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

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,691
    77
    Camby area
    And to put a finer point on my last comment, If they were truly concerned about quieter guns being dangerous, they would be outlawing 22s because those are quieter than scary guns.
     

    eric001

    Vaguely well-known member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Apr 3, 2011
    1,860
    149
    Indianapolis
    The constitution is pretty clear on the subject.....
    Something, something, shall NOT be infringed... Funny how that NOT disappears when the .gov interprets our Constitution. If they actually abided by it, there'd be no regulation/restriction/taxing of suppressors, SBR's, AOW's, etc, etc, etc.
     

    Quiet Observer

    Sharpshooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2022
    416
    63
    St. John
    Something, something, shall NOT be infringed... Funny how that NOT disappears when the .gov interprets our Constitution. If they actually abided by it, there'd be no regulation/restriction/taxing of suppressors, SBR's, AOW's, etc, etc, etc.
    I do not agree with the restriction, but how is it a violation of the second amendment? A firearm is functional with or without a suppressor.
     

    eric001

    Vaguely well-known member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Apr 3, 2011
    1,860
    149
    Indianapolis
    Firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories. I don't remember ANY Amendment specifically granting the federal gov't the power to regulate or restrict any of those. On the other hand, if I want to put a suppressor onto a firearm...what gives our .gov the power to tell me I must pay them money to do so (basically a poverty tax similar to a poll tax and totally illegal), beg for their permission to do so, or in any way tell me I can't do so without their permission. Seems to me that any of the above is indeed an infringement. The 2nd doesn't say anything about 'don't infringe on possessing a gun, but regulate the hell out of what you can do to modify it or accessorize it'--at least not the way I'm seeing in it.
     

    Quiet Observer

    Sharpshooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2022
    416
    63
    St. John
    Firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories. I don't remember ANY Amendment specifically granting the federal gov't the power to regulate or restrict any of those. On the other hand, if I want to put a suppressor onto a firearm...what gives our .gov the power to tell me I must pay them money to do so (basically a poverty tax similar to a poll tax and totally illegal), beg for their permission to do so, or in any way tell me I can't do so without their permission. Seems to me that any of the above is indeed an infringement. The 2nd doesn't say anything about 'don't infringe on possessing a gun, but regulate the hell out of what you can do to modify it or accessorize it'--at least not the way I'm seeing in it.
    Do you know that the term poverty tax is a made-up left wing political term? It is sometimes called ghetto tax.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/americas-poverty-tax-how-the-working-poor-get-stiffed

    The poll tax was real and later forbidden by the 24th Amendment.

    This is from United States v. Miller. Maybe the Court will have a chance to reverse it at a later date.
    "With no one to speak for the plaintiffs, the government held that the National Firearms Act was constitutional, arguing that the law was a revenue-collecting measure only, and not a gun control law. Because Miller and Layton transferred the shotgun across state lines, it fell under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate trade".
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 28, 2022
    57
    18
    Indianapolis
    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.
    Once i saw that they are fully legal and available in France but not the United States I was convinced that they are irrationally over regulated in the united states.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,587
    113
    Mitchell
    I believe they ought to available in blister packs in the check out lines at Walmart. I believe they should be available in vending machines on street corners. I believe they should be available on Amazon and able to be straight to my home like anything else I can buy from them.
     

    indykid

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 27, 2008
    11,859
    113
    Westfield
    Imagine having to pay a tax for using certain words?

    Imagine having to pay a tax to worship at a church of your choice?

    Imagine having to pay a tax to report on a story in a specified part of town?

    Imagine having to pay a tax on a part of a firearm?
     

    1nderbeard

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    38   0   0
    Apr 3, 2017
    2,529
    113
    Hendricks County
    Legal with no regulation. They don't make a firearm any more deadly/dangerous. It's a Hollywood's misconception that they are assassin's tools that completely eliminate the report. Factually they make firearms safer to shoot and hunt with. Eliminate the NFA.
     

    DDadams

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    71   0   0
    Jan 17, 2014
    1,075
    113
    North Indy
    They only see them in movies and TV being used by bad guys to assassinate people.
    This is ENTIRELY the problem. People really think they automatically make anything fired sound like 300 blackout subsonic rounds with a fresh wipe from 100 yards away quiet.

    Even if it's a 7" 5.56 - if it's in a movie it's DEAD QUIET.

    That's why they're still regulated. Hollywood doing the alphabet boys bidding by keeping fear instilled.

    If people knew it was just reducing decibel levels to something more tolerable usually I think we could be at the same level as European countries with them. But we have a LONG way to go.
     

    xwing

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 11, 2012
    1,127
    113
    Greene County
    The entire NFA is unconstitutional and should be abolished. However, in the current political climate, I find it extremely unlikely that anything will ever be removed from the NFA.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,691
    77
    Camby area
    This is ENTIRELY the problem. People really think they automatically make anything fired sound like 300 blackout subsonic rounds with a fresh wipe from 100 yards away quiet.

    Even if it's a 7" 5.56 - if it's in a movie it's DEAD QUIET.

    That's why they're still regulated. Hollywood doing the alphabet boys bidding by keeping fear instilled.

    If people knew it was just reducing decibel levels to something more tolerable usually I think we could be at the same level as European countries with them. But we have a LONG way to go.
    I actually think its less nefarious. I file it under "It looks/sounds cool." and/or it enables the fantastical storylines. I mean the assasin couldnt get away if the suppressor in the movies worked realistically and woke everyone up/got their attentions. :dunno:
     

    DDadams

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    71   0   0
    Jan 17, 2014
    1,075
    113
    North Indy
    I actually think its less nefarious. I file it under "It looks/sounds cool." and/or it enables the fantastical storylines. I mean the assasin couldnt get away if the suppressor in the movies worked realistically and woke everyone up/got their attentions. :dunno:
    Probably more so that in 99%++ of cases. But in the movies where the director wants to keep everything accurate and realistic this is still a problem. In those movies they never say, "hey this is subsonic 300BO with a wipe in the suppressor so it'll be dead quiet"

    Those movies I think still keep it dead quiet out of obligation to my original comment.

    The feds have HUGE control over Hollywood and have for decades upon decades now. I'm probably wrong on this one, but I wouldn't put it past them.
     

    bullcrap

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2023
    51
    18
    Paoli
    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?
    It is still regulated by the Federal Government, states can only make more stringent laws, they can not override Federal law.
     

    bullcrap

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2023
    51
    18
    Paoli
    I actually think its less nefarious. I file it under "It looks/sounds cool." and/or it enables the fantastical storylines. I mean the assasin couldnt get away if the suppressor in the movies worked realistically and woke everyone up/got their attentions. :dunno:
    Suppressor's only work well on closed bolt guns.
     
    Top Bottom