As far as I can tell, a suppressor is a safety device! Saves on the ears. I can’t wrap my head around why we would allow the government to regulate them. The one argument I can think of is that we don’t want criminals sneaking around taking shots that can’t be triangulated. This doesn’t really make sense because if they’re criminals, they’ll just make their own as it’s not really a complicated device. Can anybody enlighten me?
Government control is a major player here and a few more pieces of equipment to put TAXES on. We all
know that in the proper law-abiding individual’s hands, a suppressor is just that, Safety Equipment and
a great investment to own and operate.
Money and Control! Amazing that they don’t charge TAXES on toilet paper or TEA, or have they already
done that, Ooops!
Money Grab!? How could we let them get away with that? There must be more.
Runaway government bloat is just ballooning from the $200 stamps. After 85 years without a price increase, what other regulatory fee intended to be prohibitive has become so cheap?
I know why I let them get away with it — I was minus twenty years old at the time. What’s your excuse?
There is really no good reason for suppressors to be regulated. Like black rifles it is simply a matter of some politicians deciding they are “dangerous”.
While the tax may not be exorbitant in today’s dollars the extra paperwork and very long wait times significantly suppresses;) the market and drives up the prices far beyond what they should be for these very simple devices. The Supreme Court was going to hear a case to remove them from the NFA a couple years back but the supposedly 2A loving Trump had his justice department argue against it so SCOTUS decided not to hear the case.
It goes hand in hand with the 30 round clip and ar that cycles 30 bullet per second with one trigger pull. Suppressor is not synonymous with silencer but the movies have the entire left coast believing that it eliminates all sound for a stealthy killing. In short ignorance, media, and movies.
Illinois FOID card. 10 dollars, for a card good for 10 years. Want own a gun in Illinois, you must have one.
Money is part of it but in the eyes of some, a gun is evil. A gun with scary features worse.
A sneaky gun causes terror!
So far we’ve got money and the fact that they look scary as reasons suppressors are so highly regulated. The more I think about it the more safe guns get when equipped with one. Not only do they save on the ears but they also make the gun less concealable. If I’m honest, I’ve never used one. Not only because of the extra tax stamp money but also the paper work and the length of time it takes to clear. I don’t even know someone who has one. It makes no sense.
Have you expressed your concerns to your elected officials in Congress? Why not?
Economical, but inexcusable nonetheless.
At least while the legal battle for 2A continues, the economic barrier is a modest one — that’s a good thing. At least compared to $75 for 3yr CCL, which adds up to $200 before all that long.
Is the FOID just to authorize purchase? Or does it need to be in force as long as a firearm is owned?
It’s a bit of work to figure out the actual thinking in 1934, but certainly prohibition (or at least financial and regulatory inhibition) seems to have been the point. The original justification hardly matters by 1964, or 1984, or 2004, or 2024 — it has become just part of the anti-gun ouvre. The tail fins and hood ornaments used to paint the terror story of individual rights to defense of person and community.
Personally, I have no interest. I consider them as peripheral to 2A and defense as bumpstocks and bayonet mounts. Now, auto conversion, magazine limits, barrel and weapon length — those seem more the meat and potato matters. But on principle…
Also a long gun needs to “loaded down” to take full advantage of a suppressor. The rounds need to stay subsonic in a long gun to work properly.
I think you should give the bump stocks a second thought.
Banning bumpstocks sets the precedent that it is okay to regulate the rate of fire of semi automatic firearms.
It also implies that full auto should not be legal, as the supposed justification for banning bump stocks is that they emulate full auto.
To me, though, the worst is that first one…regulate the rate of fire of semi automatics. We actually have pretty decisive language in play differentiating full auto from semi auto, but then…bump stocks happened
If by full advantage you mean actually be ‘quiet’ and hearing safe, yes, they do. Well, most do, as most are supersonic and not exactly “quiet” just by adding a suppressor.
But, even supersonic rifles are significantly calmed by a suppressor. A 5.56 carbine indoors vs that same 5.56 with a typical suppressor is a HUGE difference in sound level and the concussive muzzle blast.
If you want proof, just look at how many law enforcement agencies and military units run them
Yep, that’s what I said
I suppose I might define full advantage as: To suppress the muzzle blast/concussion/sound as much as possible without harming the terminal ballistics or reliability, or overly impacting the handling/practical usability of the firearm.
I’ll take 138db over 165 db (or whatever the exact numbers are) all day long.
It’s just unfortunate that I have to pay a $200 tax and wait 9-12 months.
Even a “mini” can on a 5.56 makes a significant difference (improvement) in my experience
BUT I see exactly what you are saying. If you want “hollywood-quiet”, you probably need to change cartridges and/or download. That is a consideration
I think a lot of it, unfortunately comes down to a lack of education. For so many, including those in the government and most definitely the average person, they have gotten all of their information (or lack there of) from what they see on movies and TV, which as many of you know is highly inaccurate. Most think that a suppressor makes the firearm silent, or at least that it just makes the “pew” noise that they are used to hearing on movies. When in reality using a suppressor is still fairly loud, and most of the time ear pro should still be used. It can definitely be significantly quieter and does a great job of removing most, or all of the muzzle flash, but it is far from silent. Suppressors not only make shooting even more fun, they are also a great way to introduce folks to shooting because it removes some of the noise and often can help with some of the recoil which are two of the biggest things that scare or intimidate new shooters. Not to mention it is much easier on your hearing. I completely agree that it makes no sense for them to be an NFA item. They should be no different than buying a flashlight to attach to your firearm, or any other accessory. Hopefully at some point in the future something like the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 95) can gain some steam.
I think one of the best ways for it to gain more attention is by more people owning suppressors and educating others. Now that eforms are live for a form 4, hopefully that will be a step in the right direction.
All you folks who have suppressors, get out to the range with them! Get that exposure up, get them more commonplace.
Agreed, it’s just a game they play. 2A does not put limitations. We have let it happen.