search
top

Educating Hunters…. On Suppressors

Suppressors NRA AdNRA-ILA’s hunting policy division is busy trying to educate hunters on something that might surprise you: the usefulness of suppressors. As many of you are well aware, suppressors, or silencers, have been regulated heavily by the federal government since the 1930s, and are subject to the National Firearms Act. The popularity of suppressors is soaring, to the point where ATF has been complaining in legal seminars I’ve attended that they are having a hard time keeping up with all the NFA paperwork, especially as Trusts are quickly becoming the preferred mechanism for papering Title II firearms and accessories.

I was surprised when NRA did a Facebook post after a victory legalizing suppressors that there were a number of people expressing discontent, and blathering ignorance that’s been drilled into people’s heads by decades of Hollywood movies and unfamiliarity. It’s looking like NRA is trying to address that. Does this mean we’re close to being able to push some legislation to deregulate them? I don’t know. It’s difficult to get Congress to act, and our Republican friends tend to act on the gun issue more out of political benefit than true love. But I think we’re moving in that direction.

6 Responses to “Educating Hunters…. On Suppressors”

  1. denton says:

    If OSHA regulated guns, suppressors would be mandatory.

  2. Bill C. says:

    Outstanding article. We are way behind the times, very much needing to get them legal in all 50 states first, then perhaps deregulate them federally. It has ZERO downside–except to anti gun politicians who don’t want more people enjoying firearms, which I’m pretty sure is the only reason at all as to why we see any opposition.

  3. PhilaBOR says:

    Screw the NFA. Suppressors, SBR’s, SBS’s, AOW’s should all be completely legalized and deregulated. Who cares if you can conceal an AR with a 10″ barrel? Pistols are legal (more or less).

  4. Harold says:

    Note that if this gets any traction it gives our overwhelmed and losing—Bloomberg is mostly losing, I gather, but here in SW Missouri I’m way too far away from his area of influence to know—-enemies another issue to divide their limited resources on.

    The clearest sign we’re winning now is that the vast majority of what’s going on is their reacting to our “attacks” (as they see them). That’s a path to defeat, which is one of the reasons I was pretty pessimistic until perhaps 1994-2000 when gun control started wrecking the Democrats on the national level.

    Hmmm, echoing PhilaBOR, I might note that the NFA was an attempt to effectively ban just about everything but “conventional” (no more than semi-auto) long guns; the NRA’s “compromise” was to remove handguns from its restrictions. On that basis, gutting all of it but “MACHINE GUNS!!!” (where we’re years, probably decades at best from the societal changes needed) and destructive devices (“THAT CAN SHOOT DOWN PLANES!!!”) ought to be something we should try. As he points out, where’s the beef in the SBR restrictions?

  5. Zermoid says:

    Since the 2nd has been judged to be an individual right, what we need now is a decision that affirms that “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed” also means exactly what it says, thus nullifying all laws against weapon ownership, of any type, suppresses, machine guns, grenades, howitzers, whatever.

    • Harold says:

      I think first we’ll have to change the culture. I fear we won’t even get favorable “assault weapons” decisions (e.g. Heller II) until that happens, which I think is moving along nicely but will take a long while.

top