Originally Posted at Free Market Shooter
The first push for gun rights in the upcoming Trump administration is already shaping up, and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet.
The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (HPA) was introduced a week ago today, on Monday January 9th. The bill is aimed at removing suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires an extremely difficult application process and a $200 “tax stamp” to “transfer” ownership from one individual to another. The NRA sums up the truth on suppressors and the HPA below:
The HPA would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and treat them as ordinary firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As with other firearms, commercial manufacturers, dealers, and importers would still have to be licensed, and the items’ retail sales would be subject to the GCA’s background check and transfer form requirements.
Currently, suppressors (misleadingly referred to as “silencers” in federal law) are subject to the NFA’s cumbersome and lengthy application process and a $200 tax stamp. Lawful purchasers can expect a raft of red tape and months of waiting. This is so, even though the devices themselves are completely harmless and very rarely used in crime.
Contrary to their portrayal in movies and television shows, suppressors do not render firearms all but soundless. They do, however, make them safer and quieter to operate.
Suppressors have soared in popularity in recent years, as more and more hunters and firearm owners have discovered their benefits. Private ownership is legal in 42 states, and they are lawful for hunting in 40 of those states.
Ironically, regulation of suppressors is one area where American gun owners are at a relative disadvantage to their counterparts in other countries. In England – which has gone a long way toward eradicating private firearm ownership – suppressors are nevertheless encouraged for private firearm owners and mandatory for uses such as pest control.
I’ve previously detailed this exact point – suppressors are hardly the scourge the gun control crowd portrays them as. The sound reduction is in the 20-30db range, maximum, and that sound reduction is only achieved by attaching a large, bulky device to the barrel of a firearm. Given the fact that the sound reduction still keeps the firearm quite loud, even for a .22LR (generally considered the smallest widely available caliber), it is hardly practical for criminals to use them.
Take a look at the above chart – if you assume a 160db shot can be suppressed to 130db (still quite loud), the only real practical use for suppressors is to reduce the net effect of the deafening sound of a gunshot. The excessive noise of gunshots is a nuisance for anyone nearby (within a mile or more), makes building and licensing shooting ranges difficult due to NIMBY, and the same nuisance problems apply for hunting.
Just think – would you want to hear the constant sound of gunshots from a shooting range near your home? If firearm suppression were to become more commonplace, it would make the devices less of an auditory threat to the user and non-user alike. Would automobiles have become as commonplace as they are today without mufflers?
However, that hasn’t stopped the MSM from jumping in to demonize suppressors. Jeff Bezos’s blog, The Washington Post, recently released an article with the click-bait headline “Gun silencers are hard to buy. Donald Trump Jr. and silencer makers want to change that.” WaPo did manage to push another bit of fake news in the article with its quote from the gun control crowd:
The silencer industry and gun rights groups say critics are vastly overstating the dangers, arguing that Hollywood has created an unrealistic image of silencers, which they prefer to call “suppressors.” They cite studies showing that silencers reduce the decibel level of a gunshot from a dangerous 165 to about 135 — the sound of a jackhammer — and that they are rarely used in crimes.
But gun-control activists say silencers are getting quieter, particularly in combination with subsonic ammunition, which is less lethal but still damaging. They point to videos on YouTube in which silencers make high-powered rifles have “no more sound than a pellet gun,” according to one demonstrator showing off a silenced semiautomatic .22LR.
If you check out the video cited by the gun control, you’ll realize the firearm is still quite auditory. Not only that, the .22LR caliber is extremely weak, commonly being used to hunt animals of squirrel size, and the subsonic ammunition used for maximum suppression could have difficulty cycling the action of the gun. Take a look at the videos in my original article to get an accurate idea of what sound suppression in firearms is actually like.
Sebastian of PA Gun Blog detailed the way this battle will be won and suppressors moved out of NFA restriction:
You can hate the Washington Post’s ignorant article about suppressors, but I have to admit that tying it to the Trumps was an effin’ brilliant way to frame the issue if the aim is to derail the bill. Why? Because most people don’t really give a shit or understand this issue, but if you try to imply the Trumps have something to gain from it, you trigger all the lefty hate rage, and that gets people who otherwise wouldn’t care motivated to oppose it. If the Trumps want it, surely it must be the Worst. Idea. Ever. That’s exactly what I’m seeing around social media.
The key is to speak out in favor of the issue. Put a human face on it. A lot of the same folks who complain about this bill are the same types who complain about noise emanating from gun clubs. Imagine if clubs could encourage members to use suppression? Right now that’s not a reasonable request because of the regulations. Push the training angle, and how it makes it much safer during instruction if the person being instructed can actually hear commands. This is one of those issues where we have really good arguments, and the other side is stuck hoping people believe Hollywood portrayals of how silencers work, and are willing to jump in and ra! ra! team! in opposition is the issue is framed in a way that triggers an emotional response.
The easiest way to win the battle is to show people the truth about what these devices are, and what they aren’t. Listen to Sebastian and put a human face on the issue. In addition, put an inhuman face on The Washington Post – Jeff Bezos – and expose the ignorance and duplicity of the MSM and Hollywood’s portrayal of suppressors.
A .22 on a rifle can actually be quite quiet (as in you can fire it indoors in one room and not hear it in another if not for the impact of the bullet hitting something).
A .22 on a pistol can be made quiet enough that it won’t be unpleasantly loud when used indoors on a range or in a self defense situation.
The larger the caliber the louder it ends up being, but most handgun calibers can be reduced to the level of being hearing safe indoors.
Rifle calibers are a different story. Outdoors most of them, particularly the smaller and subsonic loaded calibers, can be made quiet enough to be hearing safe, but indoors they’re still quite loud and need additional hearing protection.
I belong to both an indoor and an outdoor range and over the last two years have seen (and heard) increasing numbers of them in use. I think it’s more a “pride of ownership” thing at this point than a hearing safety one, more the idea of having one (legally) than a practical need for them so far.
After the tax is paid and the hoop jumping done to (legally) buy one they’re really quite expensive for the most part, often exceeding the price of a decent rifle or pistol, and usually require a gunsmith to do additional machine work on the barrel to install one. Low production items, specialized machine work and that tax and permission stuff all combine to make them much more expensive than they would be if the laws were changed.
AFAIK, no “silencer” has ever been used to commit a crime where the commission of it was at all dependent on the use of a silencer (and maybe none at all). Legalizing them as common firearm accessories are legalized would bring the price way down and make more and more people actually buy them for the purpose of hearing protection instead of being a “show off at the range” item.
This would also probably cut down significantly on noise complaints about rural and semi rural ranges that had residential areas grow up around them as well.
I can see no valid argument against taking them off the NFA regulated items, they simply don’t belong there.
This is not about silencers but it is about hand gun concealment.
A friend sent this to me last night so maybe it was meant to be posted here.
It is an ad for a small,wall mounted shelf that has a small gun safe built in to it.
http://www.homedefensenews.com/article2/?subid=americanspotlight
I never understood the logic that made silencers illegal. We have mufflers for cars.
I wish I could have some form of sound suppression when I shoot rather than have to wear hearing protection which makes normal communications with other shooters difficult.
The movies of the later 30’s frequently showed a Mafia hit man or other bad guy screwing a silencer on their revolver just prior to a gang murder.
Sorta like West Side story depicted the Jets and the Sharks going at each other with switchblades in their frequent “rumbles”.
Both silencers and switchblades were outlawed as a result of the public alarm over these documentary movies, heading off a good number of Mafia hits and switchblade deaths.
Thank you Hollywood, thank you!
It had to do with poaching. Not wanting you to hunt the king’s deer without their permission.
The process was a pain in the ass before but could be handled fairly easily with a trust. Then 41F came along to make it insufferable. FBI fingerprints for everyone on the trust…
Pay $800 for a muffler, pay the govt another $200 to ask to be allowed to have said muffler and then twiddle your thumbs for 6-10 months for them to say ok.
One thing that isnt being said is the high end cans are usually 1000-1500 and can be broken down to clean and/or easily repair. but once these can be bought like a rifle you are going to see entry level versions available. They will be simple, heavy and disposable. My guess is in the $200 range.
If they get unrestricted you’ll see mass sales and increasing competition putting more and more stuff like this on the market at lower prices: http://www.guns.com/2017/01/16/silencerco-maxim-suppressed-pistol-now-in-production-photos/
200 dollar range silencers for .22’s are already available, but it still costs another 200 dollar license plus various taxes and installation costs to get one.
You mean like when the NFA was signed into law, and a $5 muffler suddenly had a 4000% increase in price to $205 (not including price of prints, postage, and other fucking around)?
Shit, for less than the price of a bottle of beer, one can make a several-use supressor… Actually, you can make several from stuff you now have in the trash… It’s just that people have gotten lazy and can’t use any imagination anymore…
You can also get 10 years in the poky for it if you do.
Not worth it, not at all.
Don jr is a moron getting involved in issues like this. His father will never sign this into law. What a bunch of half baked arguments these fruit loops are making. Silencers. Funny. Asshats.
Something else thats lost in the conversation is how loud guns are when cycling. I was explaining it to my wife last night, got a pistol out(made sure it was clear first of course) and racked it a few times as fast as I could. No matter how violently I rack it myself, its no where near as fast or loud as it is when a round is fired, you just can’t hear it because the round discharging is so much louder. I doubt I could rack a full sized Glock in my house a few times without waking everyone up. Same with an AR. My point is that even if it really did “silence” a gun shot, which it does not even come close to doing, you still make a pretty good bit of noise.
Something else, I think they are going about this all wrong by trying to explain how this works to leftists and anti gun people. Its pointless. We have been pointing out the tiny number of murders committed with ARs for years, and it makes no difference. Attempting to explain suppressors to the same people is a waste of time. We won, and as Obama took so much joy in explaining to us “elections have consequences”. They shouldn’t be treated as regular firearms like this bill proposes because they aren’t firearms. Unless I put a suppressor in a tube sock and swing it at someone’s head, I can’t hurt anyone with it. Just remove the things from the NFA and be done with it. You should be able to walk into any store thats wants to sell them and buy them, jut like you can ANY OTHER gun accessory. It should be treated no differently than a scope or light.
A sufficient majority exists to pass this with no democrat help. Obamacare was rammed down our throats and up our asses over howls of protest and nothing even close to bipartisan consensus. Do the same with this. Set the tone for how this will work. The left did this for several years, its time we stopped playing nice and did the same.
While we are at it, remove SBRs from the list too. Another example of guns that are almost never used in crimes, yet are easy as hell to make, legally and illegally. A person looking to aquire an SBR for illegal purposes can just buy an AR pistol and a rifle lower, both legally purchased, and in about 10 seconds put the upper from the pistol onto the AR lower and presto, you have an SBR to commit whatever crimes you were planning. SInce you are using the SBR illegally anyway, presumably to commit murder, you won’t care about adding illegal possession of an SBR to your rap sheet. It would also be very convinient to those of us who intend to buy a suppressor if this passes. This way I could have a 10 in rifle upper with a suppressor on the end and still come in at about 16 inches, rather than having to make my 16 in rifle 22 in with the suppressor.
Sorry, long post.
Rules and regulations are for law-abiding people. Those who want to use a suppressor, optic spotting light, one-thousand round magazine or whatever else is “illegal” will find a source, method or supplier to do so. Making it tougher for law-abiding people to defend themselves should already be a non-starter.
When the Crunch removes all restraints, none of these laws and regulations will matter. Once enough people get experience with whatever weapons they find most comfortable to use and maintain, the Puritans and communists will find no listeners for what they are peddling.
My knives don’t need a suppressor, either.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/corps-put-silencers-whole-infantry-battalion.html
Because it increases combat effectiveness.
Greetings,
I found the chart o pain included in this article to be much more interesting than anything else. It states that 85db is where you need hearing protection. 85db is actually where the Fletcher-Munson Curve works best for human hearing. In other words, 85db is the perfect volume by which an audio engineer works. If I tried to mix something and the material was quieter or louder then I would create a mix that didn’t work very well – too much bass, no highs, or some other problem.
I’ve listen to and worked with audio at that level for 20 years and I still have excellent hearing.
I’d be happier if the kick-off was 50 state carry reciprocity law so I could use my AZ CCW in CA. But that’s just me.
Greetings,
I’d welcome it. I’m sick of the anti gun mentality here. The most recent laws make it very difficult to acquire ammunition. I have not even bothered to read what their new definition of Assault Rifle is. I imagine it is anything with a trigger.
I did read that there are 6 million gun owners here in this State though so all hope isn’t lost. Finally, I keep reminding all the uber liberal elites here that it is too bad that they are not into guns as they now have no means to do anything but STFU and have a bake sale or parade or something. F*ck them.
These intended laws for suppressors and universl concealed carry are just chicken-shit bone throwing to the NRA. Yeah–it’s good stuff. But what good does it for the liberty minded people living in such states as New Jersey, New York, Mass, Colorado, California, Oregon, Maryland and Washington State?!
It doesn’t do shit–that’s what.
The concealed carry thing is a bone to the NRA because they have a training/propaganda machine already in place to take advantage of it…. and it would be good to pass, but just a bone.
Sooooooo…. why do the states listed above get to interpret the US Constitution and get to say what the Bill Of Rights is or isn’t?
The Bill Of Rights is intended to tie-down the hands of government–not the other way around.
It is not a Bill Of Governmental Rights.
Trump needs to back down these leftist states who only pass onerous firearms laws solely for the purpose punishing conservatives (literally sticking it to them). These laws are intended as a way of oppressing liberty minded individuals under the guise of “sensible gun laws” (which they never are). They are oppression and punishment–wrap your skulls around this.
Leftists love guns–when they have controll of them that is.
If Trump and the conservatives in congress really wanted to pass meaningfull 2nd Amendement legislation, they would overturn all these onerous laws enacted by all of these leftist states (down to the Sullivan Act in New York City) –and then enact a national gun policy that would set standards and so forth for the states to follow (concealed carry, instant check, etc.).
There is a video out there made in the 90’s of Cunt Fienstein saying on camera, “If I could have gotten the votes, I would have taken them all” (meaning firearms). Soooooo–it swings the other way as well children…. we have the votes, and we can overturn their oppresive state level firearm restrictions as well. Right!?
Also laws should be enacted that would in fact legislate that gun-safety classes be taught to all school children in the USA (not anti-2nd Amendment propaganda). Trump should then use is bully pulpit to put pressure upon Hollywood to reduce the mayhem, violence and murder portrayed in their movies (some of which inspired the Collumbine shooters to act–See “The Matrix”). Years ago Hollywood policed itself with the “Hayes Board” which set strict regulations regarding on-screen violence (look up the restrictions please).
As a former screenwriter–I know what I am talking about here.
This all needs to be brought back.
Much of the crime and sensless killing with firearms is inspired by the shit we are seeing on TV and Movie… wrap your skulls around this please.
If the Trump administration wants to protect The Bill Of Right and the 2nd Amendment, this is what needs to be accomplished.
Thus spake Shinmen.