View From The Porch: The next step:

Friday, April 15, 2011

The next step:

While complete deregulation would be a tougher sell, we definitely need to at least move suppressors to Title I. It shouldn't be any harder to buy a hearing protection device than it is to buy the .22 target rifle on which you plan to use it.

I think that's sensible and politically salable, no?
.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...: With federal preemption!

We owe it to our brothers and sisters in New Jersey, California and the like.

Shootin' Buddy; 9:56 AM, April 15, 2011
Tam said...: Even if we couldn't get federal preemption in the law, wouldn't moving them to Title I open up states that ban them to legal action à la MacDonald?; 10:07 AM, April 15, 2011
Jim said...: We tried it in Iowa this year. No deal so far, and it - like constitutional carry -- looks dead for the session.

The good news is that bills like these are no longer being hooted down, either in the legislature or on the front pages.; 10:23 AM, April 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: Even if Iowa legalized suppressors, suppressors would still be subject to the NFA. Some states, CA, NJ, inter alia, will never legalize them.

We need to beat the drum to bypass these states and win on the federal level.

Shootin' Buddy; 10:43 AM, April 15, 2011
perlhaqr said...: Makes me want to campaign for a federal law to ban mufflers on cars, because "loud pipes save lives". ;)

Doesn't that fit the narrative the antis use about suppressors? (Sorry, "silencers". About as silent as my hopped up 440 is, anyway...); 10:52 AM, April 15, 2011
staghounds said...: The move from one title to the other is an easy sell, same background check and so forth.

It might be good to start with an exemption for.22 suppressors, as in lots of Europlaces.

The money isn't the issue, it's the time and inconvenience. Just saying that a $200 tax deters someone from a crime where a $5.00 one wouldn't is risible.

Or, we can wait until $200 is the price of a Theater ticket.

Oops, too late.

Until it's the price of a nice evening out for two.

D@mn, too late again!

Until it's the price of a tank of gas...; 10:56 AM, April 15, 2011
Jim said...: SB: Sure. But there isn't much of a national political constituency for de-regulating suppressors. Legalizaton in states where they're forbidden is part of a bottom-up strategy to help build such a consensus. However:

I doubt decriminalizing suppressors has any future at all as stand-alone federal legislation, but it might as part of a general NFA overhaul.; 11:14 AM, April 15, 2011
Loki1776 said...: no longer being hooted down

You mean like this?

We've got a long way to go.; 11:42 AM, April 15, 2011
The Raving Prophet said...: Oh wow, it would be wonderful. It isn't so much the tax stamp ($200 isn't the hurdle it once was) but the special rules dealing with them (keep a copy of the Form 4 on hand, etc.) and the wait time keeping people from holding off.

I bought a couple of suppressors about December 2009. It was October 2010 before I was able to actually take them home.; 11:57 AM, April 15, 2011
Bubblehead Les. said...: Plan B: Imagine a Millionaire McMansion Developer decides that Farmer Franks place would be a great place to build 300 units. But just down the road is a Gun Range. Frank takes the money and runs, the Cheesebox developer builds his crap houses, Stupid Yuppies move in to them from the City, and immediately complain about the noise from the Gun Range (and the smell from the Hog Farm that's been down the road for a 150 years, but that's another story). Stupid Yuppie complains, is told that maybe they could call the EPA because of Noise Pollution. EPA comes in, and tells all the Gunnies that they have to turn the Noise Down. The Proud American Defenders of Liberty inform them that they can't, because the Evil BATFEIEIO won't allow them to shoot with Mufflers. The EPA type, seeing where she needs to keep Yuppie Sheeple Voters Happy, calls her EPA Czar Bosses and tell them the situation. Since Mother Gaia trumps Homeland Security, a deal is struck where the EPA Decrees that ALL Firearms MUST have a Muffler on them, and the BATFEIEIO gets to ENFORCE the Law.

Nah, make too much Common Sense to "Make Mufflers Mandatory". But, if you are looking for "Reasonable and Common Sense Solutions"......; 11:57 AM, April 15, 2011
Tam said...: No, we certainly don't want suppressors mandatory. (Just like mufflers are not mandatory on internal combustion engines, as anyone who lives down near 21st and Georgetown can tell you...); 12:02 PM, April 15, 2011
Jim said...: Loki: Not a hoot. The dimmie didn't know his mike was on. When he got caught he backpeddled faster than Lance Armstrong can go forward.; 12:46 PM, April 15, 2011
Drang said...: Hey, we'll have legal use of suppressors this summer here in WA. I really, really expected that a change to the RCW, banning them completely, was a far more likely outcome.

The socialist Berkley-wannbe reps from Skedaddle must have been asleep or something...

WV: pantizes. Nope, not gonna go there...; 1:54 PM, April 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: "No, we certainly don't want suppressors mandatory."

Some of us perhaps.

If I have to buy health insurance, then nothing wrong with legislation requiring everyone to buy guns and suppressors.

Shootin' Buddy; 2:22 PM, April 15, 2011
Tam said...: Shootin' Buddy,

So you don't mind a federally-mandated AAC Ti-Rant screwed to the end of your CCW Les Baer?

Whatever, dude...

Guess we're on opposite sides of that issue.; 2:48 PM, April 15, 2011
The Raving Prophet said...: The only problem with making suppressors mandatory is that they aren't always appropriate- can you imagine what trying to attach a suppressor would do to the looks of a pre-29 in mint condition? It sure won't suppress much, but it sure will screw up that beautiful gun.

It's also somewhat difficult to conceal a suppressed handgun; I don't think Milt Sparks makes a VM2 for a 5" 1911 with a can attached.; 3:30 PM, April 15, 2011
Blackwing1 said...: Living in Minnesnowta I've never had an opportunity to shoot with a suppressor. It's not the Feds, it's our state that completely and totally bans them.

The excuses I've heard range from, "Well, it helps reduce poaching" to, "It keeps people from being professional assasains". Because everybody knows (if they've been to a movie) that a moderator/silencer/suppressor keeps the noise of a .338 Lapua, or even a .50 BMG, down to a quiet "phut", right?; 4:07 PM, April 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: Hey Tam,

Since it appears that the most effective tactic to use in the gun rights struggle is the one that got us to where we currently are (incrementalism), woudn't it be easier to push for moving SBR's and SBS's to title I, 1st? For example:

Doesn't need a tax:
http://www.rossiusa.com/product-list.cfm?category=17

But cutting this down to the same configuration compels a tax payment:
http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/detail.asp?family=014C&mid=534162

What is your opinion on this matter?

Best Regards,

Joe_M

P.S. - WV: ootied, as in oooohh, I want want of those Ranch Hand's so much, I am fit to be tied.; 5:43 PM, April 15, 2011
Anonymous said...: "Or, we can wait until $200 is the price of a Theater ticket.

Oops, too late.

Until it's the price of a nice evening out for two.

D@mn, too late again!

Until it's the price of a tank of gas..."

Staghounds wins the intartubes! :-)

BoxStockRacer; 9:06 PM, April 15, 2011
Tam said...: Joe_M,

You'd think so.

Especially because the SBR and SBS regs make no sense until you realize that NFA '34 was supposed to include handguns, too.

(Basically, concealable firearms, anything James Cagney could tuck under a trench coat on screen, were to be controlled, hence barrel length and OAL restrictions for long guns. But with handguns off the list, the restictions make no sense.); 9:08 AM, April 16, 2011
Don said...: I was so happy yesterday . . . somebody asked at our town hall meeting what other reforms the NRA/ISRA/IllinoisCarry/GunsSaveLife cabal would be after, besides RTC (which is taking up all the air in the room this year) and the NRA's lobbyist mentioned suppressors and SBRs. I've said it so many times . . . I want legal machine guns and SBRs as a matter of principle, but suppressors are something I would actually purchase and use myself.; 8:06 PM, April 16, 2011
John B said...: I always wanted a suppressed .22lr so as not to annoy the neighbors when I popped squirrels, crows, and maybe a .223 or .30 caliber can for coyotes.

It's a total act of consideration for the neighbors.; 10:56 AM, April 17, 2011
Murphy's Law said...: Getting Suppressors out of NFA (along with SBRs and SBSs) woulf make things a lot easier for us machine gunners by taking most of the workload away from the BATF examiners and dropping our approval times to days instead of months.

And then we can work on getting rid of the NFA altogether.; 10:47 PM, April 19, 2011
Justin said...: I've been lead to understand that suppressors have been moving more and more into the mainstream in the last few years.

I would hope that with their wider acceptance among shooters, the general public could also be taught not to fear them.

There are compelling public health arguments in favor of suppressors (how many billions of dollars are spent buying hearing aids for hunters and other shooters?)

My hope is that we see liberalizing of state laws, which leads to more people buying suppressors, which will eventually lead to the NRA and various suppressor manufacturers having enough clout to force a meaningful change in the way suppressors are treated under federal law.; 5:20 PM, April 21, 2011

View From The Porch

Friday, April 15, 2011

The next step:

24 comments:

About Me

Other Media!

Starving Artist Ammo Fund

Blogs

Links

More Awesome Blogs!

Facebook Badge

Blog Archive

Labels

All Is Vanity...