Repeal NFA Petition (thoughts)

[ATM]

Repeal everything.

I do not sign petitions.

 

[aaron580]

If somebody wants something bad enough they can get it... ban the nfa

 

[Hohn]

I don't think NFA will ever completely just go away, if nothing else due to the DD component. Now to deregulate everything else NFA is maybe possible. Removing silencers and SBRs while keeping MGs NFA and repealing Hughes is a more likely starting point / middle ground.

I think people make too much of the $ govt makes. $200 is nothing these days when you figure all they have to do.... run fingerprints, process paperwork, not to mention legacy support functions (e.g. every year I send in multiple 5320.20s to cross state lines), maintaining the registry, etc. People forget ALL the paperwork involved to buy something... it's not just your form 4, there are forms to register when the item is made, forms to transfer from manufacturer to dealer, THEN to you. I'd be shocked if the govt breaks even over the life of an item in the registry. Maybe many years ago when $200 was "worth more" and there were fewer transfers, but not in today's economy.

-rvb

It's not the $200 that bothers me, it's the 1) need to file and 2) the delay.

If they just collected a $200 surcharge at the point of sale, I think most of us would "meh" and press on.

 

[Hohn]

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 agree that we cannot predict what effect of making suppressor/silencers more easily obtained will be on crime. But I will predict nonetheless: NO EFFECT AT ALL.

Why?

1) gangbangers and such who want a silencer already know the 2L bottle or filter tricks.
2) they aren't going to be paying bucks for a silencer.
3) An extra 10 inches plus hanging off your 'gat is decidedly unweildy and makes it harder to fit the gun in your pants.

The reality is that most cans are simply too large and impractical to be of any real utility to a criminal. Only in Hollywood where a silencer causes the gun to emit a muted "pew" can they be useful for nefarious ends.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'll be frank. Imagine that.
i don't really give a flying **** if after this passes the silencer death rate went through the roof! We have laws that make gun crime illegal. You are never going to really prevent crime by laws and any lawmaker that believes they can arent fit for office. Criminals do what they want to do regardless of law.
make and enforce stiff penalties. That's all you can do. If someone kills someone with a gun that's one strike that should put them away forever. . The fact that it was quieter than normal doesn't matter.
If criminals know they will go away forever or die for breaking gun laws then the word will get around,

 

[masterdekoy]

I'll be frank. Imagine that.
i don't really give a flying **** if after this passes the silencer death rate went through the roof! We have laws that make gun crime illegal. You are never going to really prevent crime by laws and any lawmaker that believes they can arent fit for office. Criminals do what they want to do regardless of law.
make and enforce stiff penalties. That's all you can do. If someone kills someone with a gun that's one strike that should put them away forever. . The fact that it was quieter than normal doesn't matter.
If criminals know they will go away forever or die for breaking gun laws then the word will get around,

I agree passing laws doesn't prevent crime. However, you can't arrest your way out of a crime problem. Quite a bit of research shows harsh sentencing can have the opposite effect, and actually increasing violent crime rates. Think about it this way, a drug addict needs money for their next fix and breaks into a house to steal something they can sell. While in the act, the homeowner comes home and catches them. Assuming a harsh minimum sentence is in place for the criminal act, the addict chooses to murder the homeowner instead of fleeing in order to reduce the chance they are identified as the criminal in an attempt to avoid the harsh sentence.

I know we can pick my scenario to death, and lots of people will say it doesn't matter because if someone is in my house I'll just blow them away... etc. that's not the point. My suggestion is more research, in order to identify if the laws currently in place are good for crime rates or if they don't have any effect. Action based on research doesn't have to take the form of laws either. It can suggest eduction, outreach programs, etc which can target at risk populations, which in turn need to be evaluated for effectiveness. The end result is we figure out what works and what doesn't, and implement the best solution for the problem.

Hohn, agree completely the wait time for ATF approval is outrageous. This needs to be reduced, and shouldn't be rocket science to figure that out. To your other points, just keep in mind that if removed from the NFA, silencer technology will leap forwards because of the increased marketablility. The cost will come way down and companies will figure out more effective ways of suppressing report while decreasing size and weight. We already see silencers such as the Omega 9k which are small enough to have a minimal effect on the concealibility of the firearm yet very effective at reducing the signature of the firearm. If people EDC a m&p with RMR and x300 without trouble now, I don't see how they wouldn't be able to do the same with a small silencer. Good points though.

 

[lonehoosier]

[video=youtube_share;qeYOBM0wulU]http://youtu.be/qeYOBM0wulU[/video]