PDA

View Full Version : silencers legal in near future??


IrishPirate
02-03-2010, 12:39 PM
So after McDonald and we get Incorporation (knock on wood!!!!) and the flood gates open for law suits to repeal all the rediculous gun laws and the CA AW ban is taken out......will silencers be legal? do silencers fall under the AW ban, or the NFA laws? Is it even remotely possible that this would be an easy thing to make legal in CA in the near future? I know best case we get to buy them unrestricted, and worse case we still can't get them, but what other possible outcomes would there be?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/safety6082.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/teaching0315.jpg

technique
02-03-2010, 12:42 PM
Silencers are NFA.
Silencers really aren't along the same lines a RKBA.

technique
02-03-2010, 12:44 PM
You, don't have to be a resident of a NFA okay state to own one there.
Got family in a shall issue state?
Go get one there. Keep it there.

ChrisO
02-03-2010, 12:46 PM
I think your getting your hopes up a little to much. I'm not even trying to get my hopes up for shall issue. Hopefully but I'm not banking on it. Would sure as hell be nice to have suppressors though.

shooting4life
02-03-2010, 12:50 PM
Although not ideal; I would be happy if they just made the application shall issue. If we could get suppressors, sbs, sbr just like other states. Get the signature (shall issue) that you are not a criminal, pay the 200 and wait for the stamp.

IrishPirate
02-03-2010, 1:08 PM
yeah, i'm not holding my breath on it....i'm just wondering what exactly would need to happen in order to make them an unrestricted item. sounds like we'd have to go after the NFA to make it happen. I wouldn't be opposed to being able to own them and having to pay the $200 tax, that would at least be a positive step, but I'd rather just be able to pick one up for 19.95 plus shipping and handling, no COD from my favorite late night TV infomercial if you know what i mean

dantodd
02-03-2010, 1:17 PM
You, don't have to be a resident of a NFA okay state to own one there.
Got family in a shall issue state?
Go get one there. Keep it there.

how would owning a can in NV protect your hearing in CA? Or are you suggesting that he also only shoot in NV?

technique
02-03-2010, 1:19 PM
The $200 tax has been there since 1934.

$200 was a lot of money then. It made it less likely for people to take advantage of. The tax hasn't increased since, today it's not nearly as
much "money" as it was. $200 was something like a months wages.

I hear ya. But at the same time, I wouldn't want the tax raised to $2000 or more. I doubt you will be able to ever get a silencer for $19.95. The cheapest I have was $215 for a 5.56 can.

Bhobbs
02-03-2010, 1:24 PM
I don't know if I would buy a can because I like the boom but then again I would like to know I have the ability to buy one in the future.

It seems to me the 2nd Am issue is being tilted in our favor so who knows what will happen in the future. All we can do is hope it works out and help in any way possible.

technique
02-03-2010, 1:24 PM
how would owning a can in NV protect your hearing in CA? Or are you suggesting that he also only shoot in NV?

It wont... Magic 8 ball says owning a silencer in Ca: Not likely in the near future.

I know I have heard the CGF guys say that MGs/SBR/SBS/Silencers aren't on the same priority. Its not really a RKBA issue. It may come at some time.

If you want a can, check in with any of your friendly neighbors..Oregon, Nevada or Arizona. Good luck in Ca. anytime soon. Unless you have a SOT/FFL.

Noobert
02-03-2010, 1:28 PM
No way, politicians are scared of silencers more than anything else. If you have one, you must be assassinating people as silencers completely eliminate ALL the sound, making you undetectable.

Roadrunner
02-03-2010, 1:41 PM
It would seem that not allowing silencers in California is yet another tell tale sign that politicians have little or no experience with firearms. It really sucks that we have to be subject to laws created by the ignorant.

IrishPirate
02-03-2010, 2:55 PM
I hear ya. But at the same time, I wouldn't want the tax raised to $2000 or more. I doubt you will be able to ever get a silencer for $19.95. The cheapest I have was $215 for a 5.56 can.

i was refering to them becoming a common place item that you see for sale everywhere....not actually being $19.95

on a related note though, does the law restrict any devices that reduces the noise made by a firearm, or does it have specific wording that could be exploited by the creation of "dampeners" or "mufflers" for firearms?

Turo
02-03-2010, 2:59 PM
on a related note though, does the law restrict any devices that reduces the noise made by a firearm, or does it have specific wording that could be exploited by the creation of "dampeners" or "mufflers" for firearms?

Yep.
12500. The term "silencer" as used in this chapter means any device
or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in
silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm. The term
"silencer" also includes any combination of parts, designed or
redesigned, and intended for use in assembling a silencer or
fabricating a silencer and any part intended only for use in such
assembly or fabrication.

technique
02-03-2010, 3:00 PM
If it reduces the sound of a firearm by just 1db. Yes, it's a suppressor.
Is that what you mean?

You can build a free standing tube or tunnel, it has "baffles", you fire through it and what it does is stop the sound travel to your neighbors...but does nothing for you.

chessknt
02-03-2010, 3:02 PM
Those posters are so funny. A rabbi teaching his granddaughter how to shoot lolol.

technique
02-03-2010, 3:30 PM
i was refering to them becoming a common place item that you see for sale everywhere....not actually being $19.95



Ya know, I forgot to add.. The great thing about NFA is you can buy (form4) or you can manufacture (form1).

Easily, on a form1, you can make a silencer and you can do so for very cheap.
You can go about making your own baffles too if you get a little mini lathe from Harbor Freight, and that's probly the way to go.

But, my neighbor made one (.22) from common hardware store washers (variety of sizes) stacked and fully welded, and SS tubing. It cost him under the $20 mark.
Now, he still had to pay that $200 tax. For such a crude and cheap can....the thing works great!

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 4:40 PM
The real reason anti gun politicians are so adamantly against silencers is that they make shooting enjoyable for people who otherwise are afraid of or otherwise averse to the noise and blast. Deregulation of them would mean an increase of gun owners by perhaps 30% or more, possibly even as much as 70%. Politically the anti gun movement would be completely devastated by this and the loss of one of their big trump cards of fearmongering and misinformation, possibly wiped out entirely.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 4:44 PM
The real reason anti gun politicians are so adamantly against silencers is that they make shooting enjoyable for people who otherwise are afraid of or otherwise averse to the noise and blast. Deregulation of them would mean an increase of gun owners by perhaps 30% or more, possibly even as much as 70%. Politically the anti gun movement would be completely devastated by this and the loss of one of their big trump cards of fearmongering and misinformation, possibly wiped out entirely.

I'm not sure how you substantiate those numbers. Suppressors would be nice, but the cost would be fairly prohibitive for most. I don't think 30-70% of current gun owners in free states have anywhere near those levels of NFA stamps right now.

7x57
02-03-2010, 4:44 PM
I think the reason was really just to stop civilian acquisition of new technology before they were too common to be easily banned, and most of all to simply establish the principle that "evil guns" exist and are not protected (for future expansion as opportunity allowed). But I'd be interested to know if there are statistics on ownership of NFA items pre-34.

7x57

7x57
02-03-2010, 4:45 PM
I'm not sure how you substantiate those numbers. Suppressors would be nice, but the cost would be fairly prohibitive for most. I don't think 30-70% of current gun owners in free states have anywhere near those levels of NFA stamps right now.

I'm sure by deregulation he means no NFA tax or other jiggering of the free market.

7x57

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 4:47 PM
I'm sure by deregulation he means no NFA tax or other jiggering of the free market.

7x57

Even without the stamp I doubt you'd see a substantive swing in ownership.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 4:49 PM
I think the reason was really just to stop civilian acquisition of new technology before they were too common to be easily banned, and most of all to simply establish the principle that "evil guns" exist and are not protected (for future expansion as opportunity allowed). But I'd be interested to know if there are statistics on ownership of NFA items pre-34.

7x57

That kind of data would be impressive, but I can't imagine there being enough contemporaneous records to do a decent analysis. Also, even if we did have data the results of the investigation would need to account for the economies of scale and tech advances which have made firearms more accessible to the average citizen in modern times.

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 5:00 PM
I think the reason was really just to stop civilian acquisition of new technology before they were too common to be easily banned, and most of all to simply establish the principle that "evil guns" exist and are not protected (for future expansion as opportunity allowed). But I'd be interested to know if there are statistics on ownership of NFA items pre-34.

7x57Two particular hitches didn't help at the time. One was the Great Depression making people vastly less able to afford things, and two was that the select fire models in production at the time were 3 to 10 times the price of most other guns (and usually impractical and always heavier) and there weren't that many to choose from, unlike today with AR's and AK's comprising a sizable market share.

Another thing I was getting at, wildhawker, was that people who don't own guns now likely would if they could get suppressors for them, and probably don't because they can't and/or don't know how. They're non-gun owners because they don't enjoy the loud experience, but if it were made easier for them they would.

Kharn
02-03-2010, 5:18 PM
Those posters are so funny. A rabbi teaching his granddaughter how to shoot lolol.A kippah does not make one a rabbi.

B Strong
02-03-2010, 5:25 PM
I think there stands a better chance of certain categories of NFA weapon being reclassified other than suppressors - Non-MG SBR's for instance, and the Street Sweeper and USAS-12 from DD back to type 01.

Even after incorporation, MG's and suppressors are going to be regulated under the NFA for the foreseeable future.

GearHead
02-03-2010, 5:28 PM
I'd put up with the Tax Stamp if normal people could get post '86 MGs.

GearHead
02-03-2010, 5:29 PM
Man, talk about the total collapse of a market segment overnight. If somehow the 1986 importation rule went away, the MG market wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is now.

B Strong
02-03-2010, 5:33 PM
Man, talk about the total collapse of a market segment overnight. If somehow the 1986 importation rule went away, the MG market wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is now.

NFA importation of transferables ended thanks to the GCA 68.

If it's an imported foreign or re-imported US weapon, it had to be registered by 1968, or it's a pre-sample MG.

6172crew
02-03-2010, 5:41 PM
Not to highjack but my Tac16 on a SPR sounds like a starter pistol but my Tac16 on my Spikes 22lr is crazy quiet, you can really only hear the bolt bounce and the round impacting your target.

The TAC16 on my Ps90 SBR sends the round 10 feet low and 3 feet left of POA without the can.:(

The TAC16 is a bunch of washers and spacers in a steel can, pretty heavy but FA rated.

Last time I took my NFA stuff out to the Carson range I got the evil eye from the LE who were using the pistol side, they didnt mind the machine guns but for some reason they had an issue with the suppressed M16. They were about a 100 yards away so I'm not sure what it sounded like to them but it was loud to me and our group.

B Strong
02-03-2010, 5:47 PM
Not to highjack but my Tac16 on a SPR sounds like a starter pistol but my Tac16 on my Spikes 22lr is crazy quiet, you can really only hear the bolt bounce and the round impacting your target.

The TAC16 on my Ps90 SBR sends the round 10 feet low and 3 feet left of POA without the can.:(

The TAC16 is a bunch of washers and spacers in a steel can, pretty heavy but FA rated.

Last time I took my NFA stuff out to the Carson range I got the evil eye from the LE who were using the pistol side, they didnt mind the machine guns but for some reason they had an issue with the suppressed M16. They were about a 100 yards away so I'm not sure what it sounded like to them but it was loud to me and our group.

POI changes are the dirty little secret with cans - you usually end up sighting in w/ the can and only remove the thing for cleaning, or mount and adjust.

It is funny w/ LE when they don't know you.

Depending on their personal view, you either get the malocchio, or they hot foot it over to you and want to fondle and shoot 'em.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 5:47 PM
Another thing I was getting at, wildhawker, was that people who don't own guns now likely would if they could get suppressors for them, and probably don't because they can't and/or don't know how. They're non-gun owners because they don't enjoy the loud experience, but if it were made easier for them they would.

I understood your point, but I cannot fathom where one derives the support for this argument to any substantive degree. It's probable that the numbers of suppressors in use would rise, but to say that would swing gun ownership to any real degree is tenuous at best.

IrishPirate
02-03-2010, 6:44 PM
Those posters are so funny. A rabbi teaching his granddaughter how to shoot lolol.

I believe that poster was made for a group that encourages Jews to learn how to safely use firearms.....i dont find that funny at all. What's so funny about it? from here you sound quite anti-semetic.

I understood your point, but I cannot fathom where one derives the support for this argument to any substantive degree. It's probable that the numbers of suppressors in use would rise, but to say that would swing gun ownership to any real degree is tenuous at best.

I'd have to say that I agree with wildhawker....I'm sure more people will purchase silencers to go with their guns if they are able, but I doubt that anyone is holding off buying a gun because they can't get a silencer. Especially with the advancement in hearing protection today. You can spend less than $200 on earmuffs that block out the sound of the gun to a whisper, yet allow voices at normal conversation levels to get through no problem. Maybe a few people would buy a gun solely because it comes WITH a silencer (if such a package is ever offered), over a gun without one; but i doubt that the lack of silencer is detering anyone from owning a firearm.

technique
02-03-2010, 6:44 PM
Not to highjack but my Tac16 on a SPR sounds like a starter pistol but my Tac16 on my Spikes 22lr is crazy quiet, you can really only hear the bolt bounce and the round impacting your target.

The TAC16 on my Ps90 SBR sends the round 10 feet low and 3 feet left of POA without the can.:(

The TAC16 is a bunch of washers and spacers in a steel can, pretty heavy but FA rated.

Last time I took my NFA stuff out to the Carson range I got the evil eye from the LE who were using the pistol side, they didnt mind the machine guns but for some reason they had an issue with the suppressed M16. They were about a 100 yards away so I'm not sure what it sounded like to them but it was loud to me and our group.



I shot that TAC16 on a SPR, couldn't tell you it was quiet. It gave that little bit of "discomfort", and the barrier (hill) was bouncing the sonic crack back pretty fast. Otherwise, for the price its a great can.

I shot a Gemtech HVT .308 that was hearing safe...that thing rocked.
The Gemtech Outback2 was ridiculous. No sound.

Here is the Raptor2 9mm ~this is NOT subsonic ammo.
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll42/technique408/th_MOV03349.jpg (http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll42/technique408/?action=view&current=MOV03349.flv)

pitchbaby
02-03-2010, 6:45 PM
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/safety6082.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/teaching0315.jpg

I LOVE THIS PIC... LOL!!! AWESOME!

dantodd
02-03-2010, 7:32 PM
I shot that TAC16 on a SPR, couldn't tell you it was quiet. It gave that little bit of "discomfort", and the barrier (hill) was bouncing the sonic crack back pretty fast. Otherwise, for the price its a great can.

I shot a Gemtech HVT .308 that was hearing safe...that thing rocked.
The Gemtech Outback2 was ridiculous. No sound.

Here is the Raptor2 9mm ~this is NOT subsonic ammo.
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll42/technique408/th_MOV03349.jpg (http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll42/technique408/?action=view&current=MOV03349.flv)


We need a drool smily

Noobert
02-03-2010, 7:42 PM
We need a drool smily

:drool5:??

6172crew
02-03-2010, 8:05 PM
Yep, the MP5 is very controllable as far as my mini-Uzi is concerned. I think if I had a Gemtech on the front of it I could group better.

I have access to the MP5, Uzi and the Stemple Suomi back to back and the Suomi is a bullet hose next to the newer lighter stuff made today. I was going to rig a 9mm setup for my M16 but ran out of $$.

Although the MP5 gets all the attention its too expensive for me to own..maybe one day.

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 8:46 PM
I understood your point, but I cannot fathom where one derives the support for this argument to any substantive degree. It's probable that the numbers of suppressors in use would rise, but to say that would swing gun ownership to any real degree is tenuous at best.I arrive at this conclusion based on observation of new shooters and excuses given by those who turn down going to the range and general objections to shooting. Intimidation is a BIG part of the problem. If they don't enjoy shooting and/or don't like aspect(s) that are scary to them, chances are they're going to sit it out. This is a very simple concept, though perhaps far fetched at first glance when you don't take everything into account. Ear protection is useful but it does nothing to mitigate the blast--plugs reduce impact on hearing but do nothing to tame the explosion which is intimidating to both new shooters and inexperienced bystanders. Shooting is, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, a controlled explosion in your hands and a foot or two from your face. This is unnatural for people. Electronic hear protection is nice but it isn't a complete substitute because it does nothing to address this at all. A silencer is the cure for the big scary fireball and explosion.

Remove the source of intimidation, then you increase the number of people willing to do it. It seems logical at very least to me that the same inhibitions people have with shooting are the same inhibitions they have to gun ownership. Don't you think?

Mstrty
02-03-2010, 9:09 PM
You, don't have to be a resident of a NFA okay state to own one there.
Got family in a shall issue state?
Go get one there. Keep it there.

When I hear statements like this it always makes me think about the Americans that were required to sit in the back of the bus.
Hopefully one day all Americans will be allowed to enjoy firearms and their accessories together as one Union under one flag and no matter where you are from we will all enjoy the same rights all Americans were born with.
One can only hope.:)

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 9:12 PM
When I hear statements like this it always makes me think about the Americans that were required to sit in the back of the bus.
Hopefully one day all Americans will be allowed to enjoy firearms and their accessories together as one Union under one flag and no matter where you are from we will all enjoy the same rights all Americans were born with.
One can only sue the anti gun states into the Stone Age over and over again until we get there. Fixed it for you.

CCWFacts
02-03-2010, 9:14 PM
I really would like a suppressor. I shoot my AR-15 as often as I have time at my friend's property. It is LOUD LOUD LOUD. It echoes up and down the canyon. The neighbors can hear it. It's not good. I would like it to be quieter. I realize it's going to make some noise but a reasonable suppressor would make it so it wouldn't upset others.

Mstrty
02-03-2010, 9:14 PM
Fixed it for you.
Thanks.:D

technique
02-03-2010, 9:24 PM
When I hear statements like this it always makes me think about the Americans that were required to sit in the back of the bus.
Hopefully one day all Americans will be allowed to enjoy firearms and their accessories together as one Union under one flag and no matter where you are from we will all enjoy the same rights all Americans were born with.
One can only hope.:)

Well, this thread kinda started with the hopes of killing the National Firearms Act. No more Tax to be paid.

I'm happy paying the tax to be honest. I'm glad its an option now.
I would be happy NOT to pay that tax too.

I think, the current goals need to be achieve first. Getting rid of the AW ban would be a nice one don't you think? Pushing for shall issue CCW is a step toward shall issue NFA. If you can get CLEOs to sign that, they may be willing to sign other stuff too.

Baby steps, Baby steps.:D
You don't wanna spread dollars and man power too thin. Gotta win the war one battle at a time.

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 9:27 PM
Well, this thread kinda started with the hopes of killing the National Firearms Act. No more Tax to be paid.

I'm happy paying the tax to be honest. I'm glad its an option now.
I would be happy NOT to pay that tax too.

I think, the current goals need to be achieve first. Getting rid of the AW ban would be a nice one don't you think? Pushing for shall issue CCW is a step toward shall issue NFA. If you can get CLEOs to sign that, they may be willing to sign other stuff too..They won't do it willingly. Trusts will be the way to do them as they are for AOW's and the C&R SBR and SBS now. What you will have to have as shall issue is the Dangerous Weapons permit, or equally likely strike that from the law books. What a joke that is, a "Dangerous Weapons" permit for something that isn't itself a firearm. That's like requiring a restaurant license to sell forks and paper plates.

7x57
02-03-2010, 9:33 PM
Even without the stamp I doubt you'd see a substantive swing in ownership.

If I had to guess I'd go lower than Yellowfin maybe, but there is a wildcard. That wildcard is prohibition. Far more would be purchased now just because they'd been banned.

That said, I'd like to see home defense guns with suppressors, especially for those who like long guns for the job. And especially for homes with children (at least I like the "save the children" angle, though the real hearing damage is going to happen to those in the same room, and we hope the children are hiding somewhere safer if it gets down to pulling the trigger). Rifle fire between sound-reflective walls is no joke.

7x57

technique
02-03-2010, 9:38 PM
They won't do it willingly. Trusts will be the way to do them as they are for AOW's and the C&R SBR and SBS now. What you will have to have as shall issue is the Dangerous Weapons permit, or equally likely strike that from the law books. What a joke that is, a "Dangerous Weapons" permit for something that isn't itself a firearm. That's like requiring a restaurant license to sell forks and paper plates.

Well, that is unfortunate. But that isn't unlike some other states.
Some states have county ordinances...some states trusts are the only way, unless your LLC/Corp is specific to firearms and or firearms R&D.

Even here, the next county over..you need to take a class to get your CCW.
Mine, you don't.

With what you say, with needing a trust. That may very well discourage people from trying. The cost of a real trust (vs. quicken) in addition to tax and cost of NFA item, that could be a turn off.

7x57
02-03-2010, 9:57 PM
I believe that poster was made for a group that encourages Jews to learn how to safely use firearms.....i dont find that funny at all. What's so funny about it? from here you sound quite anti-semetic.


Oh, come on. That's like playing the race card when there is no reasonable grounds to suspect racism. It's the other guys that see some kind of -ism in everything (except what they do) until it devalues the terms when you actually find a concrete example. It is on the poster precisely because in a lot of circles it looks jarring. It depends on the stereotype to be effective. And it isn't a particularly goy stereotype either: Rabbi Mermelstein got plenty of letters from Jews who were raised to believe it was Unjewish to be armed, such as this one (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0009.htm). And a Jewish friend of mine tells me that even the staggering professionalism of the Israeli army has not erased the widespread idea that Jews just can't fight.

Just for the record, I'm with Rabbi M--nothing says "never again" like 230 gr of lead. Of course, as a man of taste and intellect the good Rabbi is a 1911 man.

7x57

IrishPirate
02-03-2010, 10:03 PM
If I had to guess I'd go lower than Yellowfin maybe, but there is a wildcard. That wildcard is prohibition. Far more would be purchased now just because they'd been banned.

That said, I'd like to see home defense guns with suppressors, especially for those who like long guns for the job. And especially for homes with children (at least I like the "save the children" angle, though the real hearing damage is going to happen to those in the same room, and we hope the children are hiding somewhere safer if it gets down to pulling the trigger). Rifle fire between sound-reflective walls is no joke.
7x57

well said....
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/damage9130.jpg

and that was a 9mm....

IrishPirate
02-03-2010, 10:06 PM
Oh, come on. That's like playing the race card when there is no reasonable grounds to suspect racism. It's the other guys that see some kind of -ism in everything (except what they do) until it devalues the terms when you actually find a concrete example. It is on the poster precisely because in a lot of circles it looks jarring. It depends on the stereotype to be effective. And it isn't a particularly goy stereotype either: Rabbi Mermelstein got plenty of letters from Jews who were raised to believe it was Unjewish to be armed, such as this one (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0009.htm). And a Jewish friend of mine tells me that even the staggering professionalism of the Israeli army has not erased the widespread idea that Jews just can't fight.

Just for the record, I'm with Rabbi M--nothing says "never again" like 230 gr of lead. Of course, as a man of taste and intellect the good Rabbi is a 1911 man.

7x57

I'm lost...are you implying that laughing because a Jew is holding the gun rather than a christian or some other religious person is ok? I think that someone laughing because it's a rabbi (which as others pointed out is not inferred just because he's wearing a kippah) is a little messed up. It kinda sends that "jews can't fight" mentality you were talking about. my best friend is jewish and he hates the stereotype that Jews just roll over and don't defend themselves. Jewish history is all about the fight for survival through thousands of years of persecution....laughing at the poster rather than seeing its true message is a sign that someone sees the Jew before the person.....not exactly a tolerant aspect of ones personality

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 10:17 PM
Upon further thought, as I too had wondered this previously, a big part of the nasty entrenchment of anti gun doctrine amongst a large portion of the Jewish population is the cultural linkage with New York City. American Judaism has such strong ties to NYC that the anti gun crap has intermingled itself to the point of being indistinguishable from actual religious doctrine.

technique
02-03-2010, 10:17 PM
Somebody post the Jew-jitsu pic.....

yellowfin
02-03-2010, 10:21 PM
Well, that is unfortunate. But that isn't unlike some other states.
Some states have county ordinances...some states trusts are the only way, unless your LLC/Corp is specific to firearms and or firearms R&D.

Even here, the next county over..you need to take a class to get your CCW.
Mine, you don't.

With what you say, with needing a trust. That may very well discourage people from trying. The cost of a real trust (vs. quicken) in addition to tax and cost of NFA item, that could be a turn off.Don't get me wrong on that. What I meant is that you may need trusts to get suppressors in places where CLEO's don't issue CCW's now but would be forced to by Shall Issue, and with California you apparently need a separate state permit for them in addition to the ATF Form 4 or Form 1. No such state permit is needed in other states.

N6ATF
02-04-2010, 12:31 AM
Somebody post the Jew-jitsu pic.....

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://nervagus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/jew-jitsu.jpg

donsnnk
02-04-2010, 12:37 AM
that'd be awesome if it were to come true
but CA is way too strict...if it were to come up
i'd definitely support it but other than that i dont see that happening

dantodd
02-04-2010, 12:38 AM
Even without the stamp I doubt you'd see a substantive swing in ownership.

I think you are wrong. First of all I am pretty sure that just the CalGuns community would damn near double the number in civilian hands. :D

More importantly a suppressor uses less than $20 in parts cost. I suspect that nearly everyone would own at least one suppressor. Not necessarily the very high-end models but something to take the sting out. Hell. Gun stores might give them away as freebies. I really think that, due to the cost, suppressors would be the most owned NFA devices if the NFA were repealed.

Seesm
02-04-2010, 12:38 AM
Bottom line most of the laws on gun laws doe NOT makes sense... And only hurt law abiding citizens... So hopefully something GREAT comes through soon. VIVA LA CAL GUNS!!!

7x57
02-04-2010, 12:48 AM
I'm lost...


You are, very. To attempt to be clear: the poster depends for its impact on the idea that it is unusual for a Jewish man to teach the girl to shoot. The impact is strengthened because he is distinguished-looking; that could be his granddaughter. And no the poster is not just making jokes, but surely you can read between the lines better than that. What impact do you think it has for a gentle, grandfatherly orthodox Jew to be teaching the girl to shoot? What is it that might make that important to him?

As for your attempt to ferret out some kind of hidden prejudice just because the left is convinced it has to be there--there are real-world constraints. It could not have been done with a Christian because most won't be "marked" in a way that is visible (the kippah is *intended* to be a mark and a friend of mine was told he should not wear a dark kippah because it wouldn't be obvious enough against his dark hair). It *could* have been done with a Catholic cleric, as they can be dressed to be marked in a way that even the non-religious can identify. Except for the problem that they have a vow of celibacy, and so the subtext is going to be bizarrely different in very distracting ways!

The poster is perfect as it stands.


laughing at the poster rather than seeing its true message is a sign that someone sees the Jew before the person.....not exactly a tolerant aspect of ones personality

Actually, I didn't notice until someone pointed it out, but you are going to make me very angry with your race-baiting. And I don't want to get angry because I can tell you don't perceive that as what you are doing, so I'm just going to drop this.

7x57

wildhawker
02-04-2010, 1:07 AM
I think you are wrong. First of all I am pretty sure that just the CalGuns community would damn near double the number in civilian hands. :D

More importantly a suppressor uses less than $20 in parts cost. I suspect that nearly everyone would own at least one suppressor. Not necessarily the very high-end models but something to take the sting out. Hell. Gun stores might give them away as freebies. I really think that, due to the cost, suppressors would be the most owned NFA devices if the NFA were repealed.

Sorry, Dan, I should have been more clear; I was referring to firearms ownership in relation to suppressors. I meant to say that I do not believe that suppressors will increase the number of unique firearm owners by the 30-70% levels YF mentioned. I agree that CA opening up the suppressor market would be huge, even with the stamp.

Digital_Boy
02-04-2010, 1:46 AM
Just chiming in with my own $0.02 worth: I have an acquaintance who lives in New Zealand, and while their firearms laws are excessively draconian (not quite as bad as England or Australia, they can still own them, after enduring lengthy paperwork, background checks and storage requirements) they are also *required* to equip them with suppressors when they shoot them, unless they happen to be at an indoor range with adequate soundproofing. This is so they don't disturb others with the sounds of gunfire.

Seemed quite incongruous to me when he first told me about it, simply because of the severity of the restrictions I'm accustomed to here in the US. It's really quite logical though.

Turo
02-04-2010, 2:08 AM
Just chiming in with my own $0.02 worth: I have an acquaintance who lives in New Zealand, and while their firearms laws are excessively draconian (not quite as bad as England or Australia, they can still own them, after enduring lengthy paperwork, background checks and storage requirements) they are also *required* to equip them with suppressors when they shoot them, unless they happen to be at an indoor range with adequate soundproofing. This is so they don't disturb others with the sounds of gunfire.

Seemed quite incongruous to me when he first told me about it, simply because of the severity of the restrictions I'm accustomed to here in the US. It's really quite logical though.

Well yeah... That's why they were invented! So people could shoot without bugging their neighbors.

B Strong
02-04-2010, 6:11 AM
I think you are wrong. First of all I am pretty sure that just the CalGuns community would damn near double the number in civilian hands. :D

More importantly a suppressor uses less than $20 in parts cost. I suspect that nearly everyone would own at least one suppressor. Not necessarily the very high-end models but something to take the sting out. Hell. Gun stores might give them away as freebies. I really think that, due to the cost, suppressors would be the most owned NFA devices if the NFA were repealed.

Good suppressor's are rarely cheap, and I wouldn't put a $20.00 can on anything worth putting a can on.

dantodd
02-04-2010, 6:50 AM
Good suppressor's are rarely cheap, and I wouldn't put a $20.00 can on anything worth putting a can on.

I am sure there are thousands of pieces at every gun show that you would not put on a gun of your own.

Also, if there was a market for hundreds of thousands or millions of cans the price would crash. I'm not saying the best cans would be $20 but the cost would be a fraction of what it is today. There will always be custom, handbuilt, or IP protected suppressors that will go for a premium but it will be nothing like the cost today.

dantodd
02-04-2010, 6:51 AM
Sorry, Dan, I should have been more clear; I was referring to firearms ownership in relation to suppressors. I meant to say that I do not believe that suppressors will increase the number of unique firearm owners by the 30-70% levels YF mentioned. I agree that CA opening up the suppressor market would be huge, even with the stamp.

Arrrg. That's the second time I've managed to miss context in a significant way here this week. Sorry.

Bugei
02-04-2010, 8:55 AM
No way, politicians are scared of silencers more than anything else. If you have one, you must be assassinating people as silencers completely eliminate ALL the sound, making you undetectable.


Not to mention invisible.

Bugei
02-04-2010, 8:59 AM
Good suppressor's are rarely cheap, and I wouldn't put a $20.00 can on anything worth putting a can on.

When I look at what goes into a good suppressor, it looks to me that that the parts themselves aren't the driver for the price. It's the scarcity of them because the market is so small.

If the NFA tax stamp didn't exist, there would be a huge market for these. That would crash the price. $20 was the going price right around 1932. You'd buy an adapter for your pistol or rifle and mail-order a can (or drop by your local hardware store) and you'd be in business.

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 9:11 AM
I wonder how far the price would come down. AAC, SWR, YHM, Gemtech, et al. have a lot to think about this. A side benefit of having an artificially contracted market and a complicated buy-sell process has been that they have put a lot into sophisticated designs and manufacturing processes. If you have to pay a $200 tax on something, have to wait up to 6 months for it, and you're more or less stuck with it, you're likely to demand that the item in question be absolutely top notch gear. Use of materials like titanium and Inconel wouldn't be as prevalent if it wasn't a specialized market; we have better cans made today because nobody wants to pay a tax and put up with the hassle for something unimpressive. Price points will still have to reflect the quality and materials of the product and the labor and R&D, so it won't totally implode. Quality will still be demanded. AAC/Remington have likely incorporated this possible shift into their business and production model; it is uncertain and perhaps unlikely that others have.

wilshire1412
02-04-2010, 9:11 AM
I have thought about the different NFA restricted firearms and devices and which ones I would own if it were possible a few times, suppressors are the one item I would choose to own first every time.

I have fired a few different firearms with a can in the past, it is nice to be able to enjoy shooting without quite as much noise involved. It seems like the best application for a suppressor is on a centerfire rifle, what is an extremely loud .300 Magnum without a can is more reasonable with one.
I understand that they help tame recoil some as well.

It would be great if it were at least an option available to us in this state. I would gladly pay for the stamp and do the paper work required, if I thought it would be signed off and approved.

CCWFacts
02-04-2010, 10:30 AM
It is on the poster precisely because in a lot of circles it looks jarring.

Yes, but...

That poster depicts Orthodox Jews. And believe me, the Orthodox may have little experience with guns, but they have very few inhibitions about the idea of owning guns or self-defense. And actually quite a lot of them carry illegally; they know they will never be searched by LAPD. It is clearly permissible, and perhaps even encouraged, under Jewish law to be ready to defend oneself.

Among the non-Orthodox branches, like Reform and so on, which are the most popular branches here in the US, they tend to be quite anti-gun.

Various reasons come to mind:


Jews have had a taboo against hunting for thousands of years. A lot of people get their first experience with guns while out hunting. This doesn't happen for Jews.
Jews have been urban dwellers for a long long time. Recreational shooting is a lot more challenging in an urban area. I live in an urban area and it's an hour drive for me to get anywhere where I can shoot, so even though it's my favorite hobby, it's rare for me to do it.
Plantation mindset, big-time. Jews have gotten used to being in a helpless role, and gotten comfortable with it. Within Jewish thought, that mindset is called being comfortable in Egypt. Somehow Jews have a recurring problem with that. And the helpless mindset is more than just with guns. There's also a stereotype of Jews being clueless with tools, physical work, sports, etc. Can you imagine Woody Allen trying to use a hammer? Part of his comedy shtik is how clutzy and helpless he is.
Jews usually live in the better areas of town, with good police protection, so maybe personal self-defense doesn't seem as important. In Beverly Hills, for example, BHPD shows up within literally 120 seconds of a call, for non-critical calls! It's amazing! If police service were this good everywhere, there would be hardly any crime.
Many Jews come from places, like European urban areas, where there isn't much gun culture.
Jews somehow associate gun culture with hunting and goyishness.
Non-Orthodox Jews tend to be left-wing (that's another whole story about why such a thing happened) and gun control comes with the left-wing package
Racism. Jews, like many other whites, in urban areas are afraid of armed blacks, and somehow gun control seems like it might help with that. It's true that black culture today has some deep problems with violence, but gun control isn't going to help with that.


And it isn't a particularly goy stereotype either: Rabbi Mermelstein got plenty of letters from Jews who were raised to believe it was Unjewish to be armed, such as this one (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0009.htm). And a Jewish friend of mine tells me that even the staggering professionalism of the Israeli army has not erased the widespread idea that Jews just can't fight.

Ha ha, yes. All the main non-Orthodox Jewish orgs here have a pro-gun-control agenda. That's why I will never support them, not a single dime, until they adopt a strong pro-freedom, pro-Jewish agenda.

Just for the record, I'm with Rabbi M--nothing says "never again" like 230 gr of lead. Of course, as a man of taste and intellect the good Rabbi is a 1911 man.

Legend has it that the first Jewish nuclear weapon has "never again" welded onto the side of it.

dustoff31
02-04-2010, 10:49 AM
Also, if there was a market for hundreds of thousands or millions of cans the price would crash. I'm not saying the best cans would be $20 but the cost would be a fraction of what it is today. There will always be custom, handbuilt, or IP protected suppressors that will go for a premium but it will be nothing like the cost today.

I don't think the prices would crash. Arguably, the demand for the numbers you mention is already there as they are legal in most states. And arguably, everyone in those states who wants a suppressor, has one.

If the law changed in the states where they are prohibited, and/or the NFA tax went away, certainly there would be a surge in sales, just from the novelty if nothing else.

The situation would probably turn out to be similar to the number of CCW permits issued in shall issue states, where again, everyone who wants one, has one. Generally, somewhere around 2-3% of the population.

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't think the prices would crash. Arguably, the demand for the numbers you mention is already there as they are legal in most states. And arguably, everyone in those states who wants a suppressor, has one.Not even close. NFA ownership is largely NOT public knowledge, most people still probably think cans are entirely illegal. It has become more visible online because the Internet offers better communication so the information can spread, however it is contained to a small % of the people simply because not everyone knows where to look or spends the time looking. The vast majority of gun shops are not Class 3 dealers, gun related magazines and TV shows focus extremely little attention on suppressors, and it's still comparatively rare to see NFA owning people at ranges to be able to ask. It's getting better, more cans are being sold and people are learning one by one, but it's far from universally known. Lots of people simply know what they see in shops and what they learn from family--the traditional information pipeline. I'd venture probably one in ten at best who would like to own a suppressor do because probably only two in ten know they can and how to do so.

wildhawker
02-04-2010, 11:36 AM
Arrrg. That's the second time I've managed to miss context in a significant way here this week. Sorry.

Not to worry, I expressed my sentiments very poorly in haste.

7x57
02-04-2010, 11:37 AM
Yes, but...

That poster depicts Orthodox Jews. And believe me, the Orthodox may have little experience with guns, but they have very few inhibitions about the idea of owning guns or self-defense.


First, let it be stipulated that we're talking about American Jews. I suspect perhaps the poster would have some kind of an impact in, say, Israel, but the message would be very different and not, I imagine, remarkable. And my friend and best source of information on all things Jewish is from Argentina, and he tells me there was a family tradition due to something nasty or the other a few generations ago. He was the first to not receive it, I think (which sort of made me sad). I also received from him the unconscious attitude that Orthodox is what Judaism is, and Reform is not really an alternative.

I'm planning to take him shooting sometime when he's visiting. I almost managed it near Purim once, which surely is the best of all times for Jews to receive instruction in arms. The poor guy is working in Taiwan right now, which is so intensely Goy it makes the US look like a shtetl. :chris:

Back to the subject, in talking to American Jews, I have no sense that even the Orthodox, as a group, are free of such inhibitions as you describe. Yellowfin may be right that it's primarily a New York thing, but Mermelstein's letters are uniformly of the "I'm glad at least one Jew doesn't think I'm crazy" variety, which suggests to me the attitude is pretty deep. They can't all have been raised Reform, though I didn't look to see if some of the letters specify Orthodox. But Mermelstein himself is Orthodox, and says he was raised anti-gun. So if there is a sizable US population of pro-gun or at least pro-self-defense Orthodox Jews, I seem never to meet them.


And actually quite a lot of them carry illegally; they know they will never be searched by LAPD.


That I didn't know. Nice thing they've got going there. :D Wish they'd join the fight, though. :chris:

Most of my Jewish friends were from elsewhere and my only local contacts are quite secular (and therefore, as you say, obliged by some special law of nature to be anti-gun).

Hmm--I believe I drove through someplace down LA way, probably getting late on a Friday afternoon, and for a minute or so wondered where all the Amish had come from. Then I drove by a building with prominent Hebrew lettering, and was enlightened. :rofl: The hats got me....

How many people in LA are familiar enough with the Amish to make that mistake?


Among the non-Orthodox branches, like Reform and so on, which are the most popular branches here in the US, they tend to be quite anti-gun.


The intellectual origins of Reform Judaism almost require it.


Jews have had a taboo against hunting for thousands of years. A lot of people get their first experience with guns while out hunting. This doesn't happen for Jews.


Indeed. So far as I can tell the source of the taboo is a rabbinical ruling that the slaughter rules are the same for game as for domesticated animals, and that nearly forecloses the possibility entirely. I'm prepared to argue that there is evidence in the bible that this was not the case, and also that it isn't reasonable to suggest that it could have been the case for subsistence living in the countryside, but somehow the Rabbis really don't seem interested in my opinions on Halakha!

Weird, that. ;)


Jews have been urban dwellers for a long long time. Recreational shooting is a lot more challenging in an urban area. I live in an urban area and it's an hour drive for me to get anywhere where I can shoot, so even though it's my favorite hobby, it's rare for me to do it.


My point to Ruben was that I don't think the current rulings on hunting make it really possible for subsistence living, and therefore it is proof that the rulings have evolved to the point where Orthodox Jews are now almost obligate city dwellers (or at least obligate keepers of domesticated animals and tillers of the land, to avoid depending on game for calories). One can concoct science-fiction stories where this is a problem, but the scenarios are highly unlikely.


Plantation mindset, big-time. Jews have gotten used to being in a helpless role, and gotten comfortable with it. Within Jewish thought, that mindset is called being comfortable in Egypt. Somehow Jews have a recurring problem with that.


Thanks, didn't know the term but I like it. As for somehow, I can see pretty easily how it can happen. I guess there have been *many* situations where Jews were tolerated well enough to be comfortable, but not so much that things would not have changed if they were visibly armed. That's what gun control does.


And the helpless mindset is more than just with guns. There's also a stereotype of Jews being clueless with tools, physical work, sports, etc. Can you imagine Woody Allen trying to use a hammer? Part of his comedy shtik is how clutzy and helpless he is.


I actually have never seen a Woody Allen movie, but I have a friend (from New York!) who is the living embodiment of "no mechanical skills at all".

Come to think of it, he got a PhD in high-energy physics in very short time and then went to law school, so he may be right off the scale. :eek:


Jews usually live in the better areas of town, with good police protection, so maybe personal self-defense doesn't seem as important. In Beverly Hills, for example, BHPD shows up within literally 120 seconds of a call, for non-critical calls! It's amazing! If police service were this good everywhere, there would be hardly any crime.


True, but we don't much like the kind of societies where that can be true everywhere.


Many Jews come from places, like European urban areas, where there isn't much gun culture.


Especially for people who aren't full members of society. In fact, that's probably true everywhere. If the state doesn't like you having a gun, you have an early warning that something may be going South.


Jews somehow associate gun culture with hunting and goyishness.


I think us Goy are not going to take the rap for that one. That's what happens when you build up a millennium of rulings and precedents that make it nearly impossible to have kosher game. Sure they bleed out well if killed cleanly, but bleeding into the chest cavity just ain't good enough. Maybe if you were a Jewish Tarzan and could leap on the back of your quarry and reach around to slit it's throat while it's trying to buck you off....

But I think there is also another reason. Hunting is a deeply symbolic coming of age thing, when it's part of a living culture--perhaps *the* most traditionally transmitted skill in America. It is a certain kind of boy's Bar-Mitzvah. The rabbis are quite careful about letting Jews participate in Goy rites of passage like that. It's plausibly a survival mechanism, and one can hardly second-guess Jews on techniques for cultural survival.


Non-Orthodox Jews tend to be left-wing (that's another whole story about why such a thing happened) and gun control comes with the left-wing package


Indeed. And there were, ahem, *one or two* Jews in the 19th century European radical left...and founding it....


Racism. Jews, like many other whites, in urban areas are afraid of armed blacks, and somehow gun control seems like it might help with that. It's true that black culture today has some deep problems with violence, but gun control isn't going to help with that.


We're all in that choir here.


Ha ha, yes. All the main non-Orthodox Jewish orgs here have a pro-gun-control agenda. That's why I will never support them, not a single dime, until they adopt a strong pro-freedom, pro-Jewish agenda.


I seem to recall that ADL is quite anti-gun, but then they seem quite leftist on many other things. I wish that particular group of Jews would see that it's not hard to debase one's moral currency on unrelated matters, and one might someday regret doing that.


Legend has it that the first Jewish nuclear weapon has "never again" welded onto the side of it.

OK. That place where I said "nothing" says "never again" like 230 gr of lead? I want to retract the "nothing" part....

7x57

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 12:13 PM
So in summary they're weird, snobby, antagonistic, ethnocentric, superstitious, insular/cliquish, thick skulled, urbanized metrosexual, intellectually schizophrenic, oblivious, and unAmerican because their religious and cultural background practically commands it?

pnkssbtz
02-04-2010, 12:16 PM
No way, politicians are scared of silencers more than anything else. If you have one, you must be assassinating people as silencers completely eliminate ALL the sound, making you undetectable.
You need some sarcasm smileys there =P

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 12:26 PM
I think us Goy are not going to take the rap for that one. That's what happens when you build up a millennium of rulings and precedents that make it nearly impossible to have kosher game. Sure they bleed out well if killed cleanly, but bleeding into the chest cavity just ain't good enough. Maybe if you were a Jewish Tarzan and could leap on the back of your quarry and reach around to slit it's throat while it's trying to buck you off....
Or they could simply hunt with a bow. A standard broadhead would do the job quite nicely.
But I think there is also another reason. Hunting is a deeply symbolic coming of age thing, when it's part of a living culture--perhaps *the* most traditionally transmitted skill in America. It is a certain kind of boy's Bar-Mitzvah. The rabbis are quite careful about letting Jews participate in Goy rites of passage like that. It's plausibly a survival mechanism, and one can hardly second-guess Jews on techniques for cultural survival.To that I respond with the words of Teddy Roosevelt:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

As in they should get over themselves, stop acting like little princesses. Yes, be yourself, have your cultural identity, etc. but the no hunting thing and the "The best thing about us is we aren't you" crap needs to take its rightful place in the dumpster.

7x57
02-04-2010, 12:36 PM
Or they could simply hunt with a bow. A standard broadhead would do the job quite nicely.


Doesn't even come *close* to satisfying halacha. Ask your friendly neighborhood Orthodox rabbi if you doubt me. He may not mind the question--after all, part of the rabbinical game is to ask questions about the most difficult corner cases you can find, he may appreciate goy trying to play.


As in they should get over themselves, stop acting like little princesses. Yes, be yourself, have your cultural identity, etc. but the no hunting thing and the "The best thing about us is we aren't you" crap needs to take its rightful place in the dumpster.

You know how much you're hurting me here, buddy? Really. :cool2:

7x57

7x57
02-04-2010, 12:39 PM
So in summary they're weird, snobby, antagonistic, ethnocentric, superstitious, insular/cliquish, thick skulled, urbanized metrosexual, intellectually schizophrenic, oblivious, and unAmerican because their religious and cultural background practically commands it?

Without quibbling about the propriety of that list of adjectives, because *GOD* commanded it. Or, if that one doesn't float your boat, because of an extreme selection effect; no culture that took a less uncompromising line survived as a people for 3500-ish years to tell us about it.

It isn't an accident that the grand-prize survival winner culture is different than the wannabes.

7x57

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 12:44 PM
Doesn't even come *close* to satisfying halacha. Ask your friendly neighborhood Orthodox rabbi if you doubt me. He may not mind the question--after all, part of the rabbinical game is to ask questions about the most difficult corner cases you can find, he may appreciate goy trying to play.

7x57As long as he views me as a "goy", a sort of reverse-outcast, then we aren't getting anywhere, are we? The "You wouldn't understand, you're not one of us" and "It is because it is because we say it is" may lend itself to historical preservation, but it's lousy for solving problems and arriving at practical, livable, and intellectually honest conclusions.

And as for the cultural analysis, that I take a snide view of its peculiarities, admittedly it does come of as sounding coarse and perhaps obtuse, but spending time in urban and suburban PA and NJ and the mirror communities of south Florida confirms it. It's virtually synonymous with stuck up, spoiled ***holes who live for the fact that they feel superior to everyone else, the very incarnation of liberal elitism.

7x57
02-04-2010, 12:56 PM
As long as he views me as a "goy", a sort of reverse-outcast, then we aren't getting anywhere, are we?


Are you offended because a Catholic priest won't serve communion to a non-Catholic?

It's a question of freedom of religion. The foundational belief of Judaism is the choosing of a special servant people different from all others. And once you know all the ramifications of being "chosen," frankly I suspect you'd prefer not having an honor that weighs that heavily on the shoulders.

A rabbinical tradition goes that all the peoples of the earth were offered the election. The Jews were chosen because only they said "yes." Frankly one can assume the rest of the goyim had a point.


The "You wouldn't understand, you're not one of us" and "It is because it is because we say it is" may lend itself to historical preservation, but it's lousy for solving problems and arriving at practical, livable, and intellectually honest conclusions.

I don't believe I've ever met a Jew that didn't like explaining the system unless they were too secular to know it. The "you wouldn't understand" part is a function of the immense size and complexity of the system. It resembles Common Law in many ways, except I believe the precedents are often older because of a different priority scheme.

7x57

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 1:21 PM
Are you offended because a Catholic priest won't serve communion to a non-Catholic?I get very offended if I see one treating other people as if they don't exist or if they're somehow some different class of people, or if they take the "If you're not Catholic you're not Christian and/or you don't matter" mentality. I got HIGHLY angry at a handful of priests while I was in CA about their rather disgusting overt support of illegal aliens, unconditional pacifism, socialism, and a few other details and made it a point to convey such. Whether it totally altered their stances I can't say for certain but they certainly heard it from me. The American branch of the Catholic church has got a LOT of problems from urban leftism creeping its way in and intermingling, probably not too well off from the start either having had a lot of complicity in feudalism and ties to Europe which brings in Eurosocialism. They claim to support pro-life, pro-family stuff but you'd never know that from the way a disturbingly large percentage of them vote, speak, interact, and what they support in practice.

But anyway, getting back to the topic...

It's going to be fun popularizing suppressors. The folks are Remington will be working on a lot of things to this effort, most notably I'm told they'll be working with Maxim magazine. That's some REAL cultural entrenchment. It comes in handy that they own it. :D

B Strong
02-04-2010, 1:46 PM
For all the guys that think Gemtech's and Fisher's are going to sell for less than a case of beer if deregulated, keep the dream alive.

It wouldn't be any big thing to make a run of "suppressors" with a minimum of R. & D. and common materials or OTC components, but believe me, you get what you pay for when it comes to cans.

Even in eliminating the tax stamp (which I don't believe is going to happen anytime soon - incorporation or not) the market wouldn't get to the point where manufacturers would have the volume to cut their prices by 50% - the potential market isn't what you seem to think it is.

An individual in an NFA state can today Form 1 and manufacturer their own can, and their cost would be a simple $200.00 + the cost of materials - guess what? there aren't a hell of a lot of people doing it, even in the NFA community.

If the guys aren't doing it now for $220.00, I doubt the market would be much greater at $120.00 or below.

The folks that are into this stuff now are the market, and the market has pretty much reached it's limit, and again, I don't see the market expanding by any great number in the event of deregulation.

Ask Tom Bowers about how many cans he makes at the entry level end of the market, and he'll tell you it's a hobby, not a career.

7x57
02-04-2010, 1:55 PM
The American branch of the Catholic church has got a LOT of problems from urban leftism creeping its way in and intermingling, probably not too well off from the start either having had a lot of complicity in feudalism and ties to Europe which brings in Eurosocialism.

But the American church is the one most likely to cut corners on rules like Closed Communion, precisely because they are more liberal and "that would exclude." It's the priests who follow the teaching of the church that absolutely must not serve the sacrament to outsiders, because *that's what the theology demands.* If it was offered I'd probably refuse on grounds I do not wish to be party to someone being false to their professed doctrine (even though in fact I believe the theology quite wrong).

7x57

7x57
02-04-2010, 1:59 PM
As for the price of suppressors, I can't say what the demand is but in terms of costs the key is to figure out a technology that permits an up-front investment that makes the per-unit cost as low as possible. Isn't Ruger really good at cheap investment casting? I'm not sure what the mechanical demands on a suppressor are, but Ruger has a track record of efficient manufacturing.

I wonder if a molded plastic suppressor can be made strong enough to survive, say, half-a-dozen shots. If so, they could be sold as disposables for your home-defense weapon. If you are buying a lot of replacements you *really* need to move anyway. :D

I'd like to see the elimination of the weird NFA categories so we could have some crossover not-rifle-not-pistol innovation for home defense.

7x57

technique
02-04-2010, 2:05 PM
For all the guys that think Gemtech's and Fisher's are going to sell for less than a case of beer if deregulated, keep the dream alive.

It wouldn't be any big thing to make a run of "suppressors" with a minimum of R. & D. and common materials or OTC components, but believe me, you get what you pay for when it comes to cans.

Even in eliminating the tax stamp (which I don't believe is going to happen anytime soon - incorporation or not) the market wouldn't get to the point where manufacturers would have the volume to cut their prices by 50% - the potential market isn't what you seem to think it is.

An individual in an NFA state can today Form 1 and manufacturer their own can, and their cost would be a simple $200.00 + the cost of materials - guess what? there aren't a hell of a lot of people doing it, even in the NFA community.

If the guys aren't doing it now for $220.00, I doubt the market would be much greater at $120.00 or below.

The folks that are into this stuff now are the market, and the market has pretty much reached it's limit, and again, I don't see the market expanding by any great number in the event of deregulation.

Ask Tom Bowers about how many cans he makes at the entry level end of the market, and he'll tell you it's a hobby, not a career.

All excellent points.

KAC, Surefire, OPS, AAC, Gemtech....most of the giants. They all compete for contracts in the military ind. OPS has been around since the early 80's. They didn't even offer cans to the general public until recently.

It's hard to say if deregulation would expand the # of owners or not.
Some people really do have problems with the process --->:TFH:

I know guys out here that won't buy from anywhere but private party. "don't want the Gov knowing what they have"...If the states that aren't allowed suppressors were allowed, you would see a jump in ownership.
But I agree, you would not see the price come down..The prices are what they are because the companies understand you have to pay and additional $200....hell, the prices might go up.

7x57
02-04-2010, 2:32 PM
It seems to me that the most likely place for savings would be firearms with an integral suppressor. Should be some manufacturing efficiencies there.

Don't we still use WWII-era Hi-Standards for that? I wonder how much the integral suppressor added to the cost.

7x57

Kharn
02-04-2010, 2:38 PM
First, let it be stipulated that we're talking about American Jews. I suspect perhaps the poster would have some kind of an impact in, say, Israel, but the message would be very different and not, I imagine, remarkable. And my friend and best source of information on all things Jewish is from Argentina, and he tells me there was a family tradition due to something nasty or the other a few generations ago. He was the first to not receive it, I think (which sort of made me sad). I also received from him the unconscious attitude that Orthodox is what Judaism is, and Reform is not really an alternative.

7x57Just to be sure, you know the guy that made that poster (Oleg Volk) is Jewish and lives in Tennessee, right? He's made numerous other ones advocating Jewish gun ownership (alongside other posters appealing to the general population).

Silencer
02-04-2010, 2:40 PM
Silencers are legal in CA for anyone, but only on bb guns/pellet rifles and only when they are non-removable (permanently fixed) from the barrel.

AirForce Talon SS is a .22 pellet rifle that has a built in silencer. You get even make it more effective by adding washers and spacers to to it (watch below YouTube clip). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2hVO4LE7Xo

technique
02-04-2010, 2:42 PM
This guy isn't far from me. He's at every local show. His 10/22's go for $575 with integrated suppressors.

http://gemstatearms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3

yellowfin
02-05-2010, 11:12 AM
As for the price of suppressors, I can't say what the demand is but in terms of costs the key is to figure out a technology that permits an up-front investment that makes the per-unit cost as low as possible. Isn't Ruger really good at cheap investment casting? I'm not sure what the mechanical demands on a suppressor are, but Ruger has a track record of efficient manufacturing.

I wonder if a molded plastic suppressor can be made strong enough to survive, say, half-a-dozen shots. If so, they could be sold as disposables for your home-defense weapon. If you are buying a lot of replacements you *really* need to move anyway. :DThe mechanical demands involved are not something you want to be cheap around, nor would you want something disposable. You're dealing with heat and pressure, thousands of PSI and in excess of 300 degrees if it gets fired a bunch. Heat and pressure which in dealing with plastic or metal you don't want something to be anywhere near its failure point, unless you're into body and facial piercing and don't mind having it done spontaneously at high velocity. Basically a cheap suppressor is like a plasticware knife being used as a crowbar and then whenever it decides to it turns into a grenade with a 1/1000th second fuse. Something tells me casting, particularly done on the cheap and mass produced side, is something you'd want no part of whatsoever.

Mass production can make the price down a good bit, like with robots doing some of the work or all of it on the stuff like .22 and 9mm cans that aren't dealing with as much stress as say a 5.56, 7.62, or .338LM can. Rifle cans should NEVER be done by anything other than skilled welders as they can give them individual attention needed when dealing with something that if it fails can cost you your eyesight or worse. We don't want Rachel Anne to be short of work, do we?

http://www.advancedarmament.com/repository/product/aac_pinup_calendar.jpg

7x57
02-05-2010, 11:30 AM
Just to be sure, you know the guy that made that poster (Oleg Volk) is Jewish and lives in Tennessee, right? He's made numerous other ones advocating Jewish gun ownership (alongside other posters appealing to the general population).

I didn't know that Oleg was Jewish, but it's hard to see how it is really relevant. Every gun owner I know thinks Jews have the best reason to be armed of just about anybody, and shakes their head at what seems like a suicidal tendency for American Jews to be disarmed. And Oleg's work makes it clear that there just wouldn't be anyone he doesn't think should take responsibility for their own protection. Just about anyone who is really pro self-defense could make such a poster. (Though, in all likelihood, few of us could compose it as beautifully and photograph it as effectively. The casting of the man is pure genius in terms of putting prejudices of "violent gun owners" side-by-side with the most grandfatherly imaginable face, and the presence of the little girl personalizes and humanizes what would otherwise be more abstract fears. He isn't preparing to defend himself, or thinking about what happened to him or his father--he is thinking about *this* flesh-and-blood daughter or granddaugher.)

Knowing that Oleg is Jewish mainly offers added weight to what has to be the obvious message. I don't know that I've ever met a Jew that self-identified as a Jew but didn't love his people, and it's hard for us self-defense types to imagine loving Jews without wishing they were ready to make "the next time" a much more costly proposition.

ETA: for some reason, I like analyzing that photograph, and here is what I should have added to the above. Putting a Jew in the picture alone threatens to make it about the past, because an American general audience immediately leaps to "Holocaust". That permits the easy out of "it can't happen again." Putting the little girl there makes it about the future. It denies the idea that "we're beyond that now." It says that we can learn from history and prepare for the future. Genius.

7x57

CCWFacts
02-05-2010, 11:25 PM
I also received from him the unconscious attitude that Orthodox is what Judaism is, and Reform is not really an alternative.

Yeah. Reform Judaism isn't going to last long anyway. Note that Orthodox Judaism itself is a collection of a lot of different groups with widely varying beliefs and views.

I'm planning to take him shooting sometime when he's visiting.

Good!

Back to the subject, in talking to American Jews, I have no sense that even the Orthodox, as a group, are free of such inhibitions as you describe.

As I said, Orthodox Jews are a very diverse crowd. I know a lot of them, but none from New York, if you can imagine that! So maybe there are differences.

Yellowfin may be right that it's primarily a New York thing, but Mermelstein's letters are uniformly of the "I'm glad at least one Jew doesn't think I'm crazy" variety, which suggests to me the attitude is pretty deep.

Perhaps. I guess the Orthodox Jews I know are mainly not of US origin, so I don't know if they are representative or not.

So if there is a sizable US population of pro-gun or at least pro-self-defense Orthodox Jews, I seem never to meet them.

I was at an Orthodox get-together right after the Mumbai attacks and they were excitedly discussing whether they wanted a machine gun or a shotgun. None of them had ever shot before, and they certainly didn't know the unfortunate fact that MGs are almost impossible here.

Wish they'd join the fight, though.

Me too. But, for many reasons, they're not in it.

So far as I can tell the source of the taboo (against hunting) is a rabbinical ruling that the slaughter rules are the same for game as for domesticated animals, and that nearly forecloses the possibility entirely.

That is one of the reasons. The more profound reason is that hunting is enjoyable for those who do it, and Jewish thought does not accept the idea that killing should be enjoyed.

My point to Ruben was that I don't think the current rulings on hunting make it really possible for subsistence living, and therefore it is proof that the rulings have evolved to the point where Orthodox Jews are now almost obligate city dwellers (or at least obligate keepers of domesticated animals and tillers of the land, to avoid depending on game for calories).

Exactly, they don't need to live the city, but they can only eat domesticated livestock. No subsistence hunting. In practice, keeping livestock is more sustainable anyway.

But I think there is also another reason. Hunting is a deeply symbolic coming of age thing, when it's part of a living culture--perhaps *the* most traditionally transmitted skill in America. It is a certain kind of boy's Bar-Mitzvah. The rabbis are quite careful about letting Jews participate in Goy rites of passage like that. It's plausibly a survival mechanism, and one can hardly second-guess Jews on techniques for cultural survival.

No, that can't possibly have anything to do with it. Hunting was absolutely taboo among Jews before there even were rabbis. It has nothing to do with American culture. The taboo existed since Biblical times.

Indeed. And there were, ahem, *one or two* Jews in the 19th century European radical left...and founding it....

Yeah, it's a tragic misunderstanding of some Jewish principles that lead to that.

I seem to recall that ADL is quite anti-gun, but then they seem quite leftist on many other things.

Yup. I will never support them until they renounce those types of ideas. It's insane.

Every gun owner I know thinks Jews have the best reason to be armed of just about anybody, and shakes their head at what seems like a suicidal tendency for American Jews to be disarmed.

American Jews have suicidal tendencies (http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48899452.html) on (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_8527.JPG) every (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_8586.JPG) possible (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_0272.JPG) level (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_8575.JPG), and it's working (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8608243.html).

I don't know that I've ever met a Jew that self-identified as a Jew but didn't love his people,

Unfortunately I have met many of them.

dantodd
02-05-2010, 11:28 PM
Can we move the non-silencer stuff to PM or a new thread please?

7x57
02-05-2010, 11:51 PM
Yeah. Reform Judaism isn't going to last long anyway.


I guess part of that opinion of mine is because of the "Secular liberalism as religion" elements inherent in the enterprise. I recognize those guys no matter how they dress it up. I haven't the slightest bit of patience with that when it has a Christian coat of varnish, so I guess I don't know why I'd like it any better with a thin layer of Judaism instead.

And, as Ruben pointed out, it seems to be creating an increasing problem where Jews don't actually all agree on the definition of Jewish (because Reform can't have any of that old-fashioned gender bias, and so accepts someone as a Jew if either parent is Jewish).


Perhaps. I guess the Orthodox Jews I know are mainly not of US origin, so I don't know if they are representative or not.


I think that's it. Most of those I meet are American Jews, often New Yorkers. Note that by contrast my closest source is my Argentinian friend, and he has no problem with self-defense.


I was at an Orthodox get-together right after the Mumbai attacks and they were excitedly discussing whether they wanted a machine gun or a shotgun. None of them had ever shot before, and they certainly didn't know the unfortunate fact that MGs are almost impossible here.


It really disturbs me to see people suddenly confronted with what gun control has done the first time, after clearly living their lives voting for it but always somehow believing that they could get one if they ever needed it.

I really don't know whether I want to take extra time to walk them through the process or just scream at them that it's some kind of cosmic payback for voting against all of us. :mad:


No, that can't possibly have anything to do with it. Hunting was absolutely taboo among Jews before there even were rabbis. It has nothing to do with American culture. The taboo existed since Biblical times.


That wasn't about the Law, though I probably didn't write (or even think?) clearly. I was really sort of half-reporting a point Ruben made to me, that the rabbis often frown on people taking up such a sport because in places where hunting is part of the culture it is likely to be a step toward acceptance and assimilation.

Then of course there is the blooding ritual performed many places, which ought to curl the hairs in a rabbis beard. Ruben is a self-described atheist and he thinks it sounds scary pagan. When I mentioned the guy back East that bought land to take first timers hunting and has done hundreds of bloodings, he practically shouted "he is a priest. I guess that just proves you don't have to know what you're a priest of to be a priest." :D


American Jews have suicidal tendencies (http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48899452.html) on every (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_8586.JPG) possible (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_0272.JPG) level (http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_8575.JPG), and it's working (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8608243.html).


That's disturbing. I knew that intermarriage was a problem, but I guess not birthrate.

The intermarriage problem reminds me that one of my New York Jewish friends once said that lack of persecution was the most effective way to destroy Jews. That's the kind of thing he meant, of course.

As far as the anti-Israel stuff, it occurred to me once that Israel represents more of an all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy than has existed for a long time. I remember making a complicated and possibly incoherent argument as to whether that was a good idea. I think I was going back and forth on whether it was bad for the obvious reasons, or good because global communications might make it so that really determined pogroms could be worldwide anyway.

7x57

bigcalidave
02-06-2010, 2:26 AM
Yo !!! 7x !!! Very off topic.. as often as you like to do that you should know!

Knight
02-06-2010, 4:03 AM
There was an excellent thread on the subject of suppressors here on Calguns that I'm always reminded of when I see topics like this one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=139664

NeoWeird (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=5262)'s posts in particular were very eye-opening. I was hoping that the discussion would continue beyond where it ended, but unfortunately it didn't.

yellowfin
02-06-2010, 8:27 AM
I wonder what would make for a kosher silencer. (To attempt to converge this back to topic...)

B Strong
02-06-2010, 9:28 AM
All excellent points.

KAC, Surefire, OPS, AAC, Gemtech....most of the giants. They all compete for contracts in the military ind. OPS has been around since the early 80's. They didn't even offer cans to the general public until recently.

It's hard to say if deregulation would expand the # of owners or not.
Some people really do have problems with the process --->:TFH:

I know guys out here that won't buy from anywhere but private party. "don't want the Gov knowing what they have"...If the states that aren't allowed suppressors were allowed, you would see a jump in ownership.
But I agree, you would not see the price come down..The prices are what they are because the companies understand you have to pay and additional $200....hell, the prices might go up.

That's exactly right.

The major manufacturers are cranking them out for Gov.org contracts, and an increase in demand with a restricted supply means the price increases.

dustoff31
02-06-2010, 9:46 AM
Not even close. NFA ownership is largely NOT public knowledge, most people still probably think cans are entirely illegal.

It has become more visible online because the Internet offers better communication so the information can spread, however it is contained to a small % of the people simply because not everyone knows where to look or spends the time looking. The vast majority of gun shops are not Class 3 dealers, gun related magazines and TV shows focus extremely little attention on suppressors, and it's still comparatively rare to see NFA owning people at ranges to be able to ask. It's getting better, more cans are being sold and people are learning one by one, but it's far from universally known. Lots of people simply know what they see in shops and what they learn from family--the traditional information pipeline. I'd venture probably one in ten at best who would like to own a suppressor do because probably only two in ten know they can and how to do so.

I'm sure that is your experience. My experience is quite different. Where I live, the legality and availability of NFA items is well known. Over 50% of FFLs are SOT dealers and all types of NFA items are bought and sold every day.

I'll just say again, that IMO, where they are now legal anyone who really wants a suppressor, has one.

dantodd
02-06-2010, 10:32 AM
I'll just say again, that IMO, where they are now legal anyone who really wants a suppressor, has one.

not really accurate. The cost of the tax stamp surely artificially restricts the market. Even if they were legal in CA I would not buy one if I had to pay for a $200 stamp. Now, if they were legal and I didn't have to pay for a stamp I would definitely have one.

B Strong
02-06-2010, 10:44 AM
not really accurate. The cost of the tax stamp surely artificially restricts the market. Even if they were legal in CA I would not buy one if I had to pay for a $200 stamp. Now, if they were legal and I didn't have to pay for a stamp I would definitely have one.

As I posted earlier, the tax stamp isn't going away anytime soon, and I look at the stamp as being just another "Fun Tax."

I'm more than happy to pay it for the legal possession of the item in question.

loather
02-06-2010, 10:51 AM
If I could get one for my CZ83 I would in a heartbeat.

dustoff31
02-06-2010, 10:51 AM
As I posted earlier, the tax stamp isn't going away anytime soon, and I look at the stamp as being just another "Fun Tax."

I'm more than happy to pay it for the legal possession of the item in question.

Absolutely correct. If a person really wants it, the tax is insignificant. It is after all as you say, a "Fun tax."

dantodd
02-06-2010, 11:04 AM
As I posted earlier, the tax stamp isn't going away anytime soon, and I look at the stamp as being just another "Fun Tax."

I'm more than happy to pay it for the legal possession of the item in question.

of course you are and you can easily afford it. That is not so with others. Also, would you own no more of fewer suppressors if the tax were not in effect? Hell, if the tax were no issue I'd almost certainly make a couple just to see what works and what doesn't.

If suppressors are part of the RKBA, even tangentially, what level of scrutiny allows for the taxation of an enumerated right? What other examples are you aware of where such rights are currently taxed?

B Strong
02-06-2010, 11:17 AM
of course you are and you can easily afford it. That is not so with others. Also, would you own no more of fewer suppressors if the tax were not in effect? Hell, if the tax were no issue I'd almost certainly make a couple just to see what works and what doesn't.

If suppressors are part of the RKBA, even tangentially, what level of scrutiny allows for the taxation of an enumerated right? What other examples are you aware of where such rights are currently taxed?

Like I posted earlier, Cans and MG's are probably not likely to be de-regulated post incorporation, whereas I believe that a non MG SBR might well be.

A can isn't fundemental to self defense, or essential for militia use.

An argument could be made that MG's are essential to militia use, but again, I don't see that MG's are going to be de-regulated post incorporation.

dantodd
02-06-2010, 11:54 AM
Like I posted earlier, Cans and MG's are probably not likely to be de-regulated post incorporation, whereas I believe that a non MG SBR might well be.

A can isn't fundemental to self defense, or essential for militia use.

An argument could be made that MG's are essential to militia use, but again, I don't see that MG's are going to be de-regulated post incorporation.

I didn't ask if it is fundamental. I asked if there are any examples you know of a tax on something that is specifically part of an enumerated right and what level of scrutiny such a tax would pass.

chuckles48
02-06-2010, 2:51 PM
Like I posted earlier, Cans and MG's are probably not likely to be de-regulated post incorporation, whereas I believe that a non MG SBR might well be.

A can isn't fundemental to self defense, or essential for militia use.

An argument could be made that MG's are essential to militia use, but again, I don't see that MG's are going to be de-regulated post incorporation.

No, it's not fundamental, or essential.

OTOH, one can make a strong case via consumer product safety standards... ;>

yellowfin
02-06-2010, 2:55 PM
A can actually is VERY useful for home defense, since you mention it. That may be one of the very easiest items to delist because of that.

CCWFacts
02-06-2010, 3:00 PM
A can actually is VERY useful for home defense, since you mention it.

Yeah.

Any defensive-caliber rifle (223) will cause permanent hearing loss after firing a few shots indoors. Without a can, the shooter will lose his hearing. Small price to pay in a defensive situation, where life is in immediate jeopardy, but still, I would like to be able to keep my life and my hearing. It shouldn't have to be a mutually exclusive choice.

A can won't make it quiet, like an assassin's gun in a movie, but it will make it so that it won't cause immediate, permanent hearing loss.

The Rabbi
02-06-2010, 4:44 PM
Those posters are so funny. A rabbi teaching his granddaughter how to shoot lolol.

This will probably be my one post here.

I was directed to this thread by Oleg Volk, who took the photo in question. I am the man in the picture. And the girl is my daughter, Gertrude. Yeah, I realize I look like I'm 60 but I'm actually turning 48 this week. lol. I am not a rabbi but am Orthodox.

I am the owner of Eastside Gun Shop in Nashville TN as well as partner in Blue Bunny Ammo (both have websites, www.eastsidegunshop and www.bluebunnyammo). Naturally I am a "gun guy" and compete in IDPA events.
While traditionally in America Jews didn't go for firearms, living mainly in large urban centers like NYC, with the spreading out of populations and loosening of carry laws there are many more Jews, especially among the Orthodox, who have discovered firearms ownership. And as a traditionally persecuted minority that is a good thing.

As for taking suppressors off the NFA list, good luck with that. While that would be nice there does not exist the constituency to make it happen. It would be like re-opening the registry of transferrable machine guns. And I'd see that happening a lot sooner.

Knight
02-06-2010, 6:29 PM
Yeah.

Any defensive-caliber rifle (223) will cause permanent hearing loss after firing a few shots indoors. Without a can, the shooter will lose his hearing. Small price to pay in a defensive situation, where life is in immediate jeopardy, but still, I would like to be able to keep my life and my hearing. It shouldn't have to be a mutually exclusive choice.

A can won't make it quiet, like an assassin's gun in a movie, but it will make it so that it won't cause immediate, permanent hearing loss.

While not necessarily immediate, you can still get permanent hearing loss if shooting a suppressed firearm without hearing protection. Especially if you're talking about a .223/5.56 AR.

I knew this topic would come up, and it's exactly why I posted this:

There was an excellent thread on the subject of suppressors here on Calguns that I'm always reminded of when I see topics like this one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=139664

NeoWeird (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=5262)'s posts in particular were very eye-opening. I was hoping that the discussion would continue beyond where it ended, but unfortunately it didn't.

B Strong
02-06-2010, 6:59 PM
This will probably be my one post here.

I was directed to this thread by Oleg Volk, who took the photo in question. I am the man in the picture. And the girl is my daughter, Gertrude. Yeah, I realize I look like I'm 60 but I'm actually turning 48 this week. lol. I am not a rabbi but am Orthodox.

I am the owner of Eastside Gun Shop in Nashville TN as well as partner in Blue Bunny Ammo (both have websites, www.eastsidegunshop and www.bluebunnyammo). Naturally I am a "gun guy" and compete in IDPA events.
While traditionally in America Jews didn't go for firearms, living mainly in large urban centers like NYC, with the spreading out of populations and loosening of carry laws there are many more Jews, especially among the Orthodox, who have discovered firearms ownership. And as a traditionally persecuted minority that is a good thing.

As for taking suppressors off the NFA list, good luck with that. While that would be nice there does not exist the constituency to make it happen. It would be like re-opening the registry of transferrable machine guns. And I'd see that happening a lot sooner.

Rabbi, you and I are in full agreement.

B Strong
02-06-2010, 7:05 PM
I didn't ask if it is fundamental. I asked if there are any examples you know of a tax on something that is specifically part of an enumerated right and what level of scrutiny such a tax would pass.

There you go trying to bring in the Constitution and logic into a discussion about federal gun laws.

I learned a long time ago that expecting the gov.org to do things "right" and expecting these things to be done according to the Constitution were only going to lead to unhappiness and depresson.

I fight 'em legally, but I know that in the end they're going to do things the way they want to do 'em - Constitution be damned.

It's kind of like being in a relationship.

You can be "happy" and you can be "right", but you can't be happy and right.

aileron
02-06-2010, 7:34 PM
I think the reason was really just to stop civilian acquisition of new technology before they were too common to be easily banned, and most of all to simply establish the principle that "evil guns" exist and are not protected (for future expansion as opportunity allowed). But I'd be interested to know if there are statistics on ownership of NFA items pre-34.

7x57

I thought the original reason for banning them was because of poachers.

yellowfin
02-06-2010, 9:14 PM
^ sort of. But why was poaching so important to warrant a severe and unprecedented federal law? Hmm? It had to do with food control laws. Poaching was a way of getting around food price controls put in place at the time. People at best didn't like and very often couldn't afford the prices of food set by ill conceived and possibly ill intended price, supply, and distribution controls which FDR seemed hell bent on enforcing.

Secondly, and admitted by the government, was that the Prohibition agents were given the NFA to enforce as something to keep their jobs after alcohol was made legal again.

The very likely envisioned scenario that really have the most push behind it was possible popular revolt. The Depression was bad, people were starving, and sooner or later they would have gotten fed up with and probably fought back. Poaching and the bootleggers' violence made for a perfect excuse to take away weapons which would give an even hand tactically to the public versus the army were there to be Civil War 2. We'll probably never know just how close we may have come, and quite frankly it would have been justified, and at least a 50/50 shot DC would have lost were it to have occurred between 1934 and '36 or 37 were the civilian populous equally armed with the feds.

7x57
02-06-2010, 9:30 PM
This will probably be my one post here.


Thanks for coming by.


I was directed to this thread by Oleg Volk, who took the photo in question. I am the man in the picture. And the girl is my daughter, Gertrude. Yeah, I realize I look like I'm 60 but I'm actually turning 48 this week. lol. I am not a rabbi but am Orthodox.


Thanks to you and Gertrude for being our public face. I'm glad I said how well I think it was cast before you dropped by so it's clear it wasn't flattery.


there are many more Jews, especially among the Orthodox, who have discovered firearms ownership. And as a traditionally persecuted minority that is a good thing.


It's the only thing that ever made sense to me. I hope they'll eventually feel comfortable being more public about it.

Again, thanks for dropping by and thanks for representing all of us. I love the beautiful smile on Gertrude's face--that's how kids and guns mix when it's done right.

Come back anytime. We're rowdy, but harmless. :D

7x57

CCWFacts
02-06-2010, 10:31 PM
I thought the original reason for banning them was because of poachers.

That's what they said.

I think the reason was really just to stop civilian acquisition of new technology before they were too common to be easily banned, and most of all to simply establish the principle that "evil guns" exist and are not protected (for future expansion as opportunity allowed).

Exactly. Kinda like what happened with the AR-15. They were hoping that the '94 AWB would cut those off from becoming widely owned and "common". Didn't work. But the NFA did in fact prevent suppressors and MGs from becoming "common". They have been hoping for a long time to establish some cut-off point in time, so that anything newer than that is "evil" and government-only. That's exactly in contradiction to the meaning of the 2A, which (to me) states that ordinary civilians should have access to weapons parity with ordinary infantry soldiers. This is a very deep fight over the meaning of the 2A, and the relationship between the government and the governed in this country. We may yet win that fight. Maybe.

Greg-Dawg
02-06-2010, 10:36 PM
You, don't have to be a resident of a NFA okay state to own one there.
Got family in a shall issue state?
Go get one there. Keep it there.

Don't forget to spend $2K+ total on the suppressor/gun/barrel and paperwork...IF you get signed off by the local CLEO AND the gov'nt.

7x57
02-06-2010, 10:57 PM
That's what they said.


Yeah. As far as I'm concerned the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that's all that was going on. Even though I don't know the circumstances around the bill (except that prohibition provided the 'public emergency' that justified state intervention and loss of individual sovereignty), there are too many indications even to a casual inspector like me. Here is what comes to mind:

The RKBA was eroded mainly through the game laws in England, the opposite to our "sporting purpose" lie method. You know--oh, sure, you can protect yourself, but not with *that* weapon as it might be useful for poaching. This process was apparently very gradual as I've seen a quote from the founding generation in the late eighteenth century that said the English right was being lost in the name of anti-poaching measures. If that's true, it took 200 years after it was visible to them.

I've read a comment at the time (newspaper editorial I suspect, but don't remember) who quite openly said it wouldn't do anything useful itself, but it would condition gun owners to further control later. The strategy was apparently obvious enough to him.

Also, IIRC originally handguns were to be NFA items, but that category had to get dropped to pass the bill. That makes me very, very hard to convince that it was anything other than a quite deliberate first step toward confiscation.

How would California be today if handguns were federal NFA weapons? :chris:


They have been hoping for a long time to establish some cut-off point in time, so that anything newer than that is "evil" and government-only. That's exactly in contradiction to the meaning of the 2A, which (to me) states that ordinary civilians should have access to weapons parity with ordinary infantry soldiers.


Sure, no doubt about it. If original meaning were all that was needed, the most protected weapon in the country would be whatever the standard US Army infantry rifle is at the time. As a citizen I cannot refuse militia service, and as the states surrendered ultimate power to regulate the militia it is the US Army's choice of weapon that I'm obliged to maintain and bring (at least in a science fiction universe where the right was never abrogated).

That one's my duty weapon and IMO the government has the power to call me with it for inspection at any time. Any others I buy are the weapons I own as my right and none of the government's business. :D

Oddly enough, no matter how clearly I solve the problem in my own mind Justice Roberts never calls to get the straight word. :shrug:


This is a very deep fight over the meaning of the 2A,


That is an excellent way to phrase it.


and the relationship between the government and the governed in this country. We may yet win that fight. Maybe.

Maybe. I never feel good that we may have lost FA forever, nor about demographics.

OTOH few non-unit situations seem to actually benefit from FA, and we seem to have good chances at winning on semiautos, and that seems to still keep us in the game. That and carry laws, and I'm quite happy that we got 40+ states the hard way through the legislatures without any help from the courts. That does say something good about demographics.

7x57

CCWFacts
02-06-2010, 11:12 PM
Also, IIRC originally handguns were to be NFA items, but that category had to get dropped to pass the bill.

Yes, I've heard the same. Tragically the NRA endorsed the bill, much like they made the tragic mistake of endorsing the FOPA.

That makes me very, very hard to convince that it was anything other than a quite deliberate first step toward confiscation.

Dude... think of who was pushing these bills. It was FDR. He wanted a total gun ban as part of his total remake of American society. He got only part of his dream. The fight continues. It's not just about the 2A. It's about the 10A, Social Security, and many many other issues. Anyone who believes "it's to stop poaching" might be interested in a bridge I'm offering for sale at an excellent discount right now.

Maybe. I never feel good that we may have lost FA forever, nor about demographics.

It was FDR who gave us the NFA. He was pushing for the absolute most he could possibly achieve at the time, both within political constraints and whatever constraints his packed Supreme Court would allow.

OTOH few non-unit situations seem to actually benefit from FA, and we seem to have good chances at winning on semiautos, and that seems to still keep us in the game.

Yes. I actually don't think there's any advantage of, say, an M4 vs. an AR-15. I can shoot faster with the M4 but I can hit faster with the AR-15.

domeshotjuan2
02-06-2010, 11:23 PM
i dont think its only the fact that it supresses the sound to save your hearing. but theoretically (cause ive never had the pleasure of trying one) i would assume it would help with your shooting in the sense that most people have a problem with the blast and bang more then the recoil. at least in my case. if i could have a .45 that reacted like a b.b. gun i could be a hell if a shot. lol i would definetly want one.

7x57
02-06-2010, 11:42 PM
Yes, I've heard the same. Tragically the NRA endorsed the bill, much like they made the tragic mistake of endorsing the FOPA.


Pretty different. In '34 the NRA wasn't political and neither were gun owners so far as I know. There was no pro-gun lobby at all, and the NRA seems like it was more a combination of the NSSF and the CMP. I doubt they understood the incrementalist strategy, and a lot of their members would have thought them "extremist" for worrying about stuff nobody cared about.

We were all sheep, including the NRA so far as I know.

With FOPA I thought the (by then very political) NRA believed they could take down the bad bits in court. That isn't a failure to understand incrementalism, it's a strategic blunder. Not that it's any better for that, obviously.


It's about the 10A, Social Security, and many many other issues.


*I* agree entirely. That's why I say I'm not a single-issue voter; for me that would be like saying we have a one-ocean navy.


Yes. I actually don't think there's any advantage of, say, an M4 vs. an AR-15. I can shoot faster with the M4 but I can hit faster with the AR-15.

You can always do anything the semiauto can do by flipping a switch, so there is never a disadvantage to select-fire unless you can't control your itchy trigger finger. :D

The main reason FA is important to me is pure symbolism, and as you say the deep meaning of the 2A. It's important to *them*, and it's what the US Army should be demanding to inspect monthly along with my ammo cans. I have no actual use for it.

Though I should say that the NFA categories seem to me to interact somewhat, and that's on-topic for this thread. An SBR is a reasonable HD choice, better I suspect for some people than a handgun. But if I have one then I *need* the suppressor more than I would for a handgun, because I'm contemplating the possibility of firing a rifle in a confined space. On the other hand, that's a long weapon to use indoors--maybe I need a bullpup which runs afoul of the OAL restrictions. And so on....

I'm just opposed to market distortion in general anyway.

7x57

B Strong
02-07-2010, 6:08 PM
Don't forget to spend $2K+ total on the suppressor/gun/barrel and paperwork...IF you get signed off by the local CLEO AND the gov'nt.

Not even close.

You can get a Gemtech Halo for $695.00 + the tax stamp.

http://www.gem-tech.com/HALO.html

technique
02-07-2010, 6:16 PM
Don't forget to spend $2K+ total on the suppressor/gun/barrel and paperwork...IF you get signed off by the local CLEO AND the gov'nt.

I corrected you last time you pasted this....
You need to do some investigating. You are way off.

technique
02-07-2010, 6:17 PM
Not even close.

You can get a Gemtech Halo for $695.00 + the tax stamp.

http://www.gem-tech.com/HALO.html

Ha...they were onsale a week ago. $299.
Making room for the new stuff.

Kharn
02-07-2010, 6:23 PM
My Trident and Spectre cost slightly under $2k to acquire both after all taxes and fees.

B Strong
02-07-2010, 6:23 PM
Ha...they were onsale a week ago. $299.
Making room for the new stuff.

Doh!

dantodd
02-07-2010, 11:38 PM
Ha...they were onsale a week ago. $299.
Making room for the new stuff.

So the tax is 66%. I can't see ANYONE arguing that a tax that high doesn't alter the market. It just doesn't make good economic sense. Suppressors are not that inelastic of a commodity.

technique
02-07-2010, 11:54 PM
So the tax is 66%. I can't see ANYONE arguing that a tax that high doesn't alter the market. It just doesn't make good economic sense. Suppressors are not that inelastic of a commodity.

I paid more in Tax and transfer fee than I did for my last suppressor.
Doesn't bother me...Cuz I can own one.

dantodd
02-07-2010, 11:56 PM
I paid more in Tax and transfer fee than I did for my last suppressor.
Doesn't bother me...Cuz I can own one.

would you rather have 2 suppressors for the price of one?

technique
02-07-2010, 11:59 PM
would you rather have 2 suppressors for the price of one?

Well...Maybe. But let me say, I would be willing to pay more.
It's never how much something costs....I will do what I have to do, If I want it bad enough.

B Strong
02-08-2010, 6:04 AM
So the tax is 66%. I can't see ANYONE arguing that a tax that high doesn't alter the market. It just doesn't make good economic sense. Suppressors are not that inelastic of a commodity.

The market doesn't suffer because of the tax stamp.

It suffers from ignorance (it will cost you two thousand dollars...) and it suffers because the folks that are into cans have already made their purchases.

With the current coupling technology, you can get away with having one 5.56 can, one 7.62 can and either a rimfire or SMG can, and you're done.

yellowfin
02-08-2010, 7:37 AM
The lack of a resale market also hurts suppressors. Since you have to pay the tax on a used one the same as you would a new one, you might as well only buy new and when you do, you hang onto it because nearly nobody's going to bother buying it used. With firearms, the used market propels experimentation and an easy way in to new stuff as well as plenty of fuel for additional stores (as demonstrated by the CA safe list being used to kill off lots of stores)--the suppressor is denied this advantage.

IrishPirate
02-08-2010, 5:03 PM
i never expected this to get to 14 pages......i got some reading to do....:)


edit: so i read it and it's pretty much a theological argument about how jews feel about guns......seriously? If that's not thread jacking i dont know what is. MY POINT FOR BRINGING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE was that I didn't like the comment where the poster thought it was funny to have a jewish man teaching a young girl how to shoot. I think that's an anti-semetic comment....sue me if you disagree. Kestryl, if there's any way to delete all the crap that's not related to silencers, that would be awesome! let me know how to help you do that!!!

dantodd
02-08-2010, 5:21 PM
The market doesn't suffer because of the tax stamp.

It suffers from ignorance (it will cost you two thousand dollars...) and it suffers because the folks that are into cans have already made their purchases.

With the current coupling technology, you can get away with having one 5.56 can, one 7.62 can and either a rimfire or SMG can, and you're done.

You are simply wrong. Read ANYTHING about the demand curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve) and price sensitivity. A suppressor is not so inelastic that a 30% tax won't effect demand. I am somewhat at a loss as to why you think that dropping the price of something doesn't increase demand.

B Strong
02-08-2010, 5:21 PM
The lack of a resale market also hurts suppressors. Since you have to pay the tax on a used one the same as you would a new one, you might as well only buy new and when you do, you hang onto it because nearly nobody's going to bother buying it used. With firearms, the used market propels experimentation and an easy way in to new stuff as well as plenty of fuel for additional stores (as demonstrated by the CA safe list being used to kill off lots of stores)--the suppressor is denied this advantage.

Correct.

DavidRSA
02-08-2010, 5:38 PM
EXHIBIT A vs EXHIBIT B


EXHIBIT A
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/safety6082.jpg
EXHIBIT B
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/teaching0315.jpg[/QUOTE]

B Strong
02-08-2010, 5:41 PM
You are simply wrong. Read ANYTHING about the demand curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve) and price sensitivity. A suppressor is not so inelastic that a 30% tax won't effect demand. I am somewhat at a loss as to why you think that dropping the price of something doesn't increase demand.

I'm well aware of the supply/demand nexus, but I'm also well aware of the market for cans.

Folks that have bought in now aren't really subject to the tax stamp as a cost prohibiter, and absent a tax stamp, the folks that view $200.00 as a deal breaker aren't going to be any more favorably inclined towards a $500.00 - $700.00 firearms accessory.

Think about it for a moment - folks in NFA friendly states can form 1 a can for the cost of the tax stamp, and turn out a can made of a Coke can and steel wool if they're so inclined.

Is it being done? not so much.

Are NFA owners buying professional top quality cans? yes, but not enough to support a robust market.

Guys that have tens of thousands of dollars in NFA hardware aren't breaking down the doors to Gemtech to get cans - and that $200.00 tax stamp isn't even a bump in the road to many of these guys - what makes you believe that absent that stamp, everybody and their dog is going to buy a can that costs more than another new firearm?

I can tell you that guys that are selling cans w/o government contracts either do it as a part time job, or as a hobby. There is simply a limited market for a accessory that sells for the price even an entry level can sells for.

You might not believe this, but back in the 1970's and 1980's, Sionics cans in all flavors could be had for $100.00 or less, and the original manufacturer (MAC) went bankrupt - the market for NFA stuff here is simply limited - and not just as a result of the tax stamp - only so many folks are interested in the field.

IrishPirate
02-09-2010, 10:33 PM
You are, very. To attempt to be clear: the poster depends for its impact on the idea that it is unusual for a Jewish man to teach the girl to shoot. The impact is strengthened because he is distinguished-looking; that could be his granddaughter. And no the poster is not just making jokes, but surely you can read between the lines better than that. What impact do you think it has for a gentle, grandfatherly orthodox Jew to be teaching the girl to shoot? What is it that might make that important to him?

As for your attempt to ferret out some kind of hidden prejudice just because the left is convinced it has to be there--there are real-world constraints. It could not have been done with a Christian because most won't be "marked" in a way that is visible (the kippah is *intended* to be a mark and a friend of mine was told he should not wear a dark kippah because it wouldn't be obvious enough against his dark hair). It *could* have been done with a Catholic cleric, as they can be dressed to be marked in a way that even the non-religious can identify. Except for the problem that they have a vow of celibacy, and so the subtext is going to be bizarrely different in very distracting ways!

The poster is perfect as it stands.



Actually, I didn't notice until someone pointed it out, but you are going to make me very angry with your race-baiting. And I don't want to get angry because I can tell you don't perceive that as what you are doing, so I'm just going to drop this.

7x57

Race-baiting? seriously? No, I was just offended that someone would laugh because it was a jewish man. It would have offended me no matter what religion it was. It's not exactly polite to laugh at someone because of who or what they believe in. I think it is a magnificent poster and more people should see it, that's one of the reasons I posted it. The right to keep and bear arms is a human right, not a christian or muslim or jewish or any other religion specific right. I don't know why you're getting so angry when I'm the one standing up and saying it's not cool to laugh simply because there is a jewish man in the picture. no one should be laughing at it, they should be thinking hard about the message the poster sends.

Kharn
02-10-2010, 4:04 AM
B Strong:
If you think that's the case, read ARf whenever Gemtech has a last-year's-model sale. It gets rediculous with everyone trying to get in on the deal (Halos for half MSRP or Tundras with Gemtech paying your stamp).

B Strong
02-10-2010, 6:30 AM
B Strong:
If you think that's the case, read ARf whenever Gemtech has a last-year's-model sale. It gets rediculous with everyone trying to get in on the deal (Halos for half MSRP or Tundras with Gemtech paying your stamp).

And the reason Gemtech has those sales is that they can't move large quanities their product without them.

mauser6863
02-10-2010, 11:05 AM
FYI $200 was a lot of cash in 1934. The tax basically destroyed NFA ownership for the common man.

How Much things cost in 1934
Average Cost of new house $5,970.00
Average wages per year $1,600.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 10 cents
Average Cost for house rent $20.00 per month
A loaf of Bread 8 cents
A LB of Hamburger Meat 12 cents
Studebaker Truck $625.00
Arrow Mens Shirt $2.50