poll for silencers.

[Handloader109]

Poll for Abitnutz!

Just wait a minute Hatch! I'm trying to type on my darn tablet!

[HATCH]

Um, I guess I take choice 1

[HATCH]

They need to be treated like firearms.
4473
In sc FTF transactions is fine

[jcwit]

I don't consider them dumb, just not for me.

[Hamish]

No paperwork, no license, no tax stamp.

[Edward]

ear protection should not require government permission,nuf said Ed

[GhostHawk]

"Shall not be infringed" Period. Govt has been doing all kinds of infringing and we have been letting them get away with it. Time to stop it, roll it all back to where it belongs.

And if we have any smarts we will get rid of the Fed Reserve and the Income tax while we are at it. And if we want to control this wild beast we call government. We need to make it impossible for them spend money they do not have, that we don't send them.

Like a crack or meth addict that learns how to get a big pile of cash out of an ATM every 10 minutes. It ain't gonna be pretty what he does.

[Recluse]

You're missing an option:

"NO, as I have no interest in owning one."

Used them in the military and in LE. No interest in them nor need for one. However, I am 100 freaking percent in favor of them not being an NFA item and believe there should be zero background hassle checks for the purchase of one.

:coffee:

[Bzcraig]

No paperwork, no license, no tax stamp.


You're missing an option:

"NO, as I have no interest in owning one."

I am 100 freaking percent in favor of them not being an NFA item and believe there should be zero background hassle checks for the purchase of one.

And they would need to be much more affordable.

[ascast]

silencer OR suppressor ?

You can't silence faster than sound, IOW muzzle velocity of about 1,100 feet per second.

Yes, I buy one to avoid annoying the neighbors - no paperwork of any kind- like a tractor muffler.

[brass410]

Its not an option here at all. But if it was it would be good to not worry about annoying noise for myself or others.

[mcdaniel.mac]

silencer OR suppressor ?

You can't silence faster than sound, IOW muzzle velocity of about 1,100 feet per second.

Yes, I buy one to avoid annoying the neighbors - no paperwork of any kind- like a tractor muffler.
They are Silencers per ATF regulations and per the original patent from Hiram Maxim. No need for silly wordplay.

[6bg6ga]

Shouldn't be any paperwork. Should be able to make your own too.

Also, call it what you wish either silencer or suppressor. Either is correct.

[Artful]

Legalising them for hunting large animals is the dumbest thing they've done inmichigan.

Used to be the .270 going off at 2 am was a dead give away...

now its dump a 30 round magazine in a silenced AR using a bump fire. really makes walking in the woods at sunset a "carry large automatic" proposition

What you carrying? UZI, AR, FAL ? you did say automatic not a semi right?

You know I lived in Rural Oregon

- we never heard 270 or any other large rounds from the local poachers

But we did from the City folk.

Arrows or a 22 LR was all that was needed to feed your family.

The other problem with City Folk was just taking back straps and leaving the rest to rot.

Still makes me angry.

[Bazoo]

I voted never buy one. I dont consider them dumb, but they aint my cup of tea.

[marlin39a]

Option 2 wouldn't bother me. I need one to shoot cats.

[Driver man]

Silencers are off the shelf items here and everyone uses them. They are just no big deal at all. It makes no sense to me why they are restricted in your country, its like running your car without a muffler.

[JimB..]

Noise pollution causes global warming, that's the ticket.

Should be an accessory, like say replacement grips or a flashlight.

[dragon813gt]

Legalising them for hunting large animals is the dumbest thing they've done inmichigan.

Usedto be the .270 going off at 2 am was a dead give away...

now its dump a 30 round magazine in a silenced AR using a bump fire. really makes walking in the woods at sunset a "carry large automatic" proposition

I don't believe a word of what you typed. Silencers have been legal for hunting here and there are no issues because of it. Poachers have always used 22s. And they only fire once. You can't triangulate a single shot. Gun owners are their own worse enemy.

[jeepyj]

I would like it to be treated like any other firearm accessory but would buy one if it the restrictions were to get to the point of a simple 4473. Not perfect but I'd purchase for noise control at a couple places that I shoot.

[lightman]

I would be in line for probably 2. One for a 22 LR and maybe one to do double duty between a 223 and a 308. A friend got licensed to build and sell them a few years ago and offered me a couple for cheap or free but I declined because of the cost of the paper work. I think it would be fun spotlighting hogs at night out of a blind or deer stand!

[dverna]

Some days I wonder about some people. I live in rural Michigan and know people who have and do poach.

Anyway, I will build my own silencer. Waiting to see if the bill passes but will apply for tge permit if it doesn't

[JBinMN]

I voted # 3(sold like accessories) & the price has to come way down or I would build(would have built) the ones I wanted.

IMO... They should not cost the amount of a firearm itself & I see no need for a background check, since if someone was to be buying one, it is likely they already have had a background check for the firearm they are using & are going to put it on.
If they are criminals already and have a firearm, the suppressor is just another crime currently & the criminals will not care. So, it won't likely matter if they are just an accessory either.

[GhostHawk]

I have in my basement 3 things. One is a H&R Handi rifle with a threaded barrel. One is an oil filter, one is a thread adapter. Total cost including the rifle under 250$.

As long as they are separate, each is legal. Combined they could put me in jail for 10 years. So I don't play with them. I leave them separate.

Background check, hell no, won't go.

Accessory, low cost, functional accessory. No different than a laser, a red dot, or a set of grips. With todays technology there is no excuse for a silencer/suppressor that costs 1k. And yet most of the good ones are over 500$



And give UP this idea that you can legislate morals. Making it illegal to own a silencer never stopped anyone from jacklighting a deer. They just used a .22, fired one shot.

The good ones dropped off a man right after the shot and left for half an hour. Separating the man from the shooter and the rifle. 2 garbage bags in your belt, a sharp knife and half hour of time was all it took. If you see another set of headlights coming you lay down in the grass till the coast is clear.

I'm not proud of those days, but at times life was hard. I kept myself and one other family fed through some of those hard times. It is what it is. I did not waste any, I did not do it for fun, or kicks. I did it because it had been 8 months since hunting season and freezers were bare.

[bedbugbilly]

I have no use for them but everyone is different.

I think it would have been interesting to include with this poll, the age of those who are in favor of them, want them or are interested in them. I'm wondering if these things aren't more of a "younger crowd fascination"? Nothing wrong with that but as an older individual - OK - old fart . . . I see these as more of a trend for the younger folks . . but I may be wrong on that?

[elmacgyver0]

I guess I belong to the "younger crowd" then. I am 66 and would love to have one but don't because of the paperwork, I could live with the tax but don't want my family to be burdened with it after I'm gone.

[Artful]

I guess I belong to the "younger crowd" then. I am 66 and would love to have one but don't because of the paperwork, I could live with the tax but don't want my family to be burdened with it after I'm gone.

After the owner passes the individually registered suppressor passes to the heir on a form 5 without paying any tax.
Some circumvent this by establishing a Trust and have everyone in the family on it. That way after a person passes the other people don't have to do anything as they can still legally possess the item without further paperwork.

[Artful]

I have no use for them but everyone is different.

I think it would have been interesting to include with this poll, the age of those who are in favor of them, want them or are interested in them. I'm wondering if these things aren't more of a "younger crowd fascination"? Nothing wrong with that but as an older individual - OK - old fart . . . I see these as more of a trend for the younger folks . . but I may be wrong on that?

I bought my first one in my 30's - built my latest in my 60's - maybe I'm on both ends.

[Duster340]

#1 Don't think they're dumb, just not something I need at this point.

[CraigOK]

No paperwork, no license, no tax stamp.

I concur. Without the firearm they are a glorified pipe.

[Harter66]

I'd like to point out that this 1949 Savage factory box magazine is clearly labeled CLIP .
199801

I would say that the sematics of clip/magazine is about as worn out as silencer/suppressor . How's about from here on out it's just an ammunition holder device and a muzzle noise abatement device ?

Either option 2 or 3 would make me all warm and fuzzy .
Just because I have a couple custom rifles 1 a 1 off wildcat doesn't mean I've the desire to drop $1000 for glass and another $1000 for a muzzle noise abatement device .

As the rules stand today it's about paying for for a new 2018 automobile and not being able take it home until a few weeks before the 2019s are released . If for some reason a pencil pusher 3000 miles away decides you don't need an Audi TT because you had an exhibition of acceleration ticket in 1974 . Then your money is basically gone for maybe another yr while some agreement is reached for you to sell the $35,000 pocket rocket that's last year's model it'll take the next another yr to get . The muzzle noise abatement device really hasn't changed in 50 yr but I'll bet you know the difference between a turbo Carra IV and a 956 whether you bought it for the track or to tour .

As far as R&D goes I'd bet there is only some angle and material changes from a muzzle noise abatement device for an original 1927 Thomson made in 1927 and the 45 cal pistol models on the assembly line last Tuesday .
I'm sure there are some big advances for 7mm STW class cartridges but there have been businesses building integrated muzzle noise abatement devices for 20 yr from 10/22s to Rem 1100s . It's all been done . As far as standards go I suspect they are very close world wide . That means that it comes down to fit, finish and life span for pricing , with lifetime service vs user serviceable units .

Frankly if they were even $150-200 plus tax and NICS on a 4473 and I could compare a Savage Axlevent to a S&W Xtreme model in hand and maybe even fire one each side by side I'd have 1 ea in 25,& 35cal rifle and 35 &45 pistol so fast the magstripe would melt on the American Express .

(Names and models made up for Axis vs M29 mythical properties)

[robg]

Over here most have them .we call them moderators as that's what they do.

[tdoyka]

to each his own

i don't own one nor do i have the need to get one. so i guess its no for me.

suppressors are far, far, far down my bucket list.

[Artful]

Silencer is the trademaked name used by the inventor Mr. Maxim
It is also used by the BATFE as the laws they regulate were from 1934 and Mr. Maxim's device
was commonly refered to as a silencer - Suppressor wasn't used until later after companies
realized they would have to make up a name other than the proprietary Silencer

[Landy88]

I could only ever see me buying one as a novelty, so they'd need to be very easy to buy.

They add weight, bulk, and complexity and damage handling and carrying qualities. This makes suppressors thieves of every quality that I value in a gun.

[Reddirt62]

I have a bunch and love them all. Makes shooting and hunting much more enjoyable.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[buckwheatpaul]

With a 98% hearing loss in my left ear I would love to have a suppressor.....the suppressor only really works when you use subsonic bullets and they are not truly quiet. A non-subsonic bullet will result in a greatly reduced noise and be better in my area.

[Artful]

Until you hear a silenced ar with a bumpstock pumping random rounds through the tree tops you haven't gotten out much.

Or been down range changing targets at 200 yards and have a Border Patrol Agent on the their separate range cross firing at your ranges 300 yard gong up on the berm.

[kingstrider]

To be honest about the only thing that interests me anymore is NFA stuff. I enjoy being able to shoot without ear pro or letting the neighbors knowing what I'm up to. I have also moved from buying commercial cans to building my own along with several short barrel rifles. That said I hope the HPA passes as originally written. That would mean nearly $2k in refunds due to tax stamps spent over the last year or so.

[bedbugbilly]

Artful - in regards to the passing of it on in a Trust . . .

I'm assuming that is only able to be done if the Trust is continued on? In the case of many Trusts, they are "closed" and a final tax return done. The Trust allows the estate and assets to avoid Probate.

While the silencer may be able to be passed on in regards to the Trust, the Trust, which is treated like an individual, will have to continue to file tax returns both Federal and in most states until it is closed. While the individual Trust maybe continued on for other benefits of those involved,I would hope that no one would do it just to avoid the expense/paperwork in regards to the silencer if there is any? I'm not a lawyer but I have had experience with Trusts as a Trustee.

So, if an individual had a Trust and all their assets were in the Trust - and say they had more than one son/daughter . . . could the silencer be "passed on" to a selected heir through the individual's "Will"?

Not trying to e confrontational at all - I saw you post in regards to passing it on and it peaked my curiosity. I have a hard time thinking that the guvment would have some way of squeezing a tax out of it somehow upon the death of the original owner who chooses to "pass it on"?

Thanks!

In regards to my post about silencers seeming (to me) to be a thing for the younger crowd - I meant no offense by that at all. It just seems to me that when I have heard conversations in person in regards to them, it has been younger folks. Personally, I have no need for one due to what and how I shoot but everyone's circumstances are different - regardless of age. I can see how one would be handy to have for those who have to keep the noise down or say, those who hunt prairie dogs and such - just two examples of many I'm sure.

Jim

[Walkingwolf]

I pick choice number 5, they are not dumb, but I just don't want one. At least at this time, hearing protection works fine for me. Our guns are all carry guns, and a suppressor would make them too long for that purpose.

They should be unregulated IMO.

[mcdaniel.mac]

Artful - in regards to the passing of it on in a Trust . . .

I'm assuming that is only able to be done if the Trust is continued on? In the case of many Trusts, they are "closed" and a final tax return done. The Trust allows the estate and assets to avoid Probate.

While the silencer may be able to be passed on in regards to the Trust, the Trust, which is treated like an individual, will have to continue to file tax returns both Federal and in most states until it is closed. While the individual Trust maybe continued on for other benefits of those involved,I would hope that no one would do it just to avoid the expense/paperwork in regards to the silencer if there is any? I'm not a lawyer but I have had experience with Trusts as a Trustee.

So, if an individual had a Trust and all their assets were in the Trust - and say they had more than one son/daughter . . . could the silencer be "passed on" to a selected heir through the individual's "Will"?

Not trying to e confrontational at all - I saw you post in regards to passing it on and it peaked my curiosity. I have a hard time thinking that the guvment would have some way of squeezing a tax out of it somehow upon the death of the original owner who chooses to "pass it on"?

Thanks!

In regards to my post about silencers seeming (to me) to be a thing for the younger crowd - I meant no offense by that at all. It just seems to me that when I have heard conversations in person in regards to them, it has been younger folks. Personally, I have no need for one due to what and how I shoot but everyone's circumstances are different - regardless of age. I can see how one would be handy to have for those who have to keep the noise down or say, those who hunt prairie dogs and such - just two examples of many I'm sure.

Jim
Trusts used are generally what's called a revocable living trust, which does live past the original trustee with named trustees beyond that. Failing that, you can also have your inheritor file an ATF Form 5 (5320.5) within (IIRC) 90 days of your death to pass on NFA items without an additional tax.

[FISH4BUGS]

the suppressor only really works when you use subsonic bullets and they are not truly quiet.
Maybe you are doing something wrong but my Uzi SBR (closed bolt) is so quiet with subsonic ammo I can shoot it without ear muffs. Ditto on the Ruger 22 pistol and subsonic ammo.
However, the open bolt guns are not as quiet There is a lot of gas that blows back. I have to use muffs with those guns.
People, I think, are used to the movies - Hollywood Quiet is what I call it.
Most suppressors are not that way.
Some are. Depends on ammo (trans sonic, subsonic, supersonic), bolt configuration (bolt rifle, open bolt semi/subgun vs. vs. closed bolt semi/subgun) etc.
With some effort you can get them to be VERY quiet.

[PerpetualStudent]

I'd be happy if they're just treated as firearms - so same restrictions apply. Technically the BATFE does already classify them as firearms. So if we remove them from NFA status then we should be able to build them ourselves (so long as you're allowed firearms). Which is the route I'd take. It'd make a dandy little project and help keep my hearing in tact. I don't have the loss some on this board do but the little loss I have is annoying and at times a source of friction with my family.

Basically, it's the paperwork (and 200 bucks) that keep me from having silencers/suppressors/moderators. I don't feel strongly enough to deal with the hassle as it stands.

[mozeppa]

If they didn't interfere with accuracy ....sure!....why not?

i'm 63 and my hearing is rapidly going south...one shot from a .22 long rifle cartridge without muffs, and my ears ring for days!

[elmacgyver0]

I already knew about the trusts but don't want to deal with the hassle for a little benign piece of metal.
If you could just pay the lousy 200 bucks and that would be the end of it I would be happy.
I don't want to jack around with trusts or form 5s or any other kind of malarkey for a stupid little muffler.

[Artful]

If they didn't interfere with accuracy ....sure!....why not?

What are you talking about???? I shoot 1000 yard targets with my suppressed 308, it (or me) is worse without the can on...

[dragon813gt]

What are you talking about???? I shoot 1000 yard targets with my suppressed 308, it (or me) is worse without the can on...

Best to just ignore those that have no idea what they're talking about. I wish I could say I'm surprised by gun owners that don't support every aspect of the sport. But I'm not and it's what makes us a weak easy target.

[rking22]

For me it's 4473 and no tax. I am interested in the design and engineering. I would build me an integral for my Charger first, then a Browning SA22 and then a 44mag Contender barrel. They dont have to adversely effect the handling quality of the host. That is the main design aspect I'm interested in!

[SSGOldfart]

Yep if it was the same as buying a gun I'd pick up a few

[Walkingwolf]

A person should not even have to do a background check, fill out a 4473. They are nothing more than a thin tube with baffles, some laws are really a joke, though not funny. I have no desire for a suppressor, at least at this time, from my understanding the sound is still close to ear damaging levels. The idea that if I build a house with sound suppression, and my neighbors might not hear an argument so they can call police is ridicules. Criminals are rarely going to use a silencer even if they are easy to buy, they are just too cumbersome, and criminals do not obey laws. That is why they are criminals.

I can see a lot of 80% kits in the future if they can be bought with a BGC. But actually I think there popularity will wane with a change.

[HATCH]

And they would need to be much more affordable.

if/once it passes and in enacted then they will be.

If it is enacted at the time of passage then the price on suppressors will be higher then it is now because the demand would go thru the roof.
But if there is several months between passing and being enacted, then they will be dirt cheap.

Look at AR15 receivers. Before the big rush they were over $100 for one. Now you can buy one (a metal one at that) on sale for around $30. Saw that last week.

Even right now there is a company that produces and sells a $100 22lr suppressor.

I built a titanium 22 lr/22mag/22hornet/22tcm rated can late last year.
All said and done I have $200 in it not including stamp which I hope to get back when this passes.

[dragon813gt]

People either don't know or forgetting that if removed from the NFA there would be a lot in integrally suppressed firearms being made. This alleviates the poor handling characteristics. I sure wouldn't mind an integrally suppressed Marlin lever action. It would allow me to keep the barrels at standard length instead of cutting one short so it's not "as unwieldy".

[NoAngel]

I own a couple. Will own several more as time and money allows. 99% of the naysayers have never shot one. If they had, they wouldn't be a naysayer.

Thank you Hiram Maxim for giving us the greatest firearm accessory ever.

[Walkingwolf]

Let's be clear here, because someone does not want to buy a suppressor, or use one does not make them a naysayer. I do not want a Corvette, but I don't want them outlawed, or have anything against others owning one. I also do not want a grill on my teeth, but have no problem with you having bling on your teeth.

[Artful]

Maxim 9
https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Maxim-9-Integrally-Suppressed-9MM-Pistol.jpg

Gemtech Oasis 22LR built around Ruger
https://ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Gemtech-OASIS-Supressor-Pistol.jpg

Contender SBR - Suppressed
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a6/a2/be/a6a2be62bbda7dfffd9bf4c301a84205.jpg

Own a Heavy Barrel Ruger 10/22 - make it suppressed
https://www.silencershop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/960x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/g/e/gemtech_mist_dis_1200x800.jpg
Gemtech Mist 22 barrel/suppressor assembly

Isreali's think it cool deal
https://www.armas.es/images/Octubre2015/armas-ejercito-israeli-rifle-1022.jpg

Ruger 77/22 suppressed
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da2d1ca2f4ba8e4a06210bc215f52657-c

Marlin Camp Carbine suppressed
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2f/e3/28/2fe328cf7322654ea12e2e7c6e79f04c--bread-black-death.jpg

300 Blackout AR
http://www.alloutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IMG_0486-660x495.jpg

Take your pick
Savage
http://www.shootersdepot.com/images/gkdstealths308a.jpg
Remington
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Dark-Horse-Arms-Rem-700_308-SPS-courtesy-fullysupressed.com_.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7tP9s4mm5I

[308Jeff]

A person should not even have to do a background check, fill out a 4473. They are nothing more than a thin tube with baffles, some laws are really a joke, though not funny. I have no desire for a suppressor, at least at this time, from my understanding the sound is still close to ear damaging levels. The idea that if I build a house with sound suppression, and my neighbors might not hear an argument so they can call police is ridicules. Criminals are rarely going to use a silencer even if they are easy to buy, they are just too cumbersome, and criminals do not obey laws. That is why they are criminals.

I can see a lot of 80% kits in the future if they can be bought with a BGC. But actually I think there popularity will wane with a change.

Agree with all of this.

[AbitNutz]

If this passes and silencers are freed from the NFA...what kind of media storm will arise when the first person is murdered with one? I hope it's not a murder but justified shooting, like a home owner protecting his castle.

The poor guy will probably get sued because the "victim" didn't hear it coming...I just crack myself up sometimes.

[Artful]

Hmm, same kind of media storm when Florida, Arizona, and other states loosened concealed carry laws.
I still remember all the "shoot outs" in the streets that never happened - only thing I've seen more
of is mass shootings (usually by Muslims) where concealed carry holds can't carry.

[Walkingwolf]

Being against cans is like not being an NRA member. Might as well register as a Democrat.

Keep in mind that the NRA played a large hand in the writing, and supporting of the NFA, GCA, and GFSZA.

[Walkingwolf]

Horse dung. W/O the NRA we would be just like every other "civilized" country. Totally disarmed and at the mercy of the liberal elites.

25 bucks a year is a small price to pay to keep our firearms. Take a trip to England, France, Germany or Australia and ask any gun owner if he/she wishes they had had an NRA ! (Or just ask the gun owners in any blue state how much better off they would be w/o the NRA !)

to edit a classic: Fools and their guns are soon parted !

The NRA did not write the second amendment, they did write gun control legislation that they now oppose. Know your history, or be doomed.

[Little Oak]

As mentioned in a previous reply, in UK & Ireland (maybe Europe in general?) we call them sound moderators but the same people who are determined to describe cartridges as bullets and bullets as heads (wherever that one came from!) insist on calling them silencers so like bullets/heads it has stuck pretty fast.
In the day we were only allowed to have them for .22's and a few specially made shotguns. If you mentioned ones for larger calibre firearms a sharp intake of breath could be heard eminating from the Home Office, hence the Police.
THEN the UK Forestry Commission, who look after all 'national' wooded property including the deer control, started getting slammed with hearing loss compensation cases from their full time deer controllers and all of a sudden moderators went from prohibited to mandatory on areas under their control so the Home Office/Police had to accept them.
Up till now moderators for larger than .22 have been regarded as a firearm in their own right with serial numbers recorded, etc. but I understand that deregulation is imminent.
As far as accuracy is concerned, when they get warmed up they have a tendency to alter the point of impact but this seems to vary from one to another.
I personally do not see any point in having one on a target rifle but they are definitely useful on a .22 for controlling rabbits and on larger calibres if wearing ear protection offends your sensibilities.

[Tracy]

The NRA did not write the second amendment, they did write gun control legislation that they now oppose. Know your history, or be doomed.

This. Except the NRA only opposes unconstitutional laws when it suits their own agenda. For example, GOA and JPFO have supported repealing NFA, but NRA steadfastly refuses to get behind the movement to repeal.
There are lots of gun owners who won't give one red cent to the NRA as long as they continue to support keeping the NFA.

[Walkingwolf]

This. Except the NRA only opposes unconstitutional laws when it suits their own agenda. For example, GOA and JPFO have supported repealing NFA, but NRA steadfastly refuses to get behind the movement to repeal.
There are lots of gun owners who won't give one red cent to the NRA as long as they continue to support keeping the NFA.

There is some good in the NRA, but it is not all that, as the kids say. The money did not win the election, NRA members did not win the election, it took a whole lot more people than just NRA members. If it was only NRA members that decided Hillary would be president. Also they spent money, but Hillary groups spent much more, so to say it was the money they threw is not accurate either.

We still have firearms because of our culture, and the second amendment. Without the second we would be just like the other gun banning countries. There is no doubt that the 2A has been twisted beyond what it actually says, but that twisting can only go so far.

I stopped being an NRA member due to their Toxic attitude towards factions of the gun community that does not tow their line. Like constitutional carry, and open carry. They are only lately jumping on the band wagon, probably because of gun owners who are not letting them get away with it. Another problem is every single pro gun law they get passed HAS gun control buried in the bill, every single one.

[Handloader109]

NRA was not lobbying until 1975, not 1934. So they had zero influence on nfa. Now in my opinion, they really thought, as most conservatives do until quickly proven wrong, that they could negotiate with libs and agree to pass gun restrictions that "made sense". They have been proven wrong, just like you might think it is ok to have a pet snake until it bites you. The only good snake is a dead snake and the only good firearms law is a dead law.

[rondog]

I would dearly love to have several of them! I'd be more interested in them for my rifles though, only a few for handguns. Suppressed levergun, I want!

[Walkingwolf]

NRA was not lobbying until 1975, not 1934. So they had zero influence on nfa. Now in my opinion, they really thought, as most conservatives do until quickly proven wrong, that they could negotiate with libs and agree to pass gun restrictions that "made sense". They have been proven wrong, just like you might think it is ok to have a pet snake until it bites you. The only good snake is a dead snake and the only good firearms law is a dead law.

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/nra-supported-nfa34.htm Jews for the Preservation of Ownership NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

[AbitNutz]

Being against cans is like not being an NRA member. Might as well register as a Democrat.

I'm afraid that we may have thrown our lot in with a mad man...I no longer think where there is smoke there's fire. I think there's a freakin' inferno...

[PerpetualStudent]

So with screw on suppressors it's easy to replace/refurbish. With the integrally suppressed firearms does it become a "send to a gunsmith" proposition?

[mcdaniel.mac]

So with screw on suppressors it's easy to replace/refurbish. With the integrally suppressed firearms does it become a "send to a gunsmith" proposition?Well per ATF any modifications must be done by a manufacturer, so for instance if I want a can re-cored I need to send it to a licensed manufacturer with an SOT. WTH integral units, it depends on the construction. Generally it's just a suppressor that it welded to the barrel, often with porting and baffles along the length of the barrel, and one would just ship the entire barrel and suppressor to the licensed manufacturer. I have a 10/22 that was done like that.

[Geezer in NH]

Last I checked a manufacture/SOT could only fix their own. That is why Gemtec stopped fixing Cams from powder springs Mac's so the needed no wipes. Glad my 380 can got done before that.

When you form 1 a can YOU are the manufacture and can fix them just make sure you have no extra parts as 1 extra baffle is an unregistered silencer in it self. Destroy the bad part first before making the new one. Stupid Huh?

[Smoke4320]

Last I checked a manufacture/SOT could only fix their own. That is why Gemtec stopped fixing Cams from powder springs Mac's so the needed no wipes. Glad my 380 can got done before that.

When you form 1 a can YOU are the manufacture and can fix them just make sure you have no extra parts as 1 extra baffle is an unregistered silencer in it self. Destroy the bad part first before making the new one. Stupid Huh?

you are correct

[Artful]

you are correct

No, he is in error - as a form 1 maker you would still need an SOT to repair because the ATF distinguished between a mfg and a maker!

[mcdaniel.mac]

Last I checked a manufacture/SOT could only fix their own. That is why Gemtec stopped fixing Cams from powder springs Mac's so the needed no wipes. Glad my 380 can got done before that.

When you form 1 a can YOU are the manufacture and can fix them just make sure you have no extra parts as 1 extra baffle is an unregistered silencer in it self. Destroy the bad part first before making the new one. Stupid Huh?Manufacturer can still do certain types of repairs and modifications. What ATF put a stop to was stuff like caliber changes or cutting the serial number out and welding it in as part of a new tube. Stalking Rhino is one of several companies that offers recoring and "jailbreaking" (converting sealed cans to user-serviceable) as well.

[PerpetualStudent]

Well per ATF any modifications must be done by a manufacturer, so for instance if I want a can re-cored I need to send it to a licensed manufacturer with an SOT. WTH integral units, it depends on the construction. Generally it's just a suppressor that it welded to the barrel, often with porting and baffles along the length of the barrel, and one would just ship the entire barrel and suppressor to the licensed manufacturer. I have a 10/22 that was done like that.

That's kind of what I thought. IF the HPA passed and I could make/service my own, I'd probably do that rather than the admittedly attractive integrally suppressed jobs. But if it passed and I were a firearm manufacturer I'd push the integrally suppressed ones. I'd envision a lot of mergers if it passed. The current prices for just a can wouldn't last.

[elmacgyver0]

Keep in mind that the NRA played a large hand in the writing, and supporting of the NFA, GCA, and GFSZA.
The NRA does not write legislation.
They can only lobby for or against it. They can only do so much, they had less influence back then and perhaps some poor leadership to boot.
With out them we probably would have lost everything. Now would be a good time to support them and other groups while the momentum is swinging in our direction.

[HankBoman]

They need to be treated like firearms.
4473
In sc FTF transactions is fine

Except they aren't firearms, so they should be treated as what they are. Accessories.

[HankBoman]

Shouldn't be any paperwork. Should be able to make your own too.

Also, call it what you wish either silencer or suppressor. Either is correct.

Agree 100%

[JasonYbarbo]

Would buy several if they were easier to get.

[jarhead0321usmc]

Personally I say sell them like an accessory. Without a firearm what are they paperweights? Maybe throw then at someone? Either way without a firearm to attach them too, their just a hunk of material. I've always been intrigued on how other countries with stricter gun laws than our own encourage their use when our own country almost discourages their use.

[mcdaniel.mac]

Personally I say sell them like an accessory. Without a firearm what are they paperweights? Maybe throw then at someone? Either way without a firearm to attach them too, their just a hunk of material. I've always been intrigued on how other countries with stricter gun laws than our own encourage their use when our own country almost discourages their use.Those countries all have some form of registration or licensing for guns, which tends to ease the fear a bit.

[308Jeff]

Except they aren't firearms, so they should be treated as what they are. Accessories.

Honestly don't know how anyone, especially a member who posts on here, could see it any differently.

[samari46]

Louisiana being a class III state you'd think it would be easy to get one. However our local sheriff refuses to do the local chief law enforcement sign off on either full auto or silencers. I've seen full autos owned and shot by residents in other parishes. Depends on how the law is set up regarding the CLEO sign off if required or just be able to be purchased with a background check. Frank

[Artful]

Louisiana being a class III state you'd think it would be easy to get one. However our local sheriff refuses to do the local chief law enforcement sign off on either full auto or silencers. I've seen full autos owned and shot by residents in other parishes. Depends on how the law is set up regarding the CLEO sign off if required or just be able to be purchased with a background check. Frank

Federal requirement for Cleo sign off no longer required due to 41P silencer regulations change earlier this year, so unless it is part of your state laws that's no longer an issue.

[flint45]

They are way to expensive and to much paperwork would only want one for back forty pest control.

[ak_milsurp]

Why even treat them like firearms? THey're useless unless attached to a firearm... I've had one for years. Great for introducing new folks to shooting. Really helps control "Flinch"

[ak_milsurp]

Honestly don't know how anyone, especially a member who posts on here, could see it any differently.

I concur!

[samari46]

Artful, thanks for the heads up regarding the Cleo sign off. Much appreciated. Frank

[bpatterson84]

I have many, and shoot them regularly. I initially bought the quietest ones I could find, now only have interest in the shortest/lightest ones I can find. Shooting without ears in is nice, and I like my guns to be hearing safe. The cans from Dead Air are absolute tops right now, and they just released a new one called the Wolf that is most interesting for many applications. Yes they should be accessories, but I feel they are very worth the arduous process.

[Mauser 98K]

about the comments about suppressors, silencer, sound moderators, cans, etc. where it is stated that someone will do do something dumb with them so we should keep them as a NFA item or ban them all together...

they are like everything else in the world, someone will abuse the things and do stupid ****. maybe we should ban knives or cars because someone might do something stupid with them.. not everyone will use them as an excuse to act a fool. it has always been this way, the idiots will ruin everything for those of us who have a brain in our head... but it is the law abiding and only the law abiding who gets burnt by any laws, anyone who wants one who does not give a dam about the federal infringement departments will have one.. criminals do not obey the law to begin with, that is why they are criminals.

there is no part of the US constitution that grants the government the power to say what the people may or may not have.. with the assumption that they have the authority to tell the people what they may or may not have opens up the assumption that they could tell the people that we cannot eat salt because it is bad or we cannot eat meat because it is bad for us and cruel to animals, or that we may not grow a plant because they say so. there is no difference.. the thing is that they could not ban the suppressor or automatic weapons outright because they have no authority to do so, but what they could do is levy a tax. the tax is well within the powers of the government and this is how they circumvent the constitution.. sure you can own something, but you must pay a tax to do so and the tax will be so high as to make that unlikely. it is like Obama care was classified as a tax and that is the only way the was able to do it.. they require a tax upon the items and anyone not found to be in compliance with the tax is subjected to tax evasion rules and regulations, that is the only thing they can get you on. it is like the days of old where you would be thrown into the debtors prison if you did not pay the king his taxes, it is the exact same **** these days.. but the people still have the authority to refuse to pay such taxes if they are found to be unusual or unconstitutional. the only problem with this is the people cannot get together on anything so the cycle continues. but this is where it gets murky.. while the US government has the power to tax, they do not have the power to regulate or prevent anyone from possessing a firearm or accessory under the second amendment that clearly states that "shall not be infringed".

the very act of requiring a tax upon a firearm or firearm item for ownership and punishing people for not paying this tax is in conflict with the second amendment that says we have a right to own said firearm.. there is no difference when they do this than if i say you have the right to own an item and then i say that even though you have the right to own that item you have to pay me a fee or you cannot own it. they are contradictions. you have the right to do so but ill say you can't have it unless you give me money.. it is the equivalent of me going to someones house and seeing they have a butcher knife in their kitchen and then demanding money from them to own the knife. if they will not give me money then i put a gun to their head or send a bunch of people to do it for me like the IRS and other federal goon squads and if they will not give me the money then i kidnap them and take their knife. if we do this we go to jail. when we do this it is called armed robbery and kidnapping.. but because they have brainwashed the people into believing they have authority over them to tell them what they can and cannot do as private citizens they get away with it...

they only have the power that the people allow them to have and no more.. if people allow them to become a totalitarian nanny state government then they have to power to do so.. this will go on till the people actually get together and say enough. but this is where the division we see comes in at... keep the people divided and fighting with each other and distracted with unimportant distraction and you have no problem with them rising up against the ruling powers..

[Geezer in NH]

They are way to expensive and to much paperwork would only want one for back forty pest control.
You cannot get one if you wanted it anyway as they are not legal in CA so your post makes no sense.

[kmrra]

They are an inanimate object , not going to pay a tax on a muffler. I find it odd that you can go down town and buy a gun and come home with it. Buy an accessory which is what a suppressor is , and you have to pay a grand for it , 200 dollar tax and then have to wait 9 months to a year to bring it home. This just shows you how stupid our government really is. or at least half of our government , if you get my drift. and I was told buy my friend that is a class 3 dealer that there has not been a crime committed with a suppressor. , before someone comes unglued and jumps all over me for know knowing what Im talking about ,this is just what I herd I have no facts nor do I care.

[Lonegun1894]

They should be completely unregulated, but I have what I want regardless of regulations. I just figure IF there is a way to stay legal, I will stay legal. Sadly, the only weapon I currently own that I can't legally carry is a tomahawk. Go figure.

[Walkingwolf]

They should be completely unregulated, but I have what I want regardless of regulations. I just figure IF there is a way to stay legal, I will stay legal. Sadly, the only weapon I currently own that I can't legally carry is a tomahawk. Go figure.

You can carry it in North Carolina, and you don't even need a permit.

[18Bravo]

Unfortunately, I live in Illinois which prohibits suppressors. I guess the politicians here don’t care much for protecting their constituents hearing. I can’t help but think that Chicago would be a lot quieter.... If we ever do get them they should be sold as an accessory with no further background check or NFA fee