Should suppressors be legal, regulated, illegal, etc.?

[freedomenthusiast100]

I read this article and was curious as to what public opinion would be surrounding the legality of suppressors? As my name on here would indicate I generally endorse deregulation of all sorts so long as it does not stand to harm others.

Should suppressors be regulated by the NFA?

On June 26, 1934 the United States Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (or NFA). The original purpose of the law was to limit access to fully automatic weapons and handguns by using an extremely expensive tax instead of an outright ban; which, would have been struck down because of the sec

www.silencershop.com

 

[blain]

It's already legal to own suppressors in most states.
I think they should be restricted to "proper persons" and treated like ammunition.
Hearing protection should be for everyone, not just the rich.
Does my stance on this make me a SJ warrior?

 

[freedomenthusiast100]

It's already legal to own suppressors in most states.
I think they should be restricted to "proper persons" and treated like ammunition.
Hearing protection should be for everyone, not just the rich.
Does my stance on this make me a SJ warrior?

See that is my focus as well. I think that public opinion often places suppressors in the realm of criminality which is unfair.

 

[freedomenthusiast100]

See that is my focus as well. I think that public opinion often places suppressors in the realm of criminality which is unfair.

I dont think you should have to pay $1000 for a $200 part to protect your own senses simply because of people might be irresponsible.

 

[movevio1]

My view is They should be available to everyone without regulation they are simply another accessory that can be installed on a weapon

 

[Revdev86]

Should be removed from he NFA, made readily available to all non-prohibited possessors. When certain European countries have less restrictive regs on a firearm accessory, you know your government has overstepped.. it’s a muzzle device that makes shooting safer.

 

[KLB]

See that is my focus as well. I think that public opinion often places suppressors in the realm of criminality which is unfair.

They only see them in movies and TV being used by bad guys to assassinate people.

 

[Pepi]

They are only a MONEY MAKER for our worthless government

 

[KLB]

They are only a MONEY MAKER for our worthless government

If money were simply the issue, they would drop the background check and just tax them. They would get a lot more money for a lot less effort.

 

[Xterminator]

I just got done watching John Wick 1-2 & 3. Silencers are plentiful. I want one of those ( they're really quiet). - this is what everyone who hasn't shot a gun with suppressors think. Politicians believe the same, so they restrict them for political gain. Now we have to register them, put on a list- (just encase they decide to outlaw). Crazy wait time on stamp - taxation. This alone keeps people from purchasing.

 

[snorko]

I took my father to the range a couple years ago. He is in his eighties and had never fired a gun. After he shot a .22 pistol both with and without a suppressor he said how much nicer it was to shoot suppressed. I explained the process of how to purchase a suppressor, that it was a million times easier to actually buy the gun.

My liberal father said that was stupid and should be repealed.

 

[edwea]

Should be removed from he NFA, made readily available to all non-prohibited possessors.

Why only non-prohibited?

 

[jwamplerusa]

Suppressors (silencers) or whatever you chose to call the devices should not be regulated or taxed! There really was never a rational basis for including them in the NFA, though to be honest there was never a rational basis for the NFA period.

Worse, suppressors are really a health issue and their use should be encouraged not discouraged through taxation (theft). If the Federal government is going to claim they can tax and regulate cigarretes and alcohol due to the negative health consequences of use, then the corollary for suppressors should be subsidizing them for sale with any firearm which can host one.

The devices are quite literally a muffler for your firearm. Does the government likewise specifically tax and regulate the muffler for your vehicle? The function and reason are the same, and thus the regulatory / tax treatment should be equivalent.

 

[edwea]

Does the government likewise specifically tax and regulate the muffler for your vehicle? The function and reason are the same, and thus the regulatory / tax treatment should be equivalent.

Careful making this argument. We're likely to end up with taxes and regulations on mufflers.

 

[BJHay]

I was in a gun store in South Africa a few years ago. It seemed odd too see suppressors laying on a shelf just like boxes of ammo might be in this country. Just pay the man and walk out. That's how it should be.

They are simply mufflers for guns. If we weren't talking about 'guns' OSHA and the consumer protection folks would have required suppressors years ago. If I were in a suburban neighborhood it would seem rude to run my lawnmower without a muffler.

 

[Cameramonkey]

If guns were tools used in industry, or used on the highways, OSHA and DOT would REQUIRE their use for personal safety.

And since they dont work IRL like they do in the movies (make a fffffft! sound that would allow somebody in the next room to not notice) there is no good reason for them not to be sold at least like a firearm, if not ammo. Its a freakin safety device.

And as its a safety device, You should be able to order/purchase one just like you would any other firearms accessory. Specifically like gun muffs/plugs.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

The constitution is pretty clear on the subject.....

 

[Ingomike]

I dont think you should have to pay $1000 for a $200 part to protect your own senses simply because people believe that they are silencers as Hollywood depicts…

FIFY…

 

[Revdev86]

Why only non-prohibited?

Why does a prohibited possessor justify ownership of a muzzle device if they are prohibited from possessing firearms?

 

[KLB]

Why does a prohibited possessor justify ownership of a muzzle device if they are prohibited from possessing firearms?

It should not even come up, anymore than it does if they are buying bacon.