Why are suppressors so regulated!? What’s the justification!?

Its very simple. Politicians like movies. In the movies only bad guys have silencers. Do the math, politicians+movies= laws - common sense :laughing::laughing::laughing:

2 Likes

Like I said, on principle I agree that it’s an infringement. Sort of.

In reality, I think rate of fire is the reason for the “one trigger pull” language. I don’t think anyone would care about automatic if it only produced one shot every three seconds. “One pull” just seemed simple, accurate, and adequate at the time. So a work-around is developed and the language used to limit the rate of fire changed. Sort of like sear mods became machine guns, now assisted semi-auto joins the parade, bionic fingers may be the next prohibition.

My beef is with all the infringement. The bad guys will have what the bad guys want. The irresponsible will be irresponsible no matter what. If I want full auto, it should require verification that I’m not a prohibited person at the point of purchase. Oh, and a fairly generous budget.

1 Like

I’m with you on “all the infringements”…including the one requiring that you show you are not a prohibited person at the point of purchase

1 Like

I’m actually pretty ok with that requirement. The prohibitions are for a reason, and prohibited persons often don’t self-disqualify. Bad apples will usually find a way, but we should make it hard. Of course for background to be actually ok
– prompt, accurate, and appealable;
– no reporting or retention, overt or covert;
– private check for private transfers.

My issue with this is, first off, the number of things which qualify for the prohibited person list, including things that shouldn’t even be a crime.

1 Like

Required for ownership, purchase, and possession of a firearm and/or ammunition.

2 Likes

Ok. There are ways to be prohibited which are not crimes. I am fine with them as qualification, I guess with the exception of the state/federal dispute over legality of controlled substances.

The business with intoxicants will need to work itself out until packing under the influence and relaxing safely both find a reasonable place to sit — probably not on the prohib list.

1 Like

I’m not sure what you mean by as qualification.

You are fine with, for example, becoming a prohibited person for having an unloaded handgun locked in a hard sided case in the trunk of your car?

Edit: Just confused by this post, the “not crimes” part also.

Granted, I’m getting really far off into a much bigger picture with the “shouldn’t even be a crime” as one reason why I don’t like the “show you are not a prohibited person at the point of purchase” thing

1 Like

By “qualification” I mean limitations to or subtractions from the absolutely absolute entitlements guaranteed by the US Constitution (or any other general standard).

As in, “rules may be qualified by exceptions” or “all-time RBI record may be qualified by longer seasons”.

I am not.
If your state has made that “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” then you certainly have a problem at home.

By “not crimes” I mean:

  • who is a fugitive from justice;
  • who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance…;
  • who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  • who is an illegal alien;
  • who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
  • who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  • under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Those are limitations/qualifications on 2A which I consider acceptable except as previously noted. “Crimes” (conviction punishable by more than 1 year, or misdemeanor of domestic violence) are actually only a few of the ways to become a federally prohibited person. States can and do impose additional limitations on permits or licenses they issue — I can’t take that on in detail.

Merry Christmas. I hope Santa cancelled some regulations for you!

This isn’t about me, speaking much more generally. There are millions who live in states, and more who travel to or through those states, where that is in fact a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

In my state, for a time, having a pocket knife with a 2.5" blade in your glove box when you parked in the stadium parking lot to attend a college football game made you a felon.

When I worked at a university, I observed tremendous numbers of students and faculty committing felonies on a daily basis. At orientation, when asked, a faculty member told everybody they could commit a felony and it was okay (because she didn’t know that’s what it is was, thought it was okay).

A heck of a lo of people are or easily could be prohibited persons and it really rubs me the wrong way, and IMO, is enough of a thing to completely invalidate the whole premise, considering that the true bad actors will get their hands on one anyway.

Just my opinion

1 Like

The problem of unknown nonsense laws and the silly acts of citizens and their state legislatures are everywhere. I consider it a system operation defect, not a system design defect. For sure, it is a problem not much addressed.

But I don’t blame ATF and NFA for the consequences — which are clearly caused elsewhere, reach farther, and cause greater harm than prohibiting firearms ownership.

I think it’s also a design defect. Designing the system so that laws with a potential penalty of more than a year in prison automatically restricts the Right to keep and bear arms is a faulty design. One that is exacerbated by the number of (often unknown) laws that qualify in certain jurisdictions

Edit: I just really, really don’t like infringements on the Right to keep and bear arms. Like, any, at all. I’m vary anti-infringement.

Pretty much all I am okay with are prohibiting firearms for minors (under 18 as age of majority) without parent/guardian consent…persons who are currently in custody…and in secure access areas of sensitive locations (example, courthouse) where ever single person entering, at all times, must go through screening backed by armed, sworn LE

Looks like that wraps up this thread. Thanks to everyone who responded. I’m pleasantly surprised that nobody went with the “They’re dangerous because hit men can sneak around taking sneaky shots!”. This crowd is too smart for that. It seems that everyone agreed that the rule is out dated and the only reason we allow this malarkey to continue is because of scary looking attachments, that save on the ears and make a handgun less concealable, holywood, and tax stamp money. I think I’ll grab one of those sound directors for my rifle. Does a similar job minus the stamp and paperwork. I did hear it throws out some dragons breath though. No night training with that thing on there. It’ll save the ears and destroy the retina. God bless all y’all and have a happy new year!

Ps. I feel like it’s crazy rare that everyone agree on a topic

4 Likes

Interesting post.

Personally, I cannot comment on criminals “making” suppressors. I don’t see a connection or relevance. I heard that a certain city now has technology which constantly records sound to pinpoint where a shot fired occurred. However, I think I’m more concerned about our hearing and ear health.

When at the range, even with ear protection, I find it too loud. If it were legal to own suppressors in my area, I wonder if we’d see more of em in the range?

I switched to electronic ear protection, a brand which allows me to hear voices but covers up most gunfire. If you’ve never tried, please buy a pair, I noticed some are now more affordable.

What you guys think bout doubling up, with added soft lil ear plugs under the head set gear? I do that sometimes.

I’d use em. In the attched vid, the speaker discusses how hearing damage can easily happen.

God forbid ever having to use an EDC without a suppressor, could even only one round cause permanent deafness? I’m now for us having suppressors.

Could carrying a smaller caliber as EDC, make the difference between hearing loss?

What you all think about having a suppressor for “in-home” defense?

Signed,

A Listener

I wouldn’t push the EDC with a suppressor angle, though. Not particularly practical to physically carry and implement an EDC pistol with a can on the end.

Home defense with a rifle…now you’re talking. We hopefully all (or mostly) know the many awesome aspects to an intermediate rifle cartridge’d carbine (like an AR15 type) for home defense, but the 165 decibel part, with blast/flash/concussion, is a bit of a turnoff. Using a little shorter barrel with some suppression on the end to knock it down an order of magnitude or two is pretty sweet.

So yeah for “in-home” defense I think a suppressor on a firearm, pistol or rifle, is a very practical idea where legal. 135-140 db with a significantly reduced flash and overpressure/concussion is so much better than a raw 165+ db

3 Likes

Makes me wanna get out there, throw on a suit and tie and lobby for true common sense laws. Let’s protect our hearing too. Thanks you all.

2 Likes

While the authority to tax at the Federal level was the excuse for passing the original National FIrearms Act, the ATF admits the real reason in their posting

National Firearms Act

where they state

While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.

So, the 1934 logic regarding both automatic weapons and suppressors is analogous to the modern ban AR rifles movement launched in reponse to the tragedy at Sandy Hook.

4 Likes

That sounded like a good idea to me. Until I found that (at least the most common affordable) electronic muffs had a significantly lower NRR than reputable but significantly cheaper plain muffs. In my personal comparisons, that difference in ratings seems pretty apparent. Solid muffs are better. I set the powered muffs aside for classes or some other situation where hearing vehicles or alerts or face-to-face conversation is not quite enough.

I shoot outside and mostly alone. A 27dB passive muff for $20 is fine, and better than a 23dB electronic muff for $60. Indoors or at a busy range with bad acoustics, I would probably want to double with plugs and go to a 34dB (i.e. bulkier) muff.

2 Likes

Awesome. Yes, folks, let’s please think bout higher dB muff protection. I imagine, over time, it can take its toll, thus worth it. ‘Old-timers’, please chime in. :blush:

2 Likes

I dunno if it’s true, but I’ve heard that an empty plastic soda bottle makes a dandy, lightweight suppressor, or any other ordinary item that can lessen muzzle blast. It’s just another way for these “chupasangrias” to limit or tax us as we pursue a legitimate hobby.