Trump 'Seriously' Considering Banning Suppressors

Tom Servo said:
He doesn't have to ban them. He can just reduce staff at the NFA branch or instruct them to impose a moratorium on reviewing new applications. Either would please the gun-control lobby.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^
And there you go, a classic bureaucratic solution that makes some left leaning constituants very happy yet provides cover from RKBA'ers being able to say 'they didn't ban anything'.

Or they could go the opposite way and issue a regulation there will be a review of every Class III item, and your time to show up at XXXXX location with the item and paperwork is ________.

It's not in the interest of the executive branch or centric and conservative members of congress' to allow an outright ban. But they can make ownership very painful.

But we'll see.
 
SCOTUS just turned down a silencer case without comment or dissent. Someone can find the details. CNN said Trump administration is ok with that.
 
Hope no one uses a scope, sling, flashlight or BUIS during a high profile crime or they may want to ban those too... after all they are only accessories.

Since the receivers are considered to be what constitutes a “firearm” they could ban everything except the receiver and say your right to keep and bear receivers have not been infringed.

The proverbial slippery slope, but appears that this will go away as other issues have.
 
anygunanywhere wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:53 pm
You threw bump stock owners under the bus so you could focus on more important issues. Things that really mattered, at least to the NRA board.

Cotton's reply:

Ignoring the facts is necessary in order for you to make this absurd claim. Bump stocks are important to the people who own them, but that number is tiny compared to the number of people that own AR platform rifles and pistol, AK platform rifles, H&K platform rifles/pistols, etc. That is what was at stake. You and your ilk either don't believe or choose to ignore the tidal wave of calls for another assault weapons ban after the Las Vegas slaughter. I cannot and will not give full details for obvious reasons, but the NRA quite literally saved those firearms from being banned. Yet you want to ignore that fact and essentially claim that bump stocks "were thrown under the buss." Apparently, you would have preferred that the NRA do nothing. The result would have been a new and a much farther-reaching assault weapons band and your bump stock poster-child would have also been banned. You are also ignoring the fact that the bump stock issue is far from over. Ironically, the ATF reclassification of bump stocks may actually bring an end to the BATFE's unlawful usurpation of regulatory authority.
Click to expand...

Wow...

At first I was aghast at Cotton's words there. Reading the actual conversation and responses, i.e. "context," of how he wrote them tempered my feelings a little bit. That being said, Tom Servo hit is with this...

If they did it to save us from something worse, they need to give a more detailed explanation.
Click to expand...

And this...

The claim they're playing 4D chess in a secret room somewhere isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Further, although I have some context to Cotton's statement now (he was, in fact, right on many points in that overall thread) I still think he's full of it. The NRA didn't single-handedly protect us from a new AWB, and we all know it. And need I remind everyone he is a very vocal Lapierre "old guard" supporter and defender. He's gone to bat for Lapierre and the NRA board a number of times recently. And, as if the NRA doesn't have bigger problems than board members bad-mouthing folks...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/national-rifle-association-board-members-paid/index.html
 
5Whisky said:
At first I was aghast at Cotton's words there. Reading the actual conversation and responses, i.e. "context," of how he wrote them tempered my feelings a little bit.
Click to expand...

That reads to me like a conversation in which people are disagreeable without substantively disagreeing.

Anygunanywhere accuses the NRA of selling out (throwing their owners "under the bus") on the bumpstock issue. Cotton offers an explanation about why they did that, but doesn't contest that they did.
 
Ironically there is no problem for gun owners in the UK getting suppressors, for hearing protection.
Click to expand...

Do you mean both of them? or are there still three?? :rolleyes:
sorry for the sarcasm...couldn't resist..

Still, easy to get a suppressor for guns that are kept in an approved shooting club's safe(s) or at a police station? Isn't that the rule over there, now??

But I do see your point, in some places suppressors are actually required (for hunting), from what I've heard. There are a number of US laws that, to me, make less than no sense at all. Gun control is in that group.
 
In a common sense world, we would be upset that the gov't is making shooters put suppressors on every gun they shoot.

They would use the same playbook used on smokers by demonizing those who not just harm themselves but also are inconsiderate of their neighbors by shooting guns without one.

In the real world, this makes as much sense as outlawing mufflers on a car.
Admittedly, I am out of touch.
 
The implication of Cotton's post is that the supposed gun supporting GOP members of the House and Senate and the President would have supported an AWB in a moral panic. Or if Trump didn't, there was enough GOP support for that ban to override a veto. The Democrats couldn't have passed such a ban on their own.

That's not a good thing. Cotton's post of secret processes doesn't inspire confidence that the next rampage wouldn't lead to another moral panic that this time would ban MSSAs.

Throw silencers on the alter. Eventually, the priests of secret knowledge will run out of sacred goats.
 
I wonder if any NRA board members follow any of the "gun" forums. Some of them must. They have to see that their organization ... and they as members of the board ... are at an extreme nadir in public confidence. One has to wonder if they're aware of the widespread -- and wider spreading -- discontent among the members and are just choosing to ignore us all and hope we'll eventually go away, of if they are so insulated and so unaware that they actually don't know that a YUUUUGE percentage of the membership thinks they should all either resign or be fired.
 
I wonder if any NRA board members follow any of the "gun" forums. Some of them must.
Click to expand...

Given the shenanigans of the last four or so years, I wonder if they have any interest in what happens outside a very small echo chamber.
 
44 AMP
Staff Still, easy to get a suppressor for guns that are kept in an approved shooting club's safe(s) or at a police station? Isn't that the rule over there, now??
Click to expand...

No more false news, all firearms have to be kept at the owners address.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
As far as NRA on forums, several of their upper level folk are involved in some. Cotton is heavily involved in the texaschlforum.
Click to expand...
Is he as tone deaf and defensive there as the recently-reported public statement makes him appear to be

Super-secret squirrel "I could tell but then I'd have to kill you" type statements don't tend to inspire confidence.
 
If the donations go down board loyalty will shift. Based on what I'm ready here that seems likely. The current leadership's best chance at survival will be a D victory in two years. Part of this scrutiny comes because the Obama panic has been over for awhile. I'm sure they've done that math, it'll be interesting to watch their behavior.
 
The result would have been a new and a much farther-reaching assault weapons band and your bump stock poster-child would have also been banned.
Click to expand...

So, if that assessment is true, then quite a number of NRA A-rated House and Senate members would have to support a ban, and Donald Trump would have to have been willing to sign it. And Mitch McConnell would have had to clear the way for a vote in the Senate.

So the options appear to be Mr. Cotton is being hyperbolic or the NRA is a paper tiger of moderate use.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
As far as NRA on forums, several of their upper level folk are involved in some. Cotton is heavily involved in the texaschlforum.
Click to expand...
As a former member of that forum, I can tell you that Cotton is a self-important blowhard who has been more of an impediment to 2A rights in Texas than any Democrat through his "leadership" in the NRA and TSRA. The fact that he's now WLP's attack dog only shows that he's in for the political power and not for Constitutional rights....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top