View Full Version : Question About Suppressor Legislation
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
01-22-2013, 11:47
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
01-22-2013, 11:48
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).
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.
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
01-22-2013, 11:58
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.
What would the arguments be today to support continued restriction?
there scary
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States), in 1968 decided the case of Haynes v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) 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.
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
01-22-2013, 12:08
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.
OK. I was citing Wikipedia which is far from a definitive source. Here is part of what they wrote about the 1934 NFA:
If Miller would have still been alive when SCOTUS heard US v. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) the NFA would have been thrown out in entirety. Sadly he was dead by then and his council didn't even show up.
We lost the greatest SCOTUS case on the NFA by default. Let that sink in for a long while.
Byte Stryke
01-22-2013, 12:14
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.
this is not correct
I don't do this very often, but I fully believe the reason supressors are still illegal is due to Hollywood. It would be super cool if a suppressor was truly silent and made that neat little wind sound when you shot just like in the movies, but that it just nowhere near the truth. Yeah, they will take the edge off the sound, but it still sounds like an explosion.
Haroldlutsen
01-22-2013, 12:20
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.
I have been close to starting the process of buying a suppressor has it changed about needing the LEO sign off and fingerprints or do you still currently need them
this is not correct
Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 923
(i) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer.
Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 == GCA
I have been close to starting the process of buying a suppressor has it changed about needing the LEO sign off and fingerprints or do you still currently need them
Depends on where you are located. But no, the BATFE has not enacted a ruling change -- YET. Its coming.
I use Semi-auto AR platform rifles with suppressors to hunt, just sayin'.
Yep, I have to educate a few DOW officers, but afterwards, they all want to pop off a few rounds. [Flower]
I never thought of how awesome it would be to protect mine (and other shooters) ears! Too bad it's such a hassle to get one, ugh. I've already got shitty old-man hearing, shooting doesn't help. Gotta wear both inner and over-the-ear protection when I shoot. Otherwise I get ringing for hours afterwards. :(
GilpinGuy
01-22-2013, 12:40
I use Semi-auto AR platform rifles with suppressors to hunt, just sayin'.
Yep, I have to educate a few DOW officers, but afterwards, they all want to pop off a few rounds. [Flower]
Really? I could have sworn that suppressors were not allowed when hunting - in CO at least.
Really? I could have sworn that suppressors were not allowed when hunting - in CO at least.
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/53166-suppressors-while-hunting
So my question, kind of a derail... I want a suppressor for my Sig P229... should I get a Gemtech or an AAC? It's kind of odd thought that most suppressors I've seen cost around $240-300, and the tax stamp is almost as much as the suppressor. I would like to see some "roll back" on the NFA laws and make these legal. It doesn't make sense to have something like a suppressor illegal- from a logic standpoint they don't make a gun completely silent, they do not aid in conceal-ability, they don't make a gun more deadly, they really have no other purpose, these days, other than make shooting a little easier on the ears. And dammit I want one for my pistol and AR.
GilpinGuy
01-22-2013, 12:50
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/53166-suppressors-while-hunting
Freaking cool as hell! [UZI]
Aloha_Shooter
01-22-2013, 13:06
Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 923
(i)Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer.
Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 == GCA
Read what you just quoted. That section is not retroactive against "all firearms" (which is what ByteStryke was reacting to). I received a pre-GCA Mossberg M44US(a) a few months ago that has no serial number, all perfectly legal and didn't bother the FFLs on either end of the shipment.
Read what you just quoted. That section is not retroactive against "all firearms" (which is what ByteStryke was reacting to). I received a pre-GCA Mossberg M44US(a) a few months ago that has no serial number, all perfectly legal and didn't bother the FFLs on either end of the shipment.
Okay I see the confusion. I should have said "all NEW firearms need to have serial numbers".
That said - retroactive laws are illegal (ex post facto). So it goes without saying. ;)
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.
Until recently, I am ashamed to admit that I was largely ignorant of the earlier legislation. I am still ignorant of many of the specific restrictions contained in the earlier laws. A brief summary looks like this:
* 1791 - Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified.
* 1934 - National Firearms Act (NFA) restricted: full-auto, short-barreled guns, silencers. Voided by the National Firearms Act (known as Gun Control Act/GCA) of 1968.
* 1938 - Federal Firearms Act. Required sellers to have a Federal Firearms License, record names and addresses of buyers, prohibited sales to people convicted of certain crimes.
* 1968 - Gun Control Act. Outlawed mail-order sales, expanded licensing (FFL) requirements to include more detailed records, restrictions of handgun sales across state lines, expanded prohibitions to anyone convicted of a felony, added import restrictions ("sporting purpose" test), added firearm marking requirements.
* 1986 - Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. Outlawed armor-piercing ammunition. [not sure of this citation - unable to confirm]
* 1986 - Firearm Owners Protection Act. Addressed abuses of prosecution by ATF. Allowed interstate long gun sales, OK to ship ammo via USPS, "safe passage" provisions added, restricted ATF harassment of FFL holders.
* 1990 - Crime Control Act. Created "drug-free" school zones. Also contained the Gun Free School Zones Act containing criminal penalties for possessing firearms in a school zone.
* 1994 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Established instant background check system (NICS), expanded prohibitions for firearm ownership to even some misdemeanor offenses (and many other prohibitions).
* 1994 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Included the 'Assault Weapon Ban' which expired in 2004. Included the Violence Against Women Act which expired in 2012. Included the Federal Death Penalty Act which added the death penalty for numerous crimes.
I doubt this is a complete list of all restrictive legislation and it does not begin to address how ATF interprets and enforces the laws, but it is at least a start. I see a LOT of things to address - such as:
- Silencers (as mentioned upthread)
- Short-barreled guns
- "Sporting Purpose" test on imports
- misdemeanor offenses resulting in prohibition
- felons with a lifetime ban
At least these deserve to be addressed as to WHY the restrictions exist and perhaps some easing of restrictions. Example, I can see the argument that some felons should not be allowed to own firearms - but ALL felons? And the law to prohibit someone convicted of a DV charge - especially when DV charges are handed out with virtually no basis in fact is clearly an area that needs relief - as are many others.
Anyone else have items to add?
mtnrider
01-22-2013, 13:20
? It's kind of odd thought that most suppressors I've seen cost around $240-300, and the tax stamp is almost as much as the suppressor. .
Where the heck are you finding suppressors for that cheap? Everything I have seen starts at about $600 and goes up from there.
Where the heck are you finding suppressors for that cheap? Everything I have seen starts at about $600 and goes up from there.
.22 lr are as low as $230. Centerfire starts at about $550.
mtnrider
01-22-2013, 13:41
.22 lr are as low as $230. Centerfire starts at about $550.
Gotcha. When he said he wanted to suppress his P229 I assumed he found suppressors for that gun around $250
Until recently, I am ashamed to admit that I was largely ignorant of the earlier legislation. I am still ignorant of many of the specific restrictions contained in the earlier laws. A brief summary looks like this:
* 1934 - National Firearms Act (NFA) restricted: full-auto, short-barreled guns, silencers. Voided by the National Firearms Act (known as Gun Control Act/GCA) of 1968.
* 1968 - Gun Control Act. Outlawed mail-order sales, expanded licensing (FFL) requirements to include more detailed records, restrictions of handgun sales across state lines, expanded prohibitions to anyone convicted of a felony, added import restrictions ("sporting purpose" test), added firearm marking requirements.
* 1990 - Crime Control Act. Created "drug-free" school zones. Also contained the Gun Free School Zones Act containing criminal penalties for possessing firearms in a school zone.
Two quick things. The GCA did not nullify the NFA. They are both alive and well.
The NFA is USC › Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53
The GCA is USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44
For your reading if you come accross the words "Title I" or "Title II" - The NFA is commonly referred to as Title II and the GCA is Title I --- backwards I know.
When referring to the GFSZA you need to look at whether your talking about before or after it was ruled unconsitutional - and reborn anew.
Anyone else have items to add?
Dont have time to go through this in detail but there is more -- especially if you include caselaw and state laws... I think someone did a count once and it was over 160k firearms laws already on the books (counting state, local, county, federal, etc.).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.