Just to play devil's advocate -- why should "silencers" be treated the same as any kind of firearm? A "silencer" can't fire a bullet. A "silencer" is an accessory, and it doesn't even improve accuracy. Why aren't suppressors treated as parts, or accessories -- like grips or slings or buttstock cushions/pads?
We GOT that in 1994!!!
Magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, heat shields ('the thing that goes up"..
) etc. Not exactly the same way as the NFA 34, but still a ban. Fortunately, we had enough political power at that time to include a sunset provision (10 years and gone, unless reauthorized by vote of Congress). And, we had the political power to keep that vote from passing in 2004, so, the Fed law went away.
Various state laws that copied the Fed law, but without the sunset clause are still with us, still valid laws, and have even been added to by some states, since then.
I fail to see how a suppressor makes a gun more lethal, so I don't see why a suppressor should have any type of regulation.
If we go along with this will we agree to regulating rifle scopes?
You
should fail to see how a suppressor makes a gun more lethal. Because they DON'T. What the anti gun bigots claim for their justification is the "silenced" shot allows the criminal to escape undetected...and so they should be highly regulated and taxed, if not banned outright.
However, they fail to follow their own logic to its ..logical... destination. They didn't tax & regulate knives, swords, bows & arrows, ROCKS, ropes, human hands and feet, or any of the other "silent" means of killing. Believe it or not, in the early 30s, the crime they were more worried about criminals using a silencer and getting away with, was not homicide, but poaching!!!
Regulating rifle scopes?? Already been brought up by the gun banners (scoped rifle = sniper rifle = military weapon = not for legal civilian ownership)
Didn't get any traction then, so they shifted their focus, but make no mistake, when they think the time is right, Scopes WILL be back on their hit list and demonized in the media until they get some kind of "first step" restrictions passed into law.
The 'why' is all about the gang wars of Chicago during the alcohol prohibition years.
Chicago and other places. Do note, however that the law was in 1934, after the repeal of Prohibition had removed the main profit base for the gang wars. While this was the public reason for the law, some of us believe the actual reason for the law was to give T-men who had been enforcing Prohibition something else to do.
I've heard that the original draft of the NFA 34 regulated machine guns and "short" weapons, which were sawed off shotguns, stocked pistols and HANDGUNS. "Silencers" were not in the law at that time.
Someone more politically savvy than the bill's author(s) convinced them that with handguns in the law, it would never be passed, so they took out the handgun section (mostly) and replaced it with "silencers". And that did pass.
It was the assault weapons ban of the day. Based on drama, misinformation, emotion and outright lies. Most people were duped and ignorant of the facts, as they are today.
Even I won't argue with this!
Spot on!
I will add that "most people" back then simply didn't have "a dog in that fight" (also like today), and so didn't oppose something that they saw as not affecting their lives. This was not something that could have been counted on if handguns had been left in the NFA act.
In case there's anyone out there who doesn't already know, the term "Silencer" was created and owned (for some time) by Hiram Maxwell, it was the brand name of his product. Some places in the world refer to them as "mufflers", and we properly call them suppressors. "Silencer" has, over the years, become the accepted generic name for the devices, the way "Kleenex" has become the generic name for tissues.
Baby Steps..
I do find it a bit ironic that so many members of this forum don't seem to take that attitude regarding the proposed universal reciprocity bill, though. It seems the response of a majority of members of TFL (at least those who have posted in the thread) is that if it's not a complete repeal of all permitting, they're against it.
There are always the "all or nothing" folks, and they can be pretty vocal, especially around here.
For me, the objection is not about the idea, its about how flawed ALL the proposals I've heard so far, are, and not examining the potential unintended consequences deeply enough.
And yet universal (national) reciprocity would affect and benefit far more people than unrestricted access to suppressors.
You're going to have to make a case for this one, to convince me, especially the "far more" part. As I see it, national carry reciprocity really affects only who carry, AND travel. Unrestricted access to suppressors affects everyone, those who travel and those who don't. I can't see how that's not the bigger number.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing against the benefits of reciprocity, only the "far more people" part.
I applaud the idea behind the bill, but I think they should have come up with a better title. Perhaps something emphasizing safety and hearing protection a bit more...
Personally, I do agree there should be no more regulation on silencers than on any other piece of pipe. However, I am willing to gladly accept the same registration as regular firearms, if that's what it took to get them out of the NFA 34 act's authority. Baby Steps.
The other side is forever going on about how each of their new laws is a "reasonable first step". This should be one of ours!
