How easy/hard would that be at the Fed.gov level?

CRC

Slim to none, and Slim just left town.

I have actually written my reps/senators suggesting an easing of NFA regulations on these devices.  Predictably, all I've ever recieved was the usual, generic "Thanks for your input" boilerplate.Maybe if all of us here did it we might have a better chance.

The best way to frame the issue is as a safety one: protection of hearing, reducing noise pollution. The "Firearm Noise Pollution Reduction Act" sounds pretty good.

We sure could try next Congress.  Times have changed for the bettter, gun control is dead, another 4 years and even if the Dems find their way back to power after Bush they would never touch it again.

But the MG cealing in the 86FOPA is more vulnerable.  Also, there is a lot that could be done by just getting the ATF to change its definitions administratively.

I think if we get some real pro gun leaders in the senate like Tom Coburn or Peter Coors, we might have  a chance to bring something like this up for a vote.

It doesn't make sense to restrict them when they reduce hearing loss.

My uncle is deaf in one ear due to shooting sports.

CRC

I don't think it's inconceivable. That's one of the few items that I think we have a decent chance of taking out of NFA entirely. But there's no momentum for that right now. It'd probably take a pretty serious campaign to get it even seriously considered. But I'd still put it as one of the goals for the next 20-30 years or so. If we repeal the MG ban, remove suppressors from NFA, and mandate a more reasonable time frame for NFA background checks, then we'd be in much better shape. I'd also put removal of the "sporting purposes" clause, national CCW reciprocity, and a few executive orders regarding surplussing of military weapons and ammo on the list.

cold day in hell

Quoted: cold day in hell

With attitudes like that, it will be.
Be positive.
Be aggressive in your demands.

I think we're a lot more likely to get silencers off the NFA list than we are to rescind 922(o), that's for sure.

I've been saying, we need to "spin" it for what it really is!  A public health/safety issue!  Noise pollution!  It's all of these things and more.

Hunters who hunt wo/ ear pro LOSE THEIR HEARING.  If we could get the "sportsmen" behind us, we could go places.

Quoted: cold day in hell

The problem is who makes a supressor for a .270 Winchester rifle?

CRC

Quoted: Quoted: cold day in hell With attitudes like that, it will be. Be positive. Be aggressive in your demands.

yeah, just think positive and your dreams will come true

you can do anything if you put your mind to it

Quoted: I've been saying, we need to "spin" it for what it really is!  A public health/safety issue!  Noise pollution!  It's all of these things and more. Hunters who hunt wo/ ear pro LOSE THEIR HEARING.  If we could get the "sportsmen" behind us, we could go places.

agreed 100%, this is the ONLY chance we have of making progress in the suppressor front.

Quoted: The problem is who makes a supressor for a .270 Winchester rifle? CRC

You can get one pretty easy... several companies make a supressor for 50BMG.

In some European countries you are required to shoot with a suppressor to keep from making a lot of noise.

CRC

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: cold day in hell With attitudes like that, it will be. Be positive. Be aggressive in your demands. yeah, just think positive and your dreams will come true you can do anything if you put your mind to it

The AWB is going to be history in 6 days- and weren't you one who said it would never happen?

Quoted: In some European countries you are required to shoot with a suppressor to keep from making a lot of noise. CRC

That would be the angle to follow... "why aren't we following Europe's lead?"

(seriously, would like to see Kerry & the DU brigade squirm answering THAT one)

Quoted: The AWB is going to be history in 6 days- and weren't you one who said it would never happen?

I don't remember. I'm sure I've been cynical and not at all positive, but I don't think I've said never.




Too bad the rules making supressors hard to get don't have a sunset clause written in. That's the only reason we're getting rid of the AWB.

A note:

Dems tried to get silencers banned in 1986 as an amendment to FOPA (luckily William Hughes didn't succeed on that account).

Carolyn McCarthy tried to ban all threaded barrels that could accept suppressors.

We need Republicans in control to attempt this.

CRC

As more ranges get shutdown due to the growth of the suburban sprawl, the more important it is remove the restrictions on suppressors. I think that if suppressors were more common, fewer ranges would get shutdown.

As for legislation, ideally we'd want to completely remove all restrictions on them (maybe just treat them as the purchase of a firearm), but that is very tough sell to our legislators. Perhaps it would be easier to create two classes of suppressors, one of lower efficiency and one that is "hollywood quiet". The low efficiency suppressors would be unregulated by the NFA, while the "hollywood quiet" would still be NFA. Another option is to try to bring the cost of the tax down from $200 to $5.

I think that the first steps to getting legislation passed is to educate fellow gun owners (i.e. NRA)  on the usefulness of suppressors.

This is interesting, OSHA mandates "suppressors" on air equiptment to lower noise levels, you'd think the same would apply to firearms.  I guess the government is affraid that more people would get shot if it could be done quietly,LOL. Even though Murder is already against the law. Go figure.

Those of us with writing skills can draft letters to congressmen/senators. You can post them here for others to print out and send. Points to talk about: suppressors are useful, rarely used in crime, and protect our hearing while reducing noise pollution. Also some European countries do not regulate silencers at all - Finland is one such country I believe.

Also, we can draft letters for the gun rags about how practical silencers are. If anyone works for a gun or hunting magazine maybe you can  see about getting an article published.

i think they're easier to get in France then in the USA.  that's just sad.

here's what happened when i tried to buy one legally.  i even tried the hunting angle and the commies didn't buy it.  


the first 3
www.hunt101.com/img/073202.jpg

www.hunt101.com/img/073204.jpg

www.hunt101.com/img/073208.jpg

it could backfire.

what it it passed and they said all firearms had to have them to be legal.  then jacked the tax up to $500.00 or more?

that would really bite.

I wrote my first letter to the ATF in 1984 proposing this, and have been continuing every since... oddly enough, I just got off the phone talking about this and I am rewriting some letters that are going out tomorrow. I have correspondence going back 20 years on this, as well as stuff from other countries where it came to fruition.

If anyone is interested in where things are and what is being talked about, let me know...

Quoted: i think they're easier to get in France then in the USA.  that's just sad. here's what happened when i tried to buy one legally.  i even tried the hunting angle and the commies didn't buy it.   www.hunt101.com/img/073209.jpg the first 3 www.hunt101.com/img/073202.jpg www.hunt101.com/img/073204.jpg www.hunt101.com/img/073208.jpg

Links dont work for me...

Quoted: i think they're easier to get in France then in the USA.  that's just sad. here's what happened when i tried to buy one legally.  i even tried the hunting angle and the commies didn't buy it.   www.hunt101.com/img/073209.jpg the first 3 www.hunt101.com/img/073202.jpg www.hunt101.com/img/073204.jpg www.hunt101.com/img/073208.jpg

Lucky for you, you didn't have $15k wrapped up in an MP5SD.

Did you find someone else to sign off?

Quoted: I wrote my first letter to the ATF in 1984 proposing this, and have been continuing every since... oddly enough, I just got off the phone talking about this and I am rewriting some letters that are going out tomorrow. I have correspondence going back 20 years on this, as well as stuff from other countries where it came to fruition. If anyone is interested in where things are and what is being talked about, let me know...

I'd like to know. IM me please.

Quoted: i think they're easier to get in France then in the USA.  that's just sad. here's what happened when i tried to buy one legally.  i even tried the hunting angle and the commies didn't buy it.   www.hunt101.com/img/073209.jpg the first 3 www.hunt101.com/img/073202.jpg www.hunt101.com/img/073204.jpg www.hunt101.com/img/073208.jpg

Pardon my Ebonics but: Stupid-ass mo-fo morons.

Yes, I feel better. Thanks.

I'm incorporating my company and it should be easier to get a surpressor. No finger prints, no "note from mom", no photos.

Is that an option for you?

Quoted: Lucky for you, you didn't have $15k wrapped up in an MP5SD. Did you find someone else to sign off?

i tried everyone there was to try.  no dice.  i might move sometime in the next year...  it just didn't seem cost effective to me to form a corp to get around the sign offs.  damn liberals!

What hurdles would you encounter, Tax-wise, by incoprorationg yourself?

Quoted: Those of us with writing skills can draft letters to congressmen/senators. You can post them here for others to print out and send. Points to talk about: suppressors are useful, rarely used in crime, and protect our hearing while reducing noise pollution. Also some European countries do not regulate silencers at all - Finland is one such country I believe. Also, we can draft letters for the gun rags about how practical silencers are. If anyone works for a gun or hunting magazine maybe you can  see about getting an article published.

Sounds like a good idea to me.


Who can rite gud letters?

Quoted: Quoted: I wrote my first letter to the ATF in 1984 proposing this, and have been continuing every since... oddly enough, I just got off the phone talking about this and I am rewriting some letters that are going out tomorrow. I have correspondence going back 20 years on this, as well as stuff from other countries where it came to fruition. If anyone is interested in where things are and what is being talked about, let me know... I'd like to know. IM me please.

screw IM post it here



(unless there's reason to keep it somewhat quite)

Some IMs flying in... I will say this, the argument to reduce regulation is one of personal safety, related to permanent hearing loss from the noise -- I don't have all the stuff in front of me now, but some things to keep in mind. The *threshold* for pain, or max impluse level a person is supposed to be subjected to is 140dB -- most firearms ar over 150dB, with a weighted average of around 157dB (IIRC). The esposure to noise is attenuated to about the 120dB range by the best hearing protection, and the proposal for reduced regulation is within the spirit of that safety concern -- with the spirit of the prohibition being upheld, while the safety of the shooter is protected... think "sound moderator".

I can put some stuff on the website about this if anyone is interested, but it would not be for a couple of days.

Quoted: I do not say "suppressor".  I say INTEGRAL HEARING PROTECTION

Actuall, Hearing Conservation Device & Hearing Safety Device have been well received

Quoted: What hurdles would you encounter, Tax-wise, by incoprorationg yourself?

Actually, I'll be getting giant tax benefits 'cause I'm forming an S-Corp.

No more "double tax".

It's only costing me $400 to incorporate. I've been putting this off for years but since my CLEO won't sign my form-4's, this gave me the push I needed.

Another advantage of having a corporation is there's "only" about a 30 day wait, instead of a 1 to 6 month wait.

Quoted: But the MG cealing in the 86FOPA is more vulnerable.  Also, there is a lot that could be done by just getting the ATF to change its definitions administratively.

No kidding; there ain't shit in FOPA86 that bans the new manufacture of MGs for civilians.  I've read it.  It's a bullshit clause added by a dubious voice vote that has been interpreted by the ATF to suit its own ends.

Quoted: Quoted: In some European countries you are required to shoot with a suppressor to keep from making a lot of noise. CRC That would be the angle to follow... "why aren't we following Europe's lead?" (seriously, would like to see Kerry & the DU brigade squirm answering THAT one)

One of the very few advantages we have here in Europe...
Buying a suppressor here in Norway, is like buying ammo.

The bad thing, is that the US State dept. won't allow us to buy US made suppressors.

Quoted: This is interesting, OSHA mandates "suppressors" on air equiptment to lower noise levels, you'd think the same would apply to firearms.  I guess the government is affraid that more people would get shot if it could be done quietly,LOL. Even though Murder is already against the law. Go figure.

Actually OSHA mandates the use of suppressors for some LE and Military personnell, IIRC...

Quoted: The problem is who makes a supressor for a .270 Winchester rifle? CRC

A .308 can would work just fine on a .270.

One of the very few advantages we have here in Europe...

But your women aren't mostly fat like in the U.S.  

Quoted: do any of you guys remember 'why' suppressors were baned in the first place? the hunting angle might not be the best place to start, imo.

I thought it was because people were afraid mobsters would off people all quiet like, but even if it WERE because of poaching during the depression, do you think any of them will actually know that?

Quoted: Quoted: do any of you guys remember 'why' suppressors were baned in the first place? the hunting angle might not be the best place to start, imo. I thought it was because people were afraid mobsters would off people all quiet like, but even if it WERE because of poaching during the depression, do you think any of them will actually know that?

They were banned during the depression so people wouldn't poach. At least that's what I've always thought.

I wonder why MG's got banned at the same time?

Quoted: Quoted: do any of you guys remember 'why' suppressors were baned in the first place? the hunting angle might not be the best place to start, imo. I thought it was because people were afraid mobsters would off people all quiet like, but even if it WERE because of poaching during the depression, do you think any of them will actually know that?

In that case Crossbows should be NFA weapons. They're quiet and are used to poach game on a regular basis.

HERE's a rough draft:




Dear _________________,

Thank you for your service to our country in the Congress.  Among the many important environmental issues facing our country today is the issue of firearm noise pollution. Complaints about the noise generated at shooting ranges are a common occurrence, both in our state of __________ and nationwide. In addition to contributing to noise pollution, firearm noise can be very harmful to the hearing of recreational shooters.

Currently, devices that reduce the noise of a firearm’s discharge (so-called “silencers” or “suppressors”) are heavily regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The hassle involved in obtaining these useful devices legally makes their price prohibitively high and discourages many shooters who would otherwise purchase these items. I propose the following changes to the 1934 NFA to make it easier for law abiding gun owners to buy and use these devices and thereby protect their hearing and reduce noise pollution:

1. Reduce the price of the required federal tax stamp from $200 to a more reasonable amount.
2. Change the law so that the certified law enforcement officer (essentially the local police chief) is merely notified of the transfer, rather than forcing the purchaser to seek their approval. Currently, the local police chief may deny the purchaser the receipt of the suppressor without any reason.


Under these proposed changes suppressors would still be registered with local and federal authorities.  This proposal may sound alarming due to sensational depictions of silencer use by criminals in the popular media. However, I believe that we can make suppressors more accessible to the shooting public without jeopardizing public safety. In point of fact, noise suppressors are completely unregulated in some European countries, where lawful gun owners frequently use them. Furthermore, the ease of manufacturing an illegal, unregistered silencer renders concerns over criminal misuse of legally obtained devices moot. Criminals will continue to manufacture improvised devices regardless of the law.

Thank you for your service to the country in Congress, and thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In some European countries you are required to shoot with a suppressor to keep from making a lot of noise. CRC That would be the angle to follow... "why aren't we following Europe's lead?" (seriously, would like to see Kerry & the DU brigade squirm answering THAT one) One of the very few advantages we have here in Europe... Buying a suppressor here in Norway, is like buying ammo. The bad thing, is that the US State dept. won't allow us to buy US made suppressors.

That sucks. So not even dealers can order them?

Everyone says the US is best in terms of gun ownership but we have sucky laws too.

CRC

You want to poach?

Get a crossbow.

CRC