search
top

Movement on Suppressors in Oklahoma

A bill to legalize suppressor use for hunting on private land has passed out of committee. Looks like Silencerco has retained Todd Rathner as a lobbyist. Todd is a member of the NRA Board, and Darren LaSorte, who is also mentioned in the article, is Manager of Hunting Policy for NRA-ILA. This should put to bed notions that NRA is hostile or somehow afraid of pushing NFA causes. They will push them to the extent the politicians are willing to listen, and they seem to be opening their ears when it comes to the importance of this issue to the shooting community.

Five years ago, if you had said we’d be mainstreaming suppressors, I would have thought you were a wild eyed optimist. But we’re doing it. Maybe in a decade we will be able to reform the machine gun regulations. But for now, getting suppressors moved to Title I would be quite an accomplishment. I think we could be getting there.

9 Responses to “Movement on Suppressors in Oklahoma”

  1. Shootin' Buddy says:

    “But for now, getting suppressors moved to Title I would be quite an accomplishment.”

    Thank you. This has been my hobby horse for 20 years now. All my mouth-frothing is paying off now that I have an influential blogger is my corner.

    “This should put to bed notions that NRA is hostile or somehow afraid of pushing NFA causes.”

    In speaking with NRA heavies in Pittsburgh, it is more an issue of timing. NRA wants to see more NFA reform attempts at the state level before any reform efforts are instituted at the federal level. I believe the issue is getting ripe.

  2. Nick Pacific says:

    A $200 reduction in cost would make my wife very happy.
    A reduction in hearing loss would make me happy.
    As far as I can tell, hopes and dreams are a win/win. Until then I’ll just be happy more states can have access to them.

  3. Sean says:

    This past summer my state, WA legalized suppressor use. Huge win.

    That said, as a family man on a budget, I can’t justify the price of the hardware + the tax stamp.

    My long term hope is if suppressors were not NFA regulated and something Bubba could walk out of Cabela’s with, the market would boom, driving costs down considerably.

    • HSR47 says:

      “My long term hope is if suppressors were not NFA regulated and something Bubba could walk out of Cabela‚Äôs with, the market would boom, driving costs down considerably.”

      Yes and no, mostly no.

      What we would largely see in such a situation is the creation of a multi-tier market that is presently uneconomical due to Federal regulation.

      Essentially, the companies making suppressors have realized that, due to the time and money involved in the regulatory process, there is effectively no market for cheap or used suppressors.

      Ergo, the high end of the market is saturated, while the low end is non-existent.

      So, yes, de-regulation would LIKELY mean that the everyman could afford suppressors, but the 200-500 dollar range would be filled with used and/or crappy cans, while the current high-end cans likely maintaining their pricepoint.

  4. MicroBalrog says:

    The NRA is hostile or somehow afraid of pushing NFA causes on the Federal level. This is what I said all along.

  5. PhilaBOR says:

    It would be nice if suppressors were off NFA altogether. If you look at the cost/benefit analysis: hearing loss, range noise complaints vs poaching and assassins, it seems like a no-brainer…oh wait, the antis don’t have brains.

    Also, SBR’s, SBS’s. I don’t see how, with the availability of semi-auto pistols and “pistol” versions of AR’s & AK’s, there’s any reason for restrictions on short barrels. At best they fill a narrow gap in capabilities, and just give the bureaucrats and ATF job security.

  6. Jdude says:

    If suppressors were title 1 I would have one on every single rifle I own. Hell, I’d stick one on a black powder rile just to see what would happen. :D

    -Jdude

    • HSR47 says:

      I’d take it one step further and completely free them from being regulated as firearms.

      They shouldn’t be “Title I firearms” or “Title II firearms” they should just be chunks of metal uninhibited by any kind of federal regulation.

top