Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

'A handful of proposed federal bills would make gun silencers more readily available. And they may overrule Illinois’ ban on the firearms accessory.

Gun suppressors have been heavily regulated since the Great Depression. They reduce the sound of a gunshot to levels that aren’t as damaging to a shooter’s hearing. That’s why U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has introduced a bill that would deregulate them. There is also a companion bill in the Senate sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah'

The real gem here is the single minded tap dancing of the gun control advocate versus Tucker.
From the Watchdog link: Modern suppressors take a normal pistol’s 140 to 160 decibel report and reduce it to between 120 and 130 decibels.(Which is actually loud.)
I'm not really invested in this issue but I do find the antics and desperate lies of the antis amusing.




Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/31/federal-lawmakers-seek-to-deregulate-gun-silencers.html

 

There are more reasons to REQUIRE the use of suppressors, than there are rational reasons for them to be illegal.... Hollywood mythology not withstanding.

 

The sole reason for firearm suppressors to be regulated by the national firearms act in the first place was purely generation of revenue through fees that were excessive at the time. It had nothing to do with anything even remotely related to safety.

 

I'd be fine with still requiring a tax stamp. They just need to hire additional employees to process the applications faster. I bought my first suppressor as an individual and it took 8 months. I formed a trust to purchase the second, and it only took 4 months.

 

For what purpose? What is the real world justification for firearm suppressors to continue to be regulated in the manner that they currently are in the united states? What necessitates them being restricted so significantly? How does society at large supposedly benefit from firearm suppressors being subjected to so many paperwork requirements to make their ownership legal?

 

The paperwork requirements aren't really any different than a normal 4473. It's just the wait time that is annoying. If you can legally own a handgun, you can legally own a class III weapon. I see no reason why the background should take as long as it does.

 

Why the Tax stamp ?

 

None of which serves to actually answer any of the questions that were asked, as to why firearm suppressors should be regulated in the manner that they are. What is the benefit from such regulations existing? What is the real world justification for firearm suppressors to continue to be regulated in the manner that they currently are in the united states? What necessitates them being restricted so significantly? How does society at large supposedly benefit from firearm suppressors being subjected to so many paperwork requirements to make their ownership legal? What risk of harm exists from unregulated, unregistered suppressors being available to the general public?

 

In $200 1936 but would be $3,524 today with inflation.

Why? Government.

 

So who needs it ?

Anyone can construct an illegal suppresor.
Let Law Abiding people have any Gun or accesory.

 

Uh why should you pay 200 dollars for something that has no ability to hurt anyone but you don't have to have a tax stamp for a real gun. why shouldn't you be able to buy it with the same background check you go through to buy an AR 15?

 

why should you pay 200 dollars? the purpose of that fee, when it was enacted was to BAN the devices from being bought by average people. that was over a months' wages in the Depression for a skilled tradesman and far more than even a good rifle would cost

 

Anti's like to compare our gun laws to Europe, but they ignore the fact that in some European countries suppressors are not banned or regulated as tightly as here. I think I even read that in Germany, gun ranges near populated areas require suppressors to keep the noise down.

 

Europian gun laws as did U.K. gun laws, only changed fairly recently in response, as in knee jerk, to various shootings.

Nothing good was accomplished.

 

The paperwork requirement isn't really different than a 4473. I'd be fine with a simple NICS check to own class III items.

 

It was an anti-poaching effort during the Great Depression (it was an add-on to machine gun regulation).

 

Done so that local level juries could not simply refuse to return guilty verdicts on individuals who were starving, which led to federal prosecutions, which led to greater expenses for the defense. Generation of revenue.

 

Which, once again, does not serve to actually answer any of the questions that were asked, as to why firearm suppressors should be regulated in the manner that they are. What is the benefit from such regulations existing? What is the real world justification for firearm suppressors to continue to be regulated in the manner that they currently are in the united states? What necessitates them being restricted so significantly? How does society at large supposedly benefit from firearm suppressors being subjected to so many paperwork requirements to make their ownership legal? What risk of harm exists from unregulated, unregistered suppressors being available to the general public?

 

I'm not sure why you keep asking me this. I agree with you they should be regulated just like a handgun, and other than the tax stamp and wait time, they are.

 

The anti-gun left wants to restrict firearms in any and every way they can -- thus, they oppose reducing those restrictions, regardless of how inane or useless said restrictions may be.

 

To me a suppressor is an accessory just like a red dot. Why treat it any different?

 

I don't disagree. SBR's really don't need to be treated any differently either in my opinion. I have no issue with a few extra requirements to own full auto's though.

 

The ignorance of the anti-gun left.

 

Incorrect. That was the beard used, yes, but the reason espoused in the actual minutes of congressional meetings on the bill was to price anything covered by the bill outside the reach of the poor and minorities. Because you know how those people are essentially was the reasoning. They wanted to include all firearms in a full on ban, and had to be reminded not once but twice by the AG of the day that no you can't do that because 2a. So they decided to emulate the Harrison narcotics act and use the tax power to restrict access instead. The fee hasn't changed, 200 dollars. Think of how much money that was in the depression.
Did my required law school research paper on that topic and the marque and reprisal clause. Interesting stuff and reading the minutes will literally make you want to spit.

 

It's a violation of the 2nd amendment. Us v Miller, which is still good law, holds the 2a covers anything that is ordinary military equipment. Autos are. Shall not be infringed. Etc.