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).
I had an MP5 SD that was so quiet it was like an airgun, but it got dirty so fast that its effectiveness was short-lived until it was cleaned.
Ed
Total bunk. Sound suppressors lower the sound of the muzzle blast, hence the term suppressor. They don’t make a gun totally silent. Poachers aren’t going to use them when they can use a more silent tool called a bow to poach.
Please stop using the anti’s rhetoric... It does nothing but hurt all gun rights.
Mike
You are not thinking clearly, or you have simply not thought about the issue sufficiently.
There is a safety factor with loud booming gunshots that alert others to the presence of active shooting,
Nearly all civilian shooting in the US occurs during hunting or at shooting ranges. In the case of the latter, any rational person would be aware of the activity. In the case of the former, shots would be so sparse that no noise would typically be generated prior to the shot.
In any case, there is no sane reason to restrict any device that reduces noise to levels below where hearing damage occurs, yet the law is currently written to prohibit just that. It would be trivial to pass a law allowing any device to reduce sound to below 70dB (where hearing damage would no longer occur, but any mythical benefit of the loud noise would still be present).
My son had a line of 9mm subsonic when his CIII was still active. He has since gotten out of the business. But he went regularly to KNob Creek shoots to tout his wares.
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.