"NRA to make serious push for suppressor (aka 'silencer') law reform?"

"NRA to make serious push for suppressor (aka 'silencer') law reform?"


"This past summer, Missouri passed a law that, among marking a great many other advances in gun rights, made firearm sound suppressors (popularly, but inaccurately, referred to as "silencers") far easier to legally own. Previously, only those with a federal firearms license (FFL), as is required for gun dealers, could own suppressors in the state. Missourians are still, of course, unfortunately under the thumb of the onerous federal laws regulating suppressors ($200 tax stamp for each suppressor, detailed background check with fingerprints, the legal jeopardy one places oneself in by owning both suppressors and "Chore Boy" pot scrubbers, etc.).

The federal laws regulating suppressors have been in place since 1934, as part of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which also severely restricts fully-automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, etc. Conventional wisdom argues that any attempt to weaken the shackles of the NFA is doomed to failure, and a waste of political capital. Admittedly, it is inevitable that any serious attempt to do so will be met with horrified/outraged shrieks of, "They want kindergarteners to carry silenced Uzis to school!" from the gun prohibitionists."

More at link.


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/nra-to-make-serious-push-for-suppressor-aka-silencer-law-reform



Good. To echo the article, one wonders why the self-proclaimed "gun safety" groups don't actually endorse safety equipment. 'Tis a puzzlement...





:shrug:

Makes about as much sense as legalizing poison-coated bullets.

If anything happens in the REAL world that requires gunfire, we WANT the public to know, immediately. The louder the better. If someone is hunting in woods I'm hiking in, I want to know a mile away. If someone is using a gun in my quasi-urban neighborhood, I want to know, and I want everyone to know. They all need to come out with cameras.

The sheer pretense of insisting that "suppressor" is BETTER than "silencer" (which everyone knows what it means, and has for many decades) is worthy of Oscar Wilde.

You can't fool her. She knows how "silencers" make any gun just go "phfft" and people start dropping like flies.

She obviously doesn't know that they are required in many European countries as a safety device at indoor and some outdoor ranges and are sold over the counter with no government permission required.

Far from the modern popular and erroneous notion that suppressors were created for organized criminals and assassins, when Hiram P. Maxim (son of Maxim machine gun creator Hiram Stevens Maxim) patented the first suppressor in 1910 his goal was to minimize noise pollution. Ads for the product featured a character called “Dr. Shush” and Maxim himself imploring those at a firing range to “hush,” with another noting, “Girls like it when there’s no nerve-ripping report.

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/21/gun-suppressors/

So the chicks dig them too! Really, it is a good tool to introduce someone to the shooting sports.

A good suppressor eliminates flash. A good suppressor reduces muzzle blast. A suppressor can protect bystanders in addition to the shooter from the blast and report of a gunshot. A good suppressor greatly diminshes the recoil of a firearm. A good suppressor enhances precision of shot groupings by repeatably and controlably managing expanding gasses at the muzzle.

The best earplugs on the planet can do none of those things.

I know for my kids the blast from the muzzle unnerves them most.

Have the benefit of reducing sound output in general - which makes the neighbors less cranky...

You'll still hear it - don't worry about that.

By the way - the public has no reason to know what legal activities another is engaged in, no matter how much you think you do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There, now you know how stupid your statement made you look to anyone not wrapping themself in a blanket of preconcieved notions based in ignorance.

Your objection to the correct term "suppressor" is reminiscent of the insistence that some bullets are "cop killers" (even though the average deer rifle uses cartridges which will penetrate most modern armor), and the reckless use of the term "assault weapon" simply because it sounds so scary (while ignoring the more powerful semi-auto deer rifles which have been around for generations).

"Suppressors" are used in a number of European countries; indeed, are required for hunting so as not to disturb nearby residents and other wildlife.

"Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing." O. Wilde

Wilde, when visiting the U.S., was quite taken with "Western" culture, and posed for photos, wearing cowboy hats, and wielding revolvers.

and cop shows are not real life.
Suppressor is the proper word and more accurate description. Silencers as you think of them only work on 1970s cop shows.
Don't go hiking in Finland or Norway. Suppressors are not only unregulated, they are required to be used in some hunting areas.

Suppressors are devices that reduce the sound signature and flash of firearms. Silencers are fictional devices in movies that make guns so quiet you hear a little "click" when they go off instead of a "bang!"

Suppressors are good for saving the hearing of avid shooters, or those who may be forced to fire a weapon in an enclosed space (home defense, SWAT, etc). They are also good for training new shooters and hunting dogs to help in overcoming gun shyness.

They are regulated under the NFA in response to excessive Depression-era poaching. Murder and violent crime were not a concern then, and still aren't now.

How about if someone is legally shooting at a range that has been in operation at the same location for 75 years, and it disturbs my tranquillity at the weekend home that I purchased last month through an unscrupulous real esate agent who did not inform me of the presence of said shooting range? Shall I just put my earplugs in and keep them there for the entire weekend? Nah, let's just close that range down. Fuck these local yokels and their redneck ways: I'm a progressive, goddammit!


If you don't want to share the woods with hunters, you should do better research on your choice of hiking venues. In any case, if the hunters are following safe practices, you won't be in any danger. If they are not, the sound of gunfire will not be an adequate warning of their presence, since it only takes one unsafe shot to do tremendous harm. It might interest you to know that such yahoo paradises as Finland, France, and the UK allow and even encourage hunting with suppressors. (Yes, suppressors: nothing can "silence" a firearm.)

If someone is shooting in your semi-urban neighborhood, I suggest you stay indoors and call 911. Going out with a camera would be suicidally stupid.

Suppressors exist. Silencers don't.
Europe requires the opposite of what you are claiming at gun ranges, especially in countries with TIGHTER gun control laws.

I know that individual preferences and desires don't matter to you but....this is the primary reason I shoot .22 rifles so much.

A suppressed firearm is not silent. Oscar Wilde knew words had meaning.

Firearm silencers are actually referred "silencers" (by both the inventor and federal law).
Yes, I know they do not "silence" the firearm and they only muffle/suppress the report... but they are silencers, technically.

The NRA has never really been interested in challenging the NFA. The NRA's bread and butter is hunters and sportsman - too many of which are wrongly convinced that silencers and machineguns are anything but sporting. It's simply a battle that, while righteous from a pro-2A standpoint, simply costs too much to fight. It would be a pyrrhic victory, if a victory at all, for the NRA.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This I gotta see...

Depending on the quality and workmanship of his I may pony up the bucks for one....the kids would love not having to wear earplug, and it would be so much better for shooting the 22 pistols also.


Hopefully this will gain traction.

It cuts the sound level significantly, but not to the point of being completely non-hazardous.

ahhh the reduced dB levels...........................

Technically it would be threaded sphincter, considering the origin of many arguments.

Just sayin.

God bless the right wing NRA.

your carport and yard. According to you guys, someone stealing your lawnmower is just a common criminal and anyone with a gun has the right to try them and execute them even if they are not armed. Read the posts, including your own.

Feel free to list them here by name.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

On my property illegally and attempting to relieve me of my stuff makes them a threat. Period.

I certainly don't think one should shoot without warning. But I have every right to confront them, verbally tell them to cease and leave. If they do not do so, I may or may not attempt to physically stop them; depending on how many/how big they are. But there is no legal or moral reason for me to risk direct physical contact. That's entirely up to my assesment of the situation.

If the would-be theives present a threat after the verbal warning, I will procede directly to weapons, see above.

You seem to believe that "unarmed" = "harmless" and "not lethal". This is, of course, either ignorance, an error or a lie on your part.

These outbursts of yours are disturbing, you are probably on a "list" or twenty.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A $600 can + $200 TAX is hard enough to swallow, let alone NATO subsonic 7.62 at $2-$3 per round.

At subsonic velocities, you can probably get away with good-old-fashioned cast bullets with gas checks, saving even more bucks.