Time to change silencer laws?

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?!
Click to expand...

Sure is odd. I wonder how far the state is willing to go with it? Are ear plugs illegal too? I do not think they will go that deep, but I have been unable to get an opinion from the Attorney General on exactly what the law means. The AG even refused to give an opinion on RCW 9.41.250(c) to Representative Finn in district 35.

Ranb
 
Here in New Zealand we are encouraged to use suppressors as part of being a responsible shooter. You are not so annoying to others, hunting dogs really appreciate it as they hate carrying around those giant earplugs. A lot of rabbit shooters use suppressors and subs. Bush hunters are not so keen because of the length issues but many are now using the over barrel ones, and who doesn't want to reduce recoil?

Cheers
 
Erik, can you please share more about this?
I live in Louisianna and we don't have much of a poaching problem here. We get a few cases a year that usually are folks hunting without a current license or going over their points with a duck license. An other problem is people hunting on their own land out of season but even that is not a big problem. We have even had success with bring the black bear population back from the brink. They had been poached to the edge of extinction here.
 
Poachers and other bad people will do what they do no matter. I would like to see actual numbers on poachers using a registered suppressor.

Few gun laws make sense to me but this one is a real dozy for me.
If I rip the exhaust off my Harley you'll give me a ticket for making noise.
Yet, if I put an exhaust on my weapon I have to do a ton of crap and beg for permission. Something there just doesn't make sense to me!
 
Were silencers ever common? If they were only made illegal in 1934, along with a host of other things like detachable stocks, full auto and sawed off shotguns, what had been the availability of them earlier and what was the general level of interest in them? Did the FBI, which is to say, J. Edgar Hoover have a lot to do with the National Firearms Act?
 
Blue Train,
In 1933 oranized crime was out of control. The big push for some type of control on firearms came when a 12 year old Chicago girl was killed by stray machine gun fire. There was also Bonny and Clide, the St. Valentine's day massacre, Machine gun Kelly and a host of other trouble makers.
Yes, silencers were fairly common before 1934. Most were purchased by hunters.
There was little regard given to hearing loss in 1934. It was considered just a normal part of aging. We now know that hearing loss is caused, in most cases, by exposure to high sound levels. OSHA, the EPA and other Federal and state agencies now issue noise level standards. There is no exception given to firearms, however, gun fire is noted to be at 140db or more at 3 feet from a gun barrel. Today, almost all shooters use some type of hearing protection but that doesn't help someone who happens to be near by when a firearm is discharged. I'm sure you are all aware of how hard it can be to find a shooting range these days because of the noise problems it causes for people that live near by.
When the NFA was debated, game wardens jumped in with the request to add silencers to the list of controlled items. It was the Great Depression and poaching was out of control. People were hungy. The NFA has been re-visted twice since 1934. It was modified in 1968 and again in 1986.
There are electronic listening devices made today that can detect gun fire (supressed or not) that are cheap and available. The need to regulate silencers simply no longer exist.
The question is: Do we want to change the law and what would the consequence be?
 
dlb435 said:
When the NFA was debated, game wardens jumped in with the request to add silencers to the list of controlled items. It was the Great Depression and poaching was out of control. People were hungy.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Ordinarily, I wouldn't consider it "poaching" if it were legitimately done to feed your family but I've got to wonder, how did people who couldn't afford food, afford silencers?

I don't think that "gun fire detection" devices have any relevance. Unless they're going to be permanently mounted all over God's green earth to just... listen... all the time, I don't see how they would make any difference at all. Even then, firing a gun at night is not illegal, there are a number of animals that are hunted at night and people even poach during the day. How would one distinguish "illegal" gun fire from "legal" gunfire.


The current status of silencers is what it is because "that's the way it's always been". It's remarkably hard to change "the way it's always been", even when there's no rationale for it to have always been that way.
 
The reason poaching was considered a big deal was because FDR was imposing price and supply controls on food at the time and wanted to keep a tight grip. A silencer was less than half the cost of a rifle and with rising food prices and artificially fixed supply it was probably a smart buy. So FDR put a stop to that.
 
I don't think noise pollution is a matter so trivial we should deride concerns about it. Why annoy your neighbors if courtesy has a low cost?

I also don't see the theoretical threat to hunting. If you hunt with a supressor, you are still hunting, right?
Click to expand...
The threat would be financial- if suppressors are required, then hunters would have to buy suppressors for each of their hunting guns, plus pay to have them fitted.

On the other hand, I'm really only talking about theoretical possibilities. I agree that there is a beneficial flip side. IMHO a great potential way to get a "kinder and gentler" suppressor law passed would be to make the law about hunting- e.g. pass a law reducing the NFA transfer tax to $5 for suppressors that are installed on lawful hunting firearms, then get some states to change their game regulations to allow their use. This would be a great benefit in suburban areas where people don't want to hear gunfire but also don't want deer, feral hogs, and coyotes wandering around. If a law like this were passed, I predict that the general public would be far more accepting of suppressors in 5-10 years.
 
In 1934 you could buy a 22 rifle for $5.00. Beef was about 25 cents per pound and 22 LR ammo was 2 cents per round. Most folks already had a gun so it was really only about 2 cent to bring something home for dinner.
 
"Erik, can you please share more about this?"

Sure. I'm a LEO who happens to be in a position to occasionally be of assistance to my state and federal counterparts tasked with combating poachers. Through those efforts, I have a glimpse of the extent of the problem. It is a much larger problem than most realize.

Now, whether or not that should justify the continuation of the regulation of suppressors or not, I have no idea.

Best,
Erik
 
Through those efforts, I have a glimpse of the extent of the problem. It is a much larger problem than most realize.
Click to expand...
I can confirm that. Poachers generally tend to be involved in other unsavory ventures as well, including manufacture of narcotics and smuggling. They've been known to resort to violence, and are almost always guaranteed to be armed.

NPS has lost a few guys whose only mistake was happening on the wrong scene at the wrong time.

Current regulations on suppressors only affect those who are inclined to follow the law. If poachers are using them, it's unlikely that a change in the regulations would change their MO one bit.
 
Current regulations on suppressors only affect those who are inclined to follow the law. If poachers are using them, it's unlikely that a change in the regulations would change their MO one bit.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. Suppressors are ridiculously easy to make, even the infamous "plastic soda bottle" one. If you're already engaged in drugs or other felonious activities, a violation of the NFA is small beans.
 
Anyone have any knowledge of any statistics which may have been compiled regarding the use of suppressed firearms in crimes? Not that that should alter anyone's opinion of whether they should be removed as NFA devices or not, but I'm curious. I can't remember ever hearing of a suppressed firearm being used in a crime except in the movies.
 
I have compiled data from Washington State as part of my efforts to amend the law banning silencer use.

Letters were sent requesting data on arrests associated with firearm suppressors to every county sheriff’s office in Washington State. Twenty counties reported they had no records of any suppressor related crime. Six counties did not respond to my request despite following up with a second request. Two counties said they did not track crimes by RCW 9.41.250(c). Six counties reported no suppressor related crime going back six to twenty-three years. Five counties reported a total of ten arrests or incidents involving suppressors in the last twelve years.

Adams County Never arrested anyone using a suppressor and have no records pertaining to suppressor use.
Asotin County No records of arrests for suppressor use.
Benton County No record of any suppressor related crime.
Chelan County No information on arrest involving suppressors.
Clallam County One suppressor seized during search. Not used in crime.
Clark County No knowledge of any suppressor crime.
Columbia County No crimes associated with suppressors since 1997.
Cowlitz County No violations of RCW 9.41.250(c) since 2004. No other information on suppressor related crime.
Douglas County No records of any crimes committed with suppressors. No suppressors ever seized.
Ferry County No evidence of any crime with suppressors.
Franklin County No record of any crime with suppressors.
Garfield County Would not respond to inquiry.
Grant County No record of any crime with suppressors.
Grays Harbor County Would not respond to inquiry.
Island County No record of any crime with suppressors.
Jefferson County One arrest involving non-functional suppressor 10-12 years ago. No record of conviction.
King County Six incidents involving arrests and suppressors taken into evidence.
Kitsap County All 9.41.250 a b and c crimes grouped together. A search on "silencer" revealed one case.
Kittitas County Would not respond to inquiry.
Klickitat County Would not respond to inquiry.
Lewis County No record of any arrests involving suppressors.
Lincoln County No known crimes have been committed with suppressors.
Mason County No suppressor related crime on record.
Okanogan County Would not respond to inquiry.
Pacific County No suppressor related crime since 1992.
Pend Oreille County Database does not detail RCW 9.41.250(c) crimes but Inspector with agency since 1987 has no recollection of any suppressor crime in the County.
Pierce County Does not track by RCW 9.41.250.
San Juan County No suppressor related crimes reported.
Skagit County No violations involving the use of firearm suppressors.
Skamania County No record of arrests involving firearm suppressors.
Snohomish County Unable to search database without date/location provided.
Spokane County Unable to produce information relating to suppressors. One ongoing murder trial involving crude homemade suppressor.
Stevens County No violations of RCW 9.41.250(c) in the county.
Thurston County No record of suppressor crime since 2007. Records division has no personal recollection of suppressor crime since 2000.
Wahkiakum County No record of suppressor crime.
Walla Walla County No record of suppressor crime.
Whatcom County Would not respond to inquiry.
Whitman County No record of suppressor crime.
Yakima County No record of suppressor crime since 2000.
Click to expand...

I have not been able to find any evidence that silencers used in crime in WA were registered with the ATF.

The bill that would allow use of registered silencers keeps dying in committee due to gun owner indiffference. Any WA residents here want to lend a hand?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Thanks to you RAnb, that's some really good info.
It seems that silencers are not being used in crime to any high degree.
What is lacking here is the political will to change the laws to reflect current conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top