search
top

Legalizing Suppressors

Michael Bane suggests we make it a priority.  I think it’s politically achievable, and a good idea.

14 Responses to “Legalizing Suppressors”

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    With all the bitching from the beautiful people who are dumb enugh to buy land near a gun range when they don’t like the sound of guns, this could be an answer for them.

    I’m not saying they’d like it….

  2. Robb Allen says:

    I’d also caution against calling them silencers. Muffler or suppressor is better. “Silencer” is a lie and unfortunately most people think what they see in movies is realistic with only a tiny “fweeeet” heard after the trigger has been pulled.

    There is a stigma behind suppressors that only assassins would need them or that thugs would use them in crimes. We need to educate the masses that mufflers add weight and size to the firearm, making them less concealable and that the noise is still noticeable and not whisper quiet like in James Bond.

    I would love to get one for my AR 6.8, but the cost is prohibitive due to the restrictions on them. Even the UK allows silencers without licensing!!!

  3. Sam says:

    I think it would be better to focus on getting the tax lowered first, rather than getting them completely removed from the NFA.

    baby steps and all.

  4. Robb Allen says:

    I disagree with that Sam. The hurdle isn’t the tax. The cost of suppressors also includes the hassle for having to deal with an NFA item. Because they’re so hard to get (taxes, fingerprints, permission slips, etc) not enough people own them to get the costs down. The $200 extra has little to no effect on stopping people from buying them if they have the money to afford them in the first place.

    The goal, though, is not to lower the cost (that will be a happy byproduct) but to allow us the ability to buy them when we want without government intervention. $100 or $200 for a tax isn’t going to help with that.

  5. Robb Allen says:

    (that should read $100 of of $200)

  6. Sigivald says:

    The easiest part is to remind them that “they’re required in Sweden”.

    Sweden = automatically good to perhaps the majority of Leftists who are hardest to convince, so at very least you’ll get amusing cognitive dissonance.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Robb is absolutely correct. The problem isn’t the tax, it’s the costs of complying with the regulations, and the lack of economies of scale that you would normally get if it were unregulated and there was more of a mass market.

  8. gudis says:

    I was thinking the exact same thing, though living in Illinois I’m not sure it would help anything.

  9. Ian Argent says:

    Push them as noise abatement devices, or as mufflers. There’s a problem with noting that they are required safety equipment in some countries – I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

    May have to take baby steps in this as well.

  10. Robb Allen says:

    Ian, I’m curious to know your view. I assume it’s that we don’t want to emulate their gun laws overall, but it’s OK to emulate what works while discarding that which doesn’t.

  11. I can see the Brady Campaign’s press release now:
    “Gun Lobby Pushes Silent, But Deadly Killing Tools.”

  12. Ian Argent says:

    Say we require silencers, but don’t get tehm out from under GCA ’34. That’s a $200 tax; potentially per weapon. I can see that happening.

  13. Robb Allen says:

    Ah, very interesting point Ian. However, due to the logistics involved (not every firearm can physically support a suppressor), I think that’d be quite unreasonable.

    Not that that’s ever stopped an anti from pushing shitty legislation.

  14. Ian Argent says:

    It’s more reasonable than DC’s gun laws…

top