirements are a barrier, for me it is anyway.
If they increased in value like machineguns, I'd probably get off my lazy ass and do it. If I could purchase a suppressor at a gun show and take it home the same day, I'd probably own one or two. But, you guys are right - the NFA requirements are a barrier, for me it is anyway.
We at TFL have advocated, for many years, moving suppressors to Title I with federal preemption. In fact some TFL members have written articles submitted to gun rags about such a proposal, many years ago now.
Not so much, because handguns were included in the NFA and suppressors were a substitute.
Not so much, because handguns were included in the NFA and suppressors were a substitute.
Technosavant
New member
Some rounds suppress better than others. Rifles just don't quiet down all the way, but you can get them down to where they aren't quite as shockingly loud. .22LR, quiets down nicely, especially subsonic out of a pistol. .45ACP suppresses pretty well- it's subsonic anyway.
They're just fun to play with- a suppressed .22LR pistol or rifle may well be the best thing ever to use to introduce new shooters to the sport. There's just no way to introduce a flinch- no loud report, no recoil.
I do not think any of the restrictions will be eased for a while, if ever. I have been trying to amend the law in WA making silencer use a crime for the last few years. The problem is that most of the gun owners I have talked to about it think silencers are illegal in the USA, and most of those who know they are legal have no interest in them or think they give gun owners a bad image. I have only met a few people in person who own or want to own silencers.
While I have gathered data on silencer related crime in WA and obtained the support of various police and gun control organizations in the state, my legislators remain uninterested in changing the law. I am told that it is the Democrats that are the problem. This is false. While most of the letters I write go unacknowledged, the only ones in Olympia that refuse to support a silencer use bill in WA are Republicans; Senator Roach and Rep-elect Hargrove. The common response from the Democrats in the House has been that they support it but will not make it a priority.
The WAC thinks the political climate is unsuitable to spend time lobbying Olympia and that I should wait for the silencer use opponents to be replaced in the House and Senate. Pedersen and Kline are the two main obstacles to the silencer bill; they are also two of the most popular men in Olympia. The NRA has not responded to my request for advice and the NFATCA says I need grass root support and money. Since gun owners are largely apathetic in WA and I am limiting my gun control lobbying budget to less than $1000 a year, the grass root support and cash are just not there.
Ranb
While I have gathered data on silencer related crime in WA and obtained the support of various police and gun control organizations in the state, my legislators remain uninterested in changing the law. I am told that it is the Democrats that are the problem. This is false. While most of the letters I write go unacknowledged, the only ones in Olympia that refuse to support a silencer use bill in WA are Republicans; Senator Roach and Rep-elect Hargrove. The common response from the Democrats in the House has been that they support it but will not make it a priority.
The WAC thinks the political climate is unsuitable to spend time lobbying Olympia and that I should wait for the silencer use opponents to be replaced in the House and Senate. Pedersen and Kline are the two main obstacles to the silencer bill; they are also two of the most popular men in Olympia. The NRA has not responded to my request for advice and the NFATCA says I need grass root support and money. Since gun owners are largely apathetic in WA and I am limiting my gun control lobbying budget to less than $1000 a year, the grass root support and cash are just not there.
Ranb
RAnB,
One of my concerns is that if silencers are made legal then they could become manditory. The cost of gun ownership would go up and concealled carry could be impractical. It could be very tricky getting legislation through that would allow or encourage silencers without going so far as to require them.
One of my concerns is that if silencers are made legal then they could become manditory. The cost of gun ownership would go up and concealled carry could be impractical. It could be very tricky getting legislation through that would allow or encourage silencers without going so far as to require them.
carguychris
New member
I don't think that a mandatory suppressor law could threaten CCW. IMHO it could easily be challenged in court for an ironic reason- suppressors have not been commonplace anywhere in the USA for generations, which makes it hard to argue that suppressors are somehow suddenly necessary for legal self-defense.
OTOH I think a mandatory suppressor law could theoretically be a threat to legal hunting; I could easily see well-heeled NIMBYs with fancy country weekend homes pushing this so that their idyllic peace and quiet wouldn't be disturbed by (gasp!) gunfire, not to mention the fact that those nasty hunters are killing cute furry animals and pretty birds.
Of course, hunting is NOT constitutionally protected, making court challenges more problematic.I could easily see gun-control advocates using this issue to derail any reform by driving RKBA advocates and sportsmen apart. This is unfortunate because I would really like to see suppressors made more accessible and less expensive.
BTW if this idea were seriously pursued, IMHO it's very important to start using the term "suppressor" rather than "silencer" because the latter term has a negative connotation and isn't an accurate description anyway.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
RAnb said:
I don't understand this sentence....
If they're legal in 37 states then they're illegal in 13 states, yes? Do those 13 states not ban their use? How could they be illegal, but not banned?
I know for a fact that NY does. It is illegal to possess a silencer, say nothing of use it. The law was recently changed to allow the manufacture and repair of silencers in state, but it is still illegal for a "regular" citizen to own or use one.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Ah, I see. That sentence should definitely be reworded. No one who doesn't know that WA is one of the 37 would ever make that connection....
I intended it to mean that WA is the only state that allows ownership, but also bans their use. I changed my signature. WA does not even make an exception for their use by the police military and dealers. Attaching the silencer to the gun is not a crime in WA, but the police might decide that it is intent to use and arrest you for it.
In fact, the use of any device that suppresses the report of a gun is banned. It does not matter if it is attached to the gun or not. I built a box to reduce the report of 50 bmg rifles at my local range. We are being sued in part over noise complaints. I was told by the local prosecutor that using the box would be a crime due to the broad nature of the law. RCW 9.41.250(c). I am trying to obtain an opinion from the state AG on whether the law includes devices not attached, but it is hard as he does not give opinions to the public and my district Reps do not want to ask.
Ranb
Edited to add; I just got off the phone with Representatives Finn's aide. He did write, but the AG refused to give an opinion. It had something to do with the request not being appropriate for an opinion. This sucks. I can't think of any other way to find out what the law actually means other than hearing what the judge and jury say to me if I was to get arrested for breaking it. And that is something I am not willing to do. This is just another reason why WA sucks.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
RAnb said:
That seems odd.... wouldn't that sort of mean that shooting indoors would be illegal? After all, all a building essentially is is a 3 dimensional box which "suppresses" the report of the firearm?!
NY's law is very similar except that, I think, it does stipulate that the device actually needs to be attached to the gun.
Makes no sense to me. I could see "silencers" being illegal, but if all your doing is taking the noise from a deafening roar to an earsplitting boom, why should that be illegal? I mean, if a 22LR is legal, why isn't (theoretically) a 50BMG that's reduced to the sound level of a 22LR also legal?
-Yes, one should be able to buy/own/transfer a suppressor without any of the hoops to jump through, or the federal oversight that currently exists. (Since that's not the case, LE departments should be subject to the exact same restrictions/requirements as any private citizen)
-NO, they should not be required don't give the gesta...oops, I meat the BATF, any more ideas.
-NFA '34 should never have happened.
And finally, "common sense" has never had anything to do with the restrictions that are in place. Those that make such laws are concerned with control; logic and reason are irrelevant to them.
-NO, they should not be required don't give the gesta...oops, I meat the BATF, any more ideas.
-NFA '34 should never have happened.
And finally, "common sense" has never had anything to do with the restrictions that are in place. Those that make such laws are concerned with control; logic and reason are irrelevant to them.