Posted on 05/28/2009 4:47:48 AM PDT by marktwain
Yesterday's article was about the strict federal regulation of a safety device (improved ergonomics lead to better stability and control, and the better a firearm is controlled, the safer it is). In a comment, a reader pointed out another firearm safety device that is even more strictly regulated by the federal government (with, in many states, additional regulation by the state--to the point of outright bans).
I refer, of course, to suppressors. As with vertical fore grips, the BATFE enthusiastically enforces their interpretation of laws regulating suppressors, to the extent that they have prosecuted (persecuted?) people because they possessed rubber washers--supposedly "unregistered silencer parts."
Often called (rather inaccurately) "silencers," suppressors were invented around 1900, and work on the same basic principles that exhaust mufflers for internal combustion engines do. They were also developed for the same reason--protection of hearing and reduction of noise pollution.
What they were not designed as is "assassins' tools." Granted, the ability to fire a quieter gunshot would have some utility for crime, but by the same token, having a muffler on the exhaust system of one's getaway car, or the car from which one does a drive-by shooting, is useful for the criminal, as well.
The strict regulation of suppressors in the U.S. came about in 1934, with the advent of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which also introduced strict regulation of fully automatic firearms, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and firearms with a bore of greater than half an inch (exceptions are made for shotguns).
Most accept as an article of faith the idea that the NFA was passed in response to the violence of the gangster era of the 20's and 30's. This ignores the fact that it was passed after the repeal of prohibition, when such violence was dramatically reduced, anyway. Additiionally, while the Thompson submachine gun ("Tommy Gun") was famously associated with gangsters and bank robbers, accounts of rampant "silencer violence" are pretty difficult to find.
Currently, in fact, some countries with much more restrictive gun laws than those of the U.S. impose no restrictions whatsoever on suppressors.
And why should they? Why would anyone object to a device that protects one's hearing?
Why, also, would anyone object to devices that make shooting ranges better neighbors? People who live near such ranges often find the noise annoying enough that they try to litigate the ranges out of existence--despite, in many cases, having moved into the area after the range had been in operation for years. These disputes have led many states (even Illinois, shockingly) to pass legislation that provides some protection to shooting ranges from such litigation. Devices that could dramatically ameliorate the problem have existed for more than a century, but have been largely regulated out of existence. For that reason alone, this is an issue that people with no interest in gun rights, or in shooting in general, should be able to get behind.
In the end, it's difficult to trust a government that views shooters with undamaged hearing as a threat.
----------
Gun rights on the air
LA Gun Rights Examiner John Longenecker will be on the air with Lou Dobbs today at 1:30 PM Pacific (3:30 PM Central). For those who miss the show live, it should be available in podcast form shortly afterward. Check Dobbs' website for details.
Update: Also on the radio will be National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea--he'll be on the Andy Caldwell show at 3:00 Pacific (5:00 PM Central) 4:00 PM Pacific (6:00 PM Central)--sorry for the mix-up, discussing the Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination (something he also wrote about today).
They should be freely available on the open market, like they are in Finland.
BTW, we have something like 150,000 wild deer in an urban county, and these efforts are applauded.
It's not a license, it's a tax.
“BTW, we have something like 150,000 wild deer in an urban county, and these efforts are applauded.”
Sounds like a need for a lot of bow hunters. The anti hunting crowd never looks at the damage that out of control deer population does in terms of property damage and road kill statistics. Just be thankful they aren’t Moose.
There is a safety factor with loud booming gunshots that alert others to the presence of active shooting, whether target practice, or hunting that can prevent persons from straying into a hazardous situation. I’ve witnessed numerous neophyte shooters at a public range start to head downrange to examine or replace a target without waiting for the range to clear first. Poachers would be in “hog heaven” if they were freely able to use suppressors to hide their activity.
Finally, poaching is already illegal, and poachers can already use suppressors, legal or not. We’re just talking about eliminating the silly $200 tax and background check, not making poaching legal.
So, can anyone tell me if it’s illegal to mount a silencer on an air rifle?
I believe it’s illegal because if it works just once on a conventional firearm your in deep doodoo. Try this link as I have one and they work well :>).
http://www.airforceairguns.com/talonss.html
Not totally true...I’ve got a suppressed Ruger that is no louder than a very soft finger snap.
Literally, if you had your head turned, you’d be hard pressed to hear it.
It’s an AWC...they make really good cans, as well as Gemtech, out of Boise.
Ed
It’s legal to own and use sound moderators for airguns without the usual $200 tax for CIII suppressors if the suppressors cannot be used on a rifle.
Ed
Yes, it was a dumb decision to criminalize them. Like most gun control legislation it was written by ignoramuses, promoted by sensationalists, and passed by people who wanted to show they were "doing something" about "gun violence" even if it had no perceptible effect. Don't even get me started on the topic of bayonet lugs and pistol grips.
I’ve got a suppressed Ruger that is no louder than a very soft finger snap.
Post a youtube video of you shooting and snapping, for us to judge for ourselves. You’ll probably be surprised.
I happen to have a decent library of books and articles on the subject, and am personally and professionally acquainted with several designers and manufacturers of suppressors, as well as owning more than a few.
Having fired an Uzi with suppressor, in 9mm, I can tell you that the loudest sound was the slamming of the bolt.
Some of the best are in .22 LR, by reputation, but I've never had the opportunity to try them out.
Quietest I’ve fired was a suppressed Ruger 1022 (Mossad uses them, if memory serves), but the 9mm Beretta 92 with grease packed suppressor was very quiet as well (class three gun smithee had one I tried out at his shop range).
Uh, the last thing in the world I want to do is post a video of myself!
I just renewed my driver’s license and the clerk told me that with their face recognition software they’ll be able to scan a video or picture of a group or person and the software will identify them!
Not that I did anything illegal, all my cans were legally purchased while I was a CIII dealer, I just don’t want the .gov to start identifying all the pro-gun types in the U.S. so’s they can keep a database of potential dissidents.
And it IS that quiet, I use subsonic German rounds that in themselves are extremely quiet...trust me on this, everyone who’s fired it says it’s no louder than a soft cough, or finger snap.
I’ve got other .22 cans that are louder, a .45 suppressor with locking mechanism so the slide doesn’t move, and I’ve got a AWC Thundertrap for my .300 magnum that quiets it almost to a suppressed .45, although the sonic crack is EXTREMELY loud!
Some of my cans work with grease, others are dry...
Do you own any of Doc Dater’s stuff? Gemtech makes some really nice cans...
Ed
Thanks for a great article that makes a common sense point. The ATF is way off the mark on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.