Question About Suppressor Legislation

[DHC]

With all the talk about NEW restrictive gun legislation, I have been wondering about the legitimacy of existing legislation - in particular, the onerous process for purchasing a 'silencer.'

I do not currently own a silencer (is the better term 'suppressor'?), but every time I 'tune in' to my constant tinnitus, I wonder if use of silencers might have made a difference. Not to mention the inconvenience of having to don double ear protection every time I visit the range. Given that some European countries allow sales of silencers over-the-counter as a means of protecting the hearing of people who shoot and those around them, it led me to wondering about the passage of the current restrictive legislation.

As I understand it, the original legislation was passed in the National Firearms Act of 1934 which was specifically designed to regulate "gangster weapons." In 1968 the NFA was re-written because the NFA was found to be unenforceable and they added "destructive devices."

So going back to the original 1934 act to regulate silencers, it seems they were included in the legislation due to gangsters use in the years immediately following repeal of Prohibition.

Has anyone researched the background that led the government to restrict silencers? Has the NRA or other group made any effort to repeal the restrictions on sales and use of silencers?

[Inconel710]

So going back to the original 1934 act to regulate silencers, it seems they were included in the legislation due to gangsters use in the years immediately following repeal of Prohibition.

Has anyone researched the background that led the government to restrict silencers? Has the NRA or other group made any effort to repeal the restrictions on sales and use of silencers?

Yup, feel-good legislation isn't new. I don't know that enough people have made a fuss about the issue. I bet the suppressor manufacturers would get behind it, but that's not a large industry due to the current hassle to get a suppressor.

[Zundfolge]

The original NFA was supposed to include handguns too (which is why we have the nonsense about short barreled rifles and shotguns). It was supposed to be a virtually 99% gun ban leaving us with only sporting shotguns and hunting rifles. So I can see how suppressors got added (prior to that time suppressors were seen mostly as a tool of poachers).

[asmo]

Changing the NFA is hard -- and as far as I know its not on anyones RADAR. The biggest change that is about to come is the removal of the CLEO sign-off (will have to notify but not get permission) and the requirment to have trustees submit fingerprint cards.

Way way way back in thr 1940s and 1950s the NRA wanted to repeal the NFA. They changed their mind as they turned into a 'sportsmans organization'. I hear rumblings that they may want to get involved with that again someday -- but now is not that day.

The GCA wasn't written because the NFA was 'un-enforcable' (its unconstitutional, but that is a different discussion) - the GCA was done to limit interstate commerce of firearms (require FFLs, no more buying from catalogs, all firearms need to have serial numbers, etc.) and limit who could own weapons (no felons, dishonorable discharge, etc.). It was done in response to the Kennedy and MLK assasinations.

[DHC]

The original NFA was supposed to include handguns too (which is why we have the nonsense about short barreled rifles and shotguns). It was supposed to be a virtually 99% gun ban leaving us with only sporting shotguns and hunting rifles. So I can see how suppressors got added (prior to that time suppressors were seen mostly as a tool of poachers).

That's interesting background. I had just guessed the rationale against silencers was the possible use as an assassin's tool. I hadn't considered the use by poachers.

What would the arguments be today to support continued restriction?

[Zundfolge]

What would the arguments be today to support continued restriction?

The argument is probably going to be that "silencers" are "assassins tools with no legitimate sporting purpose" (but the "sporting purpose" argument is deeply flawed).


But the simple fact is that those that support the NFA are likely the same people that wish to see a repeal of the Second Amendment and all guns banned so they're going to fight tooth and nail against any "rolling back" of their precious gun laws.

[cofi]

What would the arguments be today to support continued restriction?

there scary

[DHC]

Changing the NFA is hard -- and as far as I know its not on anyones RADAR. The biggest change that is about to come is the removal of the CLEO sign-off (will have to notify but not get permission) and the requirment to have trustees submit fingerprint cards.

Way way way back in thr 1940s and 1950s the NRA wanted to repeal the NFA. They changed their mind as they turned into a 'sportsmans organization'. I hear rumblings that they may want to get involved with that again someday -- but now is not that day.

The GCA wasn't written because the NFA was 'un-enforcable' (its unconstitutional, but that is a different discussion) - the GCA was done to limit interstate commerce of firearms (require FFLs, no more buying from catalogs, all firearms need to have serial numbers, etc.) and limit who could own weapons (no felons, dishonorable discharge, etc.). It was done in response to the Kennedy and MLK assasinations.

OK. I was citing Wikipedia which is far from a definitive source. Here is part of what they wrote about the 1934 NFA:

The United States Supreme Court, in 1968 decided the case of Haynes v. United States in favor of the defendant, which effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. As one could possess an NFA firearm and choose not to register it, and not face prosecution due to Fifth Amendment protections, the Act was unenforceable.

Part of my thinking behind raising this topic is that we see folks wanting to redirect the dialogue. It occurs to me that the past restrictions on firearms is lost in the dialogue today - especially when we (pro-gun) are accused of being unwilling to compromise. Perhaps one way of addressing the broader picture of firearm restrictions is to ALSO address the restrictions that have already been enacted and ask the hard questions as to the legitimacy of THOSE restrictions.

[MED]

I need to get busy and get my paperwork done for mine. My main purpose (target shooting on my property without harassing my neighbors dogs). As soon as a I start shooting, all the dogs in the area go nuts except mine...go figure!

[Teufelhund]

OK. I was citing Wikipedia which is far from a definitive source. Here is part of what they wrote about the 1934 NFA:



Part of my thinking behind raising this topic is that we see folks wanting to redirect the dialogue. It occurs to me that the past restrictions on firearms is lost in the dialogue today - especially when we (pro-gun) are accused of being unwilling to compromise. Perhaps one way of addressing the broader picture of firearm restrictions is to ALSO address the restrictions that have already been enacted and ask the hard questions as to the legitimacy of THOSE restrictions.

I think this is a great idea. It is much the same tactic in constant use by gun-grabbers; they reach for the stars and then negotiate down to something that still amounts to significant infringement of the 2A. Instead of holding our ground and not letting them take anything else, we should start the conversation at the repeal of all past infringement.