Repeal NFA Petition (thoughts)

[Trigger Time]

Wow have they really brainwashed gun owners this much? Very very sad. Even with republican majorities this is why we can't get our rights back. The ****ers who were adults in the 80's and just let this **** roll through are still drawing breath and still ****ing us today. Please just sell your guns and subscribe to a cooking website.
A Predicted ingo post for when the next democrat takes the White House; "well they asked nicely for all of our guns and it's not unrealistic. They just want us to be safer and they promised us $100 for each gun we hand over. I already had mine ready as I saw this coming so I just wanted to be helpful and I also made a list of all my friends who have guns because they promised an extra $200 for that"

seriously as god is my witness some ****er will post this if the forum is still up and running then

 

[Woobie]

I still want to know what the case is for regulating silencers.

 

[jagee]

Is a tank considered NFA? I want a tank!

 

[seedubs1]

There isn't one. Europe doesn't have this type of restriction on suppressors, and it's considered responsible gun ownership to utilize them.....and they don't have ninjas and assassins doing cartwheels and parkour while shooting up groups of diaper clad babies.

But as always, we'll continue to have our own group screw us because of their unfounded "opinions."

I still want to know what the case is for regulating silencers.

 

[Trigger Time]

Is a tank considered NFA? I want a tank!

you can have a tank. Now modern tanks have classified armor and insides so you can't have anything classified. The guns is what they don't want you to have and what is considered nfa. And yes you should be able to freely buy them. Why not?

 

[Woobie]

There isn't one. Europe doesn't have this type of restriction on suppressors, and it's considered responsible gun ownership to utilize them.....and they don't have ninjas and assassins doing cartwheels and parkour while shooting up groups of diaper clad babys.

The claim was made that there is a case. If that is true, I want to hear it from someone who believes it.

 

[masterdekoy]

Europe doesn't have this type of restriction on suppressors, and it's considered responsible gun ownership to utilize them...

Again, and my research there isn't a European country that has a permissive environment for firearms and easy access to silencers/supressors. It seems that most countries in Europe tightly restricting access to the firearm itself, as one would have to get permission to purchase. After that, the suppressor is treated as an accessory.

The claim was made that there is a case. If that is true, I want to hear it from someone who believes it.

To everyone in this thread, my intention is not to dodge this question. I am simply trying to gather sources that I can site to support my opinion. As most of the easily available webpages consist of bickering between pro and anti gun lobbiests (for lack of a better description) it is taking me a while to gather these sources. If I am unable to do so in a couple days I will update this thread and retract my previous statement.

Again my intent is not to start a flame war. I know my opinion differs from many on this forum and I welcome civil discussion.

 

[jagee]

I know my opinion differs from many on this forum and I welcome civil discussion.

I'm curious about your opinion. Not the opinion of whoever wrote whatever article you find.

Why do YOU feel "There is still a case for restrictions on silencers and full auto firearms" but not on SBR's and/or SBS's?

 

[rvb]

I'm curious about your opinion. Not the opinion of whoever wrote whatever article you find.

Why do YOU feel "There is still a case for restrictions on silencers and full auto firearms" but not on SBR's and/or SBS's?

Yes, particularly if your opinion is more compelling than "some enlightened part of the world does does xxx," which it where it sounds like you are heading. That won't hold much water. I don't care what other parts of the world do, particularly when related to the bill of rights.

Best I can tell the reason they were included in the NFA was the increase in poaching post great depression. It wasn't because of mob hits, or ninjas, or assassinations, etc. History on it is sparse...

Anti-silencer argument is all around the idea they "make mass shootings more lethal 'cause you won't hear when a shooting is happening..." which is laughable from all the chaos that would result, but even subsonic 9mm silenced is still "Loud". 127-140 db range according to this link*. according to this link**, that's still louder than a jackhammer, a thunderclap, drums, etc. still freakin loud. only subsonic rimfire begins to approach the range of what we would call "quiet."

* Silencer Results
** Noise Level Chart: dB Levels of Common Sounds

-rvb

 

[Woobie]

Again, and my research there isn't a European country that has a permissive environment for firearms and easy access to silencers/supressors. It seems that most countries in Europe tightly restricting access to the firearm itself, as one would have to get permission to purchase. After that, the suppressor is treated as an accessory.



To everyone in this thread, my intention is not to dodge this question. I am simply trying to gather sources that I can site to support my opinion. As most of the easily available webpages consist of bickering between pro and anti gun lobbiests (for lack of a better description) it is taking me a while to gather these sources. If I am unable to do so in a couple days I will update this thread and retract my previous statement.

Again my intent is not to start a flame war. I know my opinion differs from many on this forum and I welcome civil discussion.

I respect this, and patiently await your response.

 

[croy]

Wow have they really brainwashed gun owners this much? Very very sad. Even with republican majorities this is why we can't get our rights back. The ****ers who were adults in the 80's and just let this **** roll through are still drawing breath and still ****ing us today. Please just sell your guns and subscribe to a cooking website.
A Predicted ingo post for when the next democrat takes the White House; "well they asked nicely for all of our guns and it's not unrealistic. They just want us to be safer and they promised us $100 for each gun we hand over. I already had mine ready as I saw this coming so I just wanted to be helpful and I also made a list of all my friends who have guns because they promised an extra $200 for that"

seriously as god is my witness some ****er will post this if the forum is still up and running then

This still applies even after more responses.

 

[masterdekoy]

It seems silencers have been so tightly regulated that there is little research available on the topic. RVB, thanks for posting that article. This was the only study I was able to locate which addressed this topic. This leads me to the opinion that we don't really know what will happen if silencers are removed from the NFA. There is no country (again correct me if I'm wrong) where the general public can purchase both firearms and a silencer with a simple check to ensure they are not a prohibited person.

The lack of data brings me to one of two conclusions. First, silencers are not used in crime because it doesn't matter to the criminal. They will commit the crime regardless of availability of a silencer. The one study available seems to support this assumption, showing silencer use in crime to be extremely rare. The second option is that silencers are not used in crime because they are unavailable due to expense, time commitment of completing NFA paperwork, or not thinking to or wanting to build a homemade one. This option would support regulation of silencers under the NFA. Regardless, I think it is something which needs further research, especially if the Hearing Protection Act passes.

If the act does pass, the data will likely be available soon afterwards. Almost a third of the guns traced by the ATF in 1994 were less than 4 years old. It would be logical to assume if suppressor will be used in crimes, the data would show up quickly. The question is will this data be available to collect? Currently, as far as I can tell, no information is collected outside of firearm type. This data is available the UCR. If information is collected, it isn't shared or published.

Therefore, I see three options. First, keep things as is. We know there are problems with the current system which need to be addressed, most specifically wait times. However the research does seem to suggest that the current laws are very effective at reducing silencer usage in crime. The second option is to pass the Hearing Protection Act or something similar and include in the UCR or some other report a mechanism for collecting data on the use of silencers in crime. This option has to be given a realistic timeframe to achieve success. It would provide empirical data on silencer use by criminals in a permissive environment. Third, we pass the Hearing Protection Act as is, and hope that we guessed correctly.

I'm leaning toward option two at this point.

Sources:
https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/files/2015/02/Silencer-caselaw.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=947

 

[Woobie]

Well thank you for taking the time to put that together. The problem, as I see it, is the criminals themselves. So many of them get whatever they can scratch up in the black market or their girlfriend buys at the LGS. No one gets quality ammo, some get the wrong caliber, some don't even bother getting any.

It is hard to rectify this with the idea of one of these same people buying a $200 threaded barrel for their pistol, buying a $500 can to put on it, and getting the technical side of all that right. I know a few will, but overall they have shown themselves to be as a group less than savvy about this stuff.

By contrast, pillows are cheap. So are soda bottles filled with cotton balls. There are abundant means to make silencers. And if I am contemplating murder, an NFA charge isn't really that big of a deal.

And for all that, as nearly as I can tell, no one has ever been killed by a supressor. I can think of better things with which to bludgeon someone.

 

[jagee]

Movies have made silencers much more "common" than they really are. All of the bad guys just pull one out of their pocket and magically screw it on to their non-threaded barrel gun.

I think Woobie has it right. The criminal isn't going to get the threaded barrel, install it properly, then screw with the silencer (assuming they got the proper thread pattern to mate the 2 together). Also, a 9mm pistol (full size or compact) with a can on the end is a lot more difficult to tuck in your waistband and conceal than one without. Criminals (for the most part) aren't looking to brandish a weapon prior to "needing" it.

 

[rvb]

However the research does seem to suggest that the current laws are very effective at reducing silencer usage in crime.

Do you really think crime rate will increase with greater silencer availability? or will perhaps silencers just be used more in crimes? If they are used more, but crime rate doesn't increase, would you still support restrictions? I can ask the same question about machine guns. Killers gonna kill... do we really care about the tool?

The eternal balance of liberty and personal safety. Where do you fall on that spectrum? Do you support gun bans? IMO, the HPA is a start in the right direction. Why a metal tube with baffles can't be ordered online and mailed to my house boggles my mind. In itself, it is not a dangerous item.

-rvb

 

[masterdekoy]

Do you really think crime rate will increase with greater silencer availability? or will perhaps silencers just be used more in crimes? If they are used more, but crime rate doesn't increase, would you still support restrictions? I can ask the same question about machine guns. Killers gonna kill... do we really care about the tool?

The eternal balance of liberty and personal safety. Where do you fall on that spectrum? Do you support gun bans? IMO, the HPA is a start in the right direction. Why a metal tube with baffles can't be ordered online and mailed to my house boggles my mind. In itself, it is not a dangerous item.

-rvb

I don't think there's any way to determine what effect silencers have on crime if removed from the NFA. As I mentioned it's never been tried before. It is possible it won't affect crime rates at all. It is possible silencers may enbolden criminals and cause lesser crimes to turn into more serious ones. I am am all for fact based action, especially where laws are concerned. When someone's good idea becomes a law, you end up with bad policy. Examples of this are mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug crimes and three strike laws. The war on drugs has filled our prisons beyond capacity and three strike laws regularly lead to more serious crimes in the attempt to avoid arrest and the associated enhanced sentence. IMO The same methodology used to determine these could be deliberately implemented if the Hearing Protection Act is passed, to build in some mechanism for studying the effects and make policy based on facts.

Also, I absolutely am against gun bans. There does however need to be effective and efficient ways to keep firearms out of bad peoples hands. This is something I feel most of this forum agrees with me on. Members regularly ask for LTCH during f2f transactions which is above and beyond the legal requirement. I realize it's not a perfect solution but it's more thorough than simply taking someone's word for it. One could argue the NFA has done just that with SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and silencers, as they are rarely used in crime.

I believe the more convincing argument currently is to repeal the Hughes Amendment and allow civilian ownership of post '86 machine guns through the current NFA process. There seems to be data to support very small involvement of NFA items in crime. The same could be applied to machine guns.

As far as SBRs and SBSs, we basically have access to them as is with the array of braces coming to the market. The only thing the current law does is muddy the waters. Simple laws are more effective.

Thanks for the responses so far.

 

[rvb]

I am am all for fact based action, especially where laws are concerned. When someone's good idea becomes a law, you end up with bad policy.

Some good ideas transcend statistics. I consider the Bill of Rights among those.

-rvb

 

[sicegcivic]

This thread is full of great information and constructive debate. While I tend to disagree with your opinion masterdekoy, your moral and principals behind your opinions are solid. I respectfully welcome your opinion as it brings up questions that someone who supports the repeal 100% might not ever consider. It gives us a better understanding of what we are up against, and allows us to be prepared with sound answers as rvb has provided. Good stuff so far, and thanks for keeping it civil!

 

[masterdekoy]

Some good ideas transcend statistics. I consider the Bill of Rights among those.

-rvb

Fair point.

 

[seedubs1]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

End of discussion for me.

This thread is full of great information and constructive debate. While I tend to disagree with your opinion masterdekoy, your moral and principals behind your opinions are solid. I respectfully welcome your opinion as it brings up questions that someone who supports the repeal 100% might not ever consider. It gives us a better understanding of what we are up against, and allows us to be prepared with sound answers as rvb has provided. Good stuff so far, and thanks for keeping it civil!