What shooting with the NRA revealed about silencers/suppressors

[InterestedBystander]

full story at link...

 

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/102160750/

 

What shooting with the NRA revealed about silencers

 

FAIRFAX, Va. The instructor popped off a few rounds with a .22 semiautomatic rifle, first with a silencer and then without, before asking his loaded question.

 

By a show of hands, did anyone think that was silent? Knox Williams, president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association, asked reporters gathered for his demonstration.

 

Silencers, so-called because they suppress the sound of firearms, are at the center of a heated debate as pro-gun lawmakers hope to advance legislation to make them easier to get.

 

Gun control advocates say one of a guns most important safety features is the loud blast, alerting people to run in the event of a crime. But the National Rifle Association wants people to hear their side of the story so much so that they invited reporters to their indoor firing range in Fairfax, Va., recently and even armed them for a demonstration.

 

My hope is, thats the biggest takeaway theres still a loud noise, Williams said.

 

Federal law refers to silencers, but don't call them that in front of pro-gun groups. They call that a misnomer and they blame Hollywood for perpetuating misconceptions. They prefer the term suppressors, arguing that the guns still sound like a jackhammer because the noise is reduced only by about 30 decibels.

 

The reporters demonstration including suppressed and unsuppressed shooting with rifles, handguns and a shotgun was similar to one the groups have been increasingly offering lawmakers as they ramp up pressure to pass the Hearing Protection Act. That bill that would remove silencers from the National Firearms Act, which has regulated silencers along with machine guns for more than 80 years since the days of gangland crime such as Chicago's 1929 St. Valentines Day Massacre.

 

Passage of the bill would mean silencer buyers would no longer have to pay a $200 tax, submit fingerprints and a photograph, notify law enforcement officers and wait about 10 months while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wades through a backlog to process the application and register the weapon. They would still have to pass an instant background check, as they would with any firearm.

 

Its important for people to see it firsthand so they can understand fact versus fiction, said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRAs lobbying arm. A lot of people think that what you see in the movies is actually the reality as it relates to suppressors. Theyre not silent.

 

The bill has 141 co-sponsors, including three Democrats, and its sponsor, GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, expects to have it on the House floor for a vote in July.

[Plinkermostly]

Removing the tax, paperwork and approvals, and seeing an increase in prodcution (lower costs?) would make me rethink my present disinterest.

[GTX63]

"...wait about 10 months while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wades through a backlog to process the application and register the weapon."

 

I'm not in google scholar mode this morning but I have to question several points in the above quote.

ATF needs 10 months to wade thru apps? Sounds like ISP doing FOIDs. A tiny office of cubicles and no one to answer the phone. It wouldn't take so long if the administrative/staffing ends were funded similar to the plethora of social entitlement programs.

Also, since when it a suppressor considered a weapon? Is the scope for my 270 Savage 110 also a weapon?

[45Badger]

"...wait about 10 months while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wades through a backlog to process the application and register the weapon."

 

I'm not in google scholar mode this morning but I have to question several points in the above quote.

ATF needs 10 months to wade thru apps? Sounds like ISP doing FOIDs. A tiny office of cubicles and no one to answer the phone. It wouldn't take so long if the administrative/staffing ends were funded similar to the plethora of social entitlement programs.

Also, since when it a suppressor considered a weapon? Is the scope for my 270 Savage 110 also a weapon?

 

Couple things-

 

1) Demand is increasing significantly as more states allow more Class 3 weapons. They are swamped.

 

2) Read the NFA (1934) to learn and understand what is considered a weapon.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GTX63]

Line up the time from application to fulfillment for a FOID/CCW against ie SNAP/EBT and you will see my point. The former, by itself is in a nutshell paying to limit my own rights using additional monies outside of the general tax revenue that only gun owners pay for.

The latter is a program funded my your pocket, my pocket and anyone else that dares to claim taxable income.

I wasn't speaking in legalese with regards to the definition of a weapon, rather just common sense. I would speculate more folks are assaulted or killed with a rolling pin that a red dot.

[skinnyb82]

This is useless for residents of states where cans are statutorily banned unless the Act preempts state law. Anything short of that and it just gives residents of "free states" more "freedom." Cans are deregulated, big deal since UUW/AUUW statutorily bans them.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[InterestedBystander]

Its too bad all of the anti bills e.g. dealer licensing, assault weapons, etc came along to suck up much of the energy this session. I wonder if we have lost all or most of the momentum and progress from last year? (and the butt hurt will no doubt be intensified when they lose on SB1657)

 

Meanwhile Donald Trump Jr is still working it at national level

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jr-son-gun-silencer-control-laws-restrictions-campaign-remove-mass-shootings-fears-a7767586.html

[Beezil]

please......suppresors don't "silence"

 

I know your content was mostly cut/paste, but not the subject heading.

[InterestedBystander]

please......suppresors don't "silence"

 

I know your content was mostly cut/paste, but not the subject heading.

Article heading called them silencers and I used that while adding the suppressors part. I know its a firearms forum and most are aware but as much as we may not like it, silencers are still common nomenclature. As such, I left article and its silencer references unchanged.