PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of supressors....


CS Sports
04-15-2011, 3:37 PM
What was the original reasoning for banning or restricting supressors?

EBR Works
04-15-2011, 3:43 PM
They were being used for poaching during the great depression, hence the ban.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100707214407AAoU0Fr

arc
04-15-2011, 3:44 PM
From my, admittedly limited, understanding it was to stop poachers during the Great Depression. If you want to get really cynical, it was to stop poor people from eating.

I'm sure someone with a greater understanding of history will chime in.

-James

G60
04-15-2011, 3:48 PM
Because 'gangsters used them' during prohibition.

The NFA is the same as any other knee-jerk firearms regulation, and any 'reason' is just an attempt to justify it.

CHS
04-15-2011, 3:49 PM
Great depression. Poaching.

But don't listen to history and facts. Listen to the Brady bunch. Suppressors are used by evil criminals to silently assassinate people by the millions every single day. It's true because that's what Hollywood says.

There is no logical or legitimate reason to bar civilians from owning and using suppressors today.

yellowfin
04-15-2011, 3:52 PM
To keep poor people (which was a LOT of people at the time) from getting around FDR's price controls and rationing on meat, which obviously was not easy to afford. Totally despicable.

RandyD
04-15-2011, 4:06 PM
If suppressors were made illegal to stop poaching, then why weren't bows and arrows made illegal.

ThortheDog
04-15-2011, 4:12 PM
You expect firearms laws to make sense?

IllTemperedCur
04-15-2011, 4:23 PM
Regardless of the original reasoning, nowadays it comes down to:

Gun folk want supressors

Gun folk bad

Therefore.....

Supressors bad

cdtx2001
04-15-2011, 4:29 PM
If suppressors were made illegal to stop poaching, then why weren't bows and arrows made illegal.

Don't start with that type of thinking. The US gubbament doesn't have time for rational thought.

CS Sports
04-15-2011, 4:35 PM
Thanks for the info, I learned something new.

As I suspected, the original reasoning was insidious.

mdimeo
04-15-2011, 5:06 PM
If suppressors were made illegal to stop poaching, then why weren't bows and arrows made illegal.

A usable hunting bow costs a lot more to make than a suppressor. It's also about 100 times harder to hit a deer with a bow than with a rifle.

yellowfin
04-15-2011, 5:10 PM
Not as widely available at the time for comparable price, nor anywhere near as sophisticated and well refined as today.

RandyD
04-15-2011, 8:26 PM
Looks like I just gave the govt. a reason to ban bows and arrows. Oh my!

N6ATF
04-15-2011, 8:28 PM
To make law-abiding gun owners go deaf. They never would have admitted that, though.

That must be a huge suppressor if you can poach an egg with it. But I kid the hens, I kid.

FatalKitty
04-15-2011, 8:58 PM
wouldn't it make sense to require all laws passed to state a clear reason for the law, so that when these reasons become outdated or considered unconstitutional they can be removed?

Ding126
04-15-2011, 10:01 PM
It should be presented today as a saftey device for hearing protection, to curve noise pollution. Seems like Washington state got it right...along with many other states.

nicki
04-15-2011, 10:50 PM
Seems to me with the public perception that silencers trully make guns whisper quite that we could get sound suppressors that still keep guns above a certain decible level exempted from the NFA.

6172crew
04-16-2011, 1:28 AM
All 3 of my cans and the handfull of others I've tried don't sound Hollywood. The tac65 does work well though!

gsrious
04-16-2011, 1:36 AM
It should be presented today as a saftey device for hearing protection, to curve noise pollution. Seems like Washington state got it right...along with many other states.

it really should be admitted into law as a safety device to curve noise pollution. I was out shooting at the fresno peace officers association range at 2 leos came out to check on us at 3am. he said there have been at least 10 calls of gun shots. well it is an outdoor range which is open 24hrs. they simply stated that the sound was traveling towards the neighborhood about a mile away.

ubet
04-16-2011, 5:41 AM
Yeah, they have sure stopped poaching :rolleyes:

The Wingnut
04-16-2011, 5:44 AM
Seems to me with the public perception that silencers trully make guns whisper quite that we could get sound suppressors that still keep guns above a certain decible level exempted from the NFA.


Indeed. People think, thanks to Hollywood, that supressors and supressed weapons in general make a quiet 'thewmp' sound when fired.

Supressors reduce the report of a shot. They do not eliminate it, nor do they prevent the bullet from making a supersonic gunshot-like crack. In order for a supressor to be truly effective, it must be properly built and your weapon and cartridge choice must be made carefully. A supressed weapon is a weapons system, the supressor is just a part of it.

A supressor is NOT a silencer. Few people understand this.

Ding126
04-16-2011, 6:58 AM
I think many of CA gun laws come from an event, mixed in with hollywood special effects, add a cup of anti guns and stir until you have a epic fail for all law abiding gun owners.

I wish all laws in this state from no cell phones while driving, to the AWB & safe roster etc. Had an expiration date...lets say 5 -10yrs after becoming law.
After that period it needs to be proven that it is effective, works as intended or it just gets removed from the books. Like the federal AWB from'94-'04

CS Sports
04-16-2011, 8:01 AM
Given that a hearing impairment can be a protected disability under ADA, and given OSHA rules about occupational noise exposure, is there any chance to attack these restrictions?

Also, aren't some arguments against gun ranges based on noise?

I might be willing to open a shooting range so that I might have some affected employees.

ubet
04-16-2011, 3:21 PM
Given that a hearing impairment can be a protected disability under ADA, and given OSHA rules about occupational noise exposure, is there any chance to attack these restrictions?

Also, aren't some arguments against gun ranges based on noise?



^^^THIS^^^^

Although, I dont know if it would really work, I think its the only way it could be attacked here in Cal.

cmaynes
04-16-2011, 5:10 PM
Thanks for the info, I learned something new.

As I suspected, the original reasoning was insidious.

there is literature around that claims the GCA of 1934 was designed purely as a revenue generating device....

swilson
04-16-2011, 6:41 PM
Maybe we should start calling them mufflers, seeing as how car mufflers are a popular restriction.

Uxi
04-16-2011, 8:41 PM
The entire NFA seems like such a galling infringement of the 2nd Amendment at the Federal Level. The flimsy use of the Commerce Clause might be palpable IF the requirement to have local CLEO sign off wasn't there, but the de facto ban that results, especially combined with the 1968 and 1984 is intolerably contradictory to the 2nd (especially the Hughes and Lautenberg Amendments).

yellowfin
04-17-2011, 10:18 AM
there is literature around that claims the GCA of 1934 was designed purely as a revenue generating device....The taxes were set so high in 1934 as never having the intention of ever being collected.

CHS
04-17-2011, 10:19 AM
Maybe we should start calling them mufflers, seeing as how car mufflers are a popular restriction.

More importantly, you violate the law if you DONT have a muffler for your car. But you violate the law if you DO have one for your gun. Something much more capable of damaging your hearing.

hoffmang
04-17-2011, 10:28 AM
The conventional answer is correct here but there is something very important missing. We need someone to write a scholarly sourced paper to prove that supressor regulation was to stop poaching and inherently anti-poor.

Such paper would be very useful in the coming years as we roll back dumb gun laws.

-Gene

Connor P Price
04-17-2011, 10:34 AM
The conventional answer is correct here but there is something very important missing. We need someone to write a scholarly sourced paper to prove that supressor regulation was to stop poaching and inherently anti-poor.

Such paper would be very useful in the coming years as we roll back dumb gun laws.

-Gene

This sounds like something Dave Kopel would write.

hoffmang
04-17-2011, 10:37 AM
This sounds like something Dave Kopel would write.

The best way to get this done would be for someone who is currently in school to make a commitment to the cause and do the real hard leg/library/archive work. Then potentially find a co-author who is well known to help it find a good journal.

That sort of thing is critical to being able to make silencers common.

-Gene

Connor P Price
04-17-2011, 11:56 AM
The best way to get this done would be for someone who is currently in school to make a commitment to the cause and do the real hard leg/library/archive work. Then potentially find a co-author who is well known to help it find a good journal.

That sort of thing is critical to being able to make silencers common.

-Gene

I'll be starting law school two years from August after a year off from school...

bussda
04-17-2011, 11:58 AM
A possibly good source for starting research http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf .

glockwise2000
04-17-2011, 6:36 PM
If suppressors were made illegal to stop poaching, then why weren't bows and arrows made illegal.

Now calm down. Don't give the Fing government an idea.

Uxi
04-17-2011, 7:06 PM
Outright ban of any weapon would run straight into the 2nd Amendment. Look at the NFA... they didn't outright ban anything. They knew they would get overturned by the courts, so just tried to make it prohibitive with the $200 (1934) ATF stamp, meaning only the rich could afford the weapons in certain categories. The Hughes Amendment was defeated when it was voted outright (despite some shenanigans from Rangel, but slipped back into on conference IIRC).

HondaMasterTech
04-17-2011, 8:04 PM
The 10 round magazine limit was passed to keep criminals from suffering from carpel-tunnel syndrome due to the repedetive stress injuries of firing more than 10 rounds at a time without a break.

N6ATF
04-17-2011, 11:17 PM
I thought it was passed to keep criminals from going on the endangered list and eventually extinct from lead poisoning.

swilson
04-18-2011, 12:08 AM
More importantly, you violate the law if you DONT have a muffler for your car. But you violate the law if you DO have one for your gun. Something much more capable of damaging your hearing.

Exactly! If I'm going to be barred for supressing my guns in all fairness I'd like to also be barred from supressing my truck... I have no problem driving my Silverado with straight pipes. Then everyone will be aware of when I'm shooting my deadly guns, and equally aware of my even more deadly vehicle.

erikdjs
04-18-2011, 2:55 AM
Because they cause blood in the streets! :willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

Patrick-2
04-18-2011, 4:18 AM
Seems to me with the public perception that silencers trully make guns whisper quite that we could get sound suppressors that still keep guns above a certain decible level exempted from the NFA.



I have a number of suppressors. The cut-off line for "safe" is about 140 decibels. That is still loud enough to cause pain - the "safe" part is OSHA saying that a short exposure at that level will not necessarily cause permanent damage. But it might. The next cut-off is 125 decibels, where it is generally accepted that pain goes away. But even there, repeated exposure will cause hearing loss.

All of my cans will drop the blast below 140, depending on conditions (barrel length, ammo, even humidity of the air). I have one combo that will drop the blast at/below 125: a 9mm Glock 19 and an Osprey 9 shooting sub-sonic Fiocchi FMJ rounds. It is as hearing safe as anything else I have and it cannot be heard more than 100 foot away. Still, I wear plugs when shooting it.

The problem with any regulation regarding the "silencing level" of a can is that it is all dependent upon conditional variables: ammo, barrel, weather, etc.

Suppressors are safety devices, plain and simple. They reduce noise (obviously) and essentially neuter blast effects from powder and flash. This helps in some fire-prone areas.

I have not yet met a practical suppressor capable of reducing noise to a level inaudible to a nearby target. Long range rifles are the exception, here. It is possible to hit a target with a LR suppressed .308 such that at some range (several hundred yards) you will not hear the report.

We're talking edge cases.

Hunt
04-18-2011, 6:04 AM
hes going to get a throw away gun and a home-grown silencer and commit a crime.
does the government understand that law abiding citizens usually abide by the law?
sure why not? Prohibition works and it is very sustainable.

JagerTroop
04-18-2011, 7:52 AM
The best way to get this done would be for someone who is currently in school to make a commitment to the cause and do the real hard leg/library/archive work. Then potentially find a co-author who is well known to help it find a good journal.

That sort of thing is critical to being able to make silencers common.

-Gene

I'll be starting law school two years from August after a year off from school...

I'm sure Gene is thinking more along the lines of ASAFP. :p

scarville
04-18-2011, 7:57 AM
Even a suppressed 22 with standard velocity ammunition generates a maximum SPL around 120 dB.

http://silencertalk.com/results.htm

daveinwoodland
04-18-2011, 8:10 AM
Some countries actually require shooters to use supressors to keep noise under control. Go figure.

yellowfin
04-18-2011, 8:34 AM
The best way to get this done would be for someone who is currently in school to make a commitment to the cause and do the real hard leg/library/archive work. Then potentially find a co-author who is well known to help it find a good journal.To help a bit, it appears the NFA was originally named HR 9066, heard by the House Ways and Means Committee on April 16, 18, and May 14, 15, 16, in 1934. So that's the 73rd Congress, 2nd session for the records to be searched.

A shopping list for our researcher:

1. Income and population demographic figures for US citizens 1929-1935 to see how many people were affected by price changes, what $200 meant at the time, etc.
2. Meat prices in 1928-1935 to show what the price changes were as to make meat more unaffordable and thus the incentive for poaching.
3. Meat price and supply regulations enacted under the New Deal, 1930-1938. (Not only ones in place @ the time of NFA, but ones they were intending.)
4. Known common firearm prices in that time frame, plus price of silencer (as known then) -- commonly found in catalogs of the time

A possibly good source for starting research http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf .Ah yes, a very good paper but unfortunately having run into the same problem of not having found much discussion on the addition of silencers to the NFA. A more informative read that has lots more sources to cite is "The Peculiar Story of US v. Miller" by Brian L Frye. http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_lib erty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

Curtis
04-18-2011, 8:36 AM
A possibly good source for starting research http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf .

I enjoyed reading this write up. I would like to do the write up...but I fear that I fall short of time and skill.

Connor P Price
04-18-2011, 10:09 AM
I'm sure Gene is thinking more along the lines of ASAFP. :p

Considering the current legal and political climate I don't think that the NFA is something that will be attacked in the courts incredibly soon. A few years out actually seems like a pretty reasonable time horizon to me.

In any event, I'm used to being a full time student on top of having a full time job in addition to some responsibilities as treasurer of my rifle club. A year off of school will give me a lot of free time so I may as well find a way to be useful to the cause. This may not be it, but it will be something.

Durasteel
04-18-2011, 11:31 AM
Washington state recently passed a law that allows them to use suppressors, let's hope we can do the same for California in the coming years! :D

MoBait
04-18-2011, 6:58 PM
When will they ban hybrids? I have almost been struck twice walking threw a parking lot. I wonder how many millions of people are killed in parking lots each day by the wreckless and dangerous people operating these evil, silent machines.

hoffmang
04-18-2011, 8:31 PM
I'm sure Gene is thinking more along the lines of ASAFP. :p

This stuff is 4 to 6 years out minimum. The most vulnerable NFA items are suppressors and SBRs for a host of reasons.

-Gene

rero360
04-18-2011, 8:50 PM
I know that I'm not a professional writer, I've never been particularly great at written communication but if we were to establish a group to tackle this I would be willing to offer my services in research and other prep work.

NorCalAthlete
04-19-2011, 12:52 AM
Maybe we should start calling them mufflers, seeing as how car mufflers are a popular restriction.

+1 lol

Uxi
04-19-2011, 9:11 AM
Would seem almost easier to get Congress to change the NFA and allow suppressors. SBR's I doubt we'd get as much traction with, but would be nice. But we'd still have 12520 against us, though, right?

ubet
04-19-2011, 12:53 PM
Far as california is concerned, it might be cheaper to move out of state if you want a suppressor.

mrjones98
04-19-2011, 2:10 PM
1. Income and population demographic figures for US citizens 1929-1935 to see how many people were affected by price changes, what $200 meant at the time, etc.

You could buy a house with monthly payments of $15 to $75 in 1926...

http://books.google.com/books?id=6ppzZHHYiaYC&lpg=PP1&dq=inauthor%3A%22Sears%2C%20Roebuck%20and%20Compan y%22&pg=PP10#v=onepage&q&f=false

mdimeo
04-19-2011, 4:54 PM
there is literature around that claims the GCA of 1934 was designed purely as a revenue generating device....

It was written as a tax law to get around the 2nd amendment, because the modern perversion of the commerce clause hadn't been invented yet. Nobody expected to make much revenue from it.

Heck, back in those days if Congress wanted to ban something it needed a constitutional amendment to give it the power. Sigh.

Bhobbs
04-19-2011, 5:24 PM
You could buy a house with monthly payments of $15 to $75 in 1926...

http://books.google.com/books?id=6ppzZHHYiaYC&lpg=PP1&dq=inauthor%3A%22Sears%2C%20Roebuck%20and%20Compan y%22&pg=PP10#v=onepage&q&f=false

So the stamp alone is a house payment for a year during that time?

BoxesOfLiberty
04-19-2011, 6:12 PM
... a "bad person" wants to commit a crime.
is this "bad guy" going to go down to his local gunshop buy an M9 or AR15 legally fill out an NFA FORM 4 wait 3 months for his background check to clear. pick up his suppressor then go out and commit a crime?

HELL NO!

hes going to get a throw away gun and a home-grown silencer and commit a crime...

I agree that criminals, deranged persons, and evil-doers don't usually seem to be overly concerned with the law, but I'm not sure they are slapping together DIY cans left and right, either.

I have never heard of an ad hoc suppressor (or any other suppressor) being used in a crime outside of hollywood and paperbacks from airport news stands.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm curious though, how often suppressors are used in crimes.

rero360
04-19-2011, 6:41 PM
I agree that criminals, deranged persons, and evil-doers don't usually seem to be overly concerned with the law, but I'm not sure they are slapping together DIY cans left and right, either.

I have never heard of an ad hoc suppressor (or any other suppressor) being used in a crime outside of hollywood and paperbacks from airport news stands.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm curious though, how often suppressors are used in crimes.

Well, one could argue that since it is illegal in of itself to build your own can without the proper approval, so therefor anytime someone were to build a can without the stamp and they actually use it, even if its to shoot out in the desert or what have you the illegal can has been used in the commission of a crime.

Now I understand what you are saying, using a stampless can on a gun to commit another crim like a bank robbery or murder, its probably pretty rare, my guess limited to mafia hits and similar assassinations. A suppressed .22 pistol with sub sonics would work very well for that.

Uxi
04-19-2011, 6:50 PM
It was written as a tax law to get around the 2nd amendment, because the modern perversion of the commerce clause hadn't been invented yet.


This was one of the first ones IIRC and uses the Commerce Clause. :barf:

atomicwedgy
04-19-2011, 8:06 PM
not to ask if it has already been answered, but is there a "legal" level of suppression? Ive seen fake cans. Who is to say that they do not suppress the sound from the firing? at what point would it become illegal?

AJAX22
04-19-2011, 8:07 PM
This stuff is 4 to 6 years out minimum. The most vulnerable NFA items are suppressors and SBRs for a host of reasons.

-Gene

SBR's were added as an afterthought (while they were still considering pistols)

A lot of the reasoning/thought process can be seen in the NFA debates/discussion transcripts

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=380085

not sure if Silencers are in that section, but I'll read up on it.

Connor P Price
04-19-2011, 8:27 PM
not to ask if it has already been answered, but is there a "legal" level of suppression? Ive seen fake cans. Who is to say that they do not suppress the sound from the firing? at what point would it become illegal?

If it reduces the report of the shot at all its a silencer. So if one of those fake cans reduces the sound by any measurable amount at all then its illegal.

N6ATF
04-19-2011, 8:32 PM
What if it redirects the gases and makes it sound like a train horn at the same dB level?

Scott Connors
04-19-2011, 9:01 PM
If it reduces the report of the shot at all its a silencer. So if one of those fake cans reduces the sound by any measurable amount at all then its illegal.

What if it redirects the gases and makes it sound like a train horn at the same dB level?

ATF has successfully prosecuted incompetents whose homemade cans actually increased the sound signature of the firearm, since they were able to demonstrate that their intent was to lessen it. Even one dcb reduction will bring down a world of hurt upon you.

Connor P Price
04-19-2011, 9:18 PM
What if it redirects the gases and makes it sound like a train horn at the same dB level?

Interesting question

The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.[18 USCS 921]

By that definition I would tend to say it wouldn't be a silencer. However I would almost count on a conviction anyway. I would certainly not recommend that anyone try it.

ATF has successfully prosecuted incompetents whose homemade cans actually increased the sound signature of the firearm, since they were able to demonstrate that their intent was to lessen it. Even one dcb reduction will bring down a world of hurt upon you.

That is not a world of hurt that I would ever want to be on the receiving end of.

N6ATF
04-19-2011, 10:21 PM
That's fine. My intent is to make it sound like a train horn at or above the initial dB. Call it a noisemaker.

Connor P Price
04-19-2011, 10:29 PM
That's fine. My intent is to make it sound like a train horn at or above the initial dB. Call it a noisemaker.

If the specific intent were to increase the report of the firearm and that goal was realized I don't see how there would be a problem.

BoxesOfLiberty
04-19-2011, 11:57 PM
not to ask if it has already been answered, but is there a "legal" level of suppression? Ive seen fake cans. Who is to say that they do not suppress the sound from the firing? at what point would it become illegal?

That's an interesting question. By redirecting the gases (and to a lesser extent the shockwave), a compensator does attenuate the sound of a gunshot to some extent.

The Y-Comp type for instance, makes the shot significantly quieter downrange, with the tradeoff being that the shot seems louder from the shooter's perspective. This is not the intent of the design, but rather a side-effect of it. Nonetheless, I could see someone arguing that the sound is "diminished" (word used in 18 USC 921(a)(24) to define a silencer).

I wouldn't be surprised if simply fitting a longer barrel to a firearm might tend to diminish its report to some very limited extent. If so, then perhaps any barrel longer than the statutory minimum might technically be considered a silencer as well.

This does seem like low-hanging fruit.

jm838
04-20-2011, 12:02 AM
I agree that criminals, deranged persons, and evil-doers don't usually seem to be overly concerned with the law, but I'm not sure they are slapping together DIY cans left and right, either.

I have never heard of an ad hoc suppressor (or any other suppressor) being used in a crime outside of hollywood and paperbacks from airport news stands.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm curious though, how often suppressors are used in crimes.

I remember seeing some tv show (and before anyone says anything, yes, it was supposed to be factual) about a guy who used a suppressed handgun to kill senior citizens. He built his own can, and when he was arrested they recovered the original plans he drew up for it. They even rebuilt the thing to perform some ballistic tests to prove that he used it in the crimes. I remember something about it coming loose and deflecting rounds sideways, leaving odd ballistic patterns. In any case, I can't remember much else about the case (like the guy's name), so this might not be very helpful information, but it does demonstrate that criminals can and do circumvent even the NFA. I also found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Ewell. It is wikipedia, so I don't know if it's 100% factual, but according to that the perpetrator used a suppressed 9mm rifle in a triple-homicide. Just like the other case, the suppressor was homemade.

Once again, those who are willing to break the law do so regardless of the legislation, but I can't buy a suppressor to avoid deafening myself because it scares the politicians.

Patrick-2
04-20-2011, 5:01 AM
I saw Mark Walhberg use a 2 liter soda bottle, some duct tape and several pairs of wadded up panties from his adoring fans to completely silence a .308 rifle in the movie "Shooter".

So it must be true.

I bet the secret was the fabric of the underwear. Silk is apparently the secret bullet suppressor of the Gods.

mofugly13
04-20-2011, 5:37 AM
The panties must be soiled for maximum effectiveness...

Mute
04-20-2011, 7:15 AM
[CA doubletalk mode]Because only assassins use silencers[/CA doubletalk mode].

sepiid
04-20-2011, 8:08 AM
A usable hunting bow costs a lot more to make than a suppressor. It's also about 100 times harder to hit a deer with a bow than with a rifle.

first time shooting a bow ever was a few weeks ago,
i have to say hitting a deer size object at 40 yards was pretty easy.

but of course i have an understanding of the basic aiming concepts for a compound bow.

Getting the precision that i have with a rifle would be difficult at this stage of my use, but being able to consistently hit a basketball size spot at 40yds is a piece of cake.

they are not as difficult as many make them out to be.
they are a hell of a lot quieter than any suppressed firearm i have heard.

WeThePeople
04-20-2011, 3:19 PM
Does anyone really think poachers with suppressors were a problem in the early 1930s?

If you went back and looked for documented cases of arrests/convictions of poachers with suppressors, how many would you expect to find?

Want to bet that poaching was given as a reason because most people know "Poaching is bad, and if poachers use suppressors, then suppressors must be bad."

With a little research, you could probably find out that there were almost no suppressors manufactured back then. Yes, you could make a homemade version, but how good would that have been?

Like a lot of official government history, poaching with suppressors was probably a fabrication.

WeThePeople
04-20-2011, 3:27 PM
Let's separate CA from Federal NFA law.

Since suppressors are "allowed" by the Fed under NFA, why can't we have them in CA? We don't need to invalidate NFA just to get suppressors in CA. We should just pay $200 just like the citizens of about 30 other states.

Why can't we sue to get our Federal rights in CA?

hoffmang
04-20-2011, 8:48 PM
Does anyone really think poachers with suppressors were a problem in the early 1930s?


Don't forget the depression and the dustbowl. Things were pretty bad and it wouldn't surprise me at all. The poaching in question here isn't taking illegal hunting animals - it was taking a cow off a ranch.

In the category of one of the few things the Obama administration is doing for gun owners, $200 in 1934 is the equivalent of $3200 today. Inflation is lowering the cost of silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and FA in free states!

-Gene

Bhobbs
04-20-2011, 9:11 PM
Is the CA ban on NFA items even on the radar right now?

hoffmang
04-20-2011, 11:23 PM
Is the CA ban on NFA items even on the radar right now?

Not yet.

-Gene

oni.dori
04-21-2011, 12:02 AM
Not yet.

-Gene

Exactly, we currently have "bigger fish" to fry first to even be able to consider doing that. It is like a staircase, you must take it one step at a time to successfully reach your goal.

rero360
04-21-2011, 8:13 AM
That is true, however there's also nothing wrong with having people start doing the foot work now, the research and all that. That will make everything that much easier for the main legal push once the time comes, same with everything else.

yellowfin
04-21-2011, 8:32 AM
Remington is already doing a lot of legwork by putting Advanced Armament ads in regular gun related publications and pushing the .300 Blackout (standardized .300 Whisper) as a standard mainstream rifle caliber.

Bhobbs
04-21-2011, 9:06 AM
Remington is already doing a lot of legwork by putting Advanced Armament ads in regular gun related publications and pushing the .300 Blackout (standardized .300 Whisper) as a standard mainstream rifle caliber.

They also sell a 700 with the barrel profiled and threaded for a suppressor.

12voltguy
04-21-2011, 9:49 AM
Is the CA ban on NFA items even on the radar right now?

Not yet.

-Gene

Exactly, we currently have "bigger fish" to fry first to even be able to consider doing that. It is like a staircase, you must take it one step at a time to successfully reach your goal.

I'm 46
what are odds this happens in my lifetime:eek::chris:

Scott Connors
04-21-2011, 11:24 AM
I saw Mark Walhberg use a 2 liter soda bottle, some duct tape and several pairs of wadded up panties from his adoring fans to completely silence a .308 rifle in the movie "Shooter".

So it must be true.

I bet the secret was the fabric of the underwear. Silk is apparently the secret bullet suppressor of the Gods.

The 2 liter soda bottle suppressor worked years ago, until the soft drink manufacturers lessened the thickness of the bottom of the bottles. I never did it, but I witnessed others do so back in the early 1980s.

Oh, and let's not forget that the IRA was known for using potatoes as a field-expedient suppressor. No joke.

yellowfin
04-21-2011, 11:44 AM
Oh, and let's not forget that the IRA was known for using potatoes as a field-expedient suppressor. No joke.That actually sounds like it most probably was a joke that someone mistook as serious and passed it around as an anecdotal account of a witnessed act.

woodey
04-21-2011, 3:23 PM
I remember seeing some tv show (and before anyone says anything, yes, it was supposed to be factual) about a guy who used a suppressed handgun to kill senior citizens. He built his own can, and when he was arrested they recovered the original plans he drew up for it. They even rebuilt the thing to perform some ballistic tests to prove that he used it in the crimes. I remember something about it coming loose and deflecting rounds sideways, leaving odd ballistic patterns.


I saw the same show but I was thinking what is there legal exemption to manufacturing a sliencer? Just because your LEO you can make NFA items if you like??

yellowfin
04-21-2011, 3:32 PM
You can make NFA items yourself as an everyday individual by paying $200 each and filing a Form 1, or as a business by getting an 02 or 07 FFL and paying $500 a year (possibly plus ITAR fee of ~$2000).

12voltguy
04-21-2011, 3:37 PM
Originally Posted by Patrick-2
I saw Mark Walhberg use a 2 liter soda bottle, some duct tape and several pairs of wadded up panties from his adoring fans to completely silence a .308 rifle in the movie "Shooter".

So it must be true.

I bet the secret was the fabric of the underwear. Silk is apparently the secret bullet suppressor of the Gods.
it was a .22

12voltguy
04-21-2011, 3:38 PM
You can make NFA items yourself as an everyday individual by paying $200 each and filing a Form 1, or as a business by getting an 02 or 07 FFL and paying $500 a year (possibly plus ITAR fee of ~$2000).

there is at least 1 dealer here in CA on calguns hat makes supperssoprs, I belive it cost him at least $2500 a year or more

oni.dori
04-21-2011, 4:38 PM
That is true, however there's also nothing wrong with having people start doing the foot work now, the research and all that. That will make everything that much easier for the main legal push once the time comes, same with everything else.

I couldn't agree more, and would liken that to keeping an eye on the stairs above you as you ascend, so that you can plan for any upcoming obstacles you may face in the near future.

hoffmang
04-21-2011, 8:09 PM
I'm 46
what are odds this happens in my lifetime:eek::chris:

If you expect to hit average life expectancy I think you'll own a supressor in California before you die.

-Gene