Trump / HPA

[10-Ring]

1 hour ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

I won't buy a single silencer but what I will do is build a bunch. A person can buy every part and screw everything together, only took you need is a drill. 

Gordon, what is or looking like regarding the legalities of someone like yourself building and selling suppressors?  I'd like one and you would be my first choice as a builder.

[Ronald_55]

2 hours ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

I won't buy a single silencer but what I will do is build a bunch. A person can buy every part and screw everything together, only took you need is a drill. 

Yesh and even now building one is legal, you just need the right papers and a serial number before assembling.  If the paperwork goes out the window, I will build one asap. Forget $1000 for one, I could put it together for $100 or less. And any good machine shop could start cranking them out.

[Oh Shoot]

2 hours ago, 10-Ring said:

Gordon, what is or looking like regarding the legalities of someone like yourself building and selling suppressors?...

As per current version of HPA, would still need type 07 manufacturing FFL, just no longer the Class 2 SOT.

- OS

Edited December 25, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

On 12/24/2016 at 7:02 PM, 10-Ring said:

Gordon, what is or looking like regarding the legalities of someone like yourself building and selling suppressors?  I'd like one and you would be my first choice as a builder.

I would not be able to make them with the intent to resell or maje them for sineone else. But if I made one and later decided to sell it that would be legal although I never would.

It is perfectly legal for me to sell the silencers I have already registered to make and have made for myself. Being home made, both firearms and silencers, doesn't preclude them from being sold later on. Anyone legally able to possess the firearm can legally make that firearm for themselves. They can later sell it so long as the intent was not to resell when it was made. I know intent is hard to prove but if you are making and selling dozens a year the intent is pretty clear. 

The way I have interpreted everything I have read is it will be no different than me making a firearm for myself. I will be able to legally make them for myself and I will later be able to sell them but I cannot make them for someobe else or with the intent to sell them.  

And just so this is as clear as I can be, I will NEVER make any silencers or firearms for anyone else, ever, without being able to do so legally and right now it is not legal for me to do so. I will never engage in ANY activity that could result in my arrest. 

Today I was looking into becoming a manufacturer ahead of the HPA and there is no way I could justify the cost needed to be able to legally manufacture firearms and silencers. The cost for the licenses is cheap, $650, but the ITAR is what costs so much. Anyone manufacturing "weapons of war" or "articles of defense", even if you do not export, are supposed to pay the ITAR fee which is over $2,000 a year. Even firearms that will never be in the hands of our military can, and often do, fall under the ITAR. You don't have to pay the ITAR if you submit design specifications, including schematics, and they determine that it is not a defense article. You must do that for each individual item you intend to sell. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

On 12/24/2016 at 7:51 PM, Ronald_55 said:

Yesh and even now building one is legal, you just need the right papers and a serial number before assembling.  If the paperwork goes out the window, I will build one asap. Forget $1000 for one, I could put it together for $100 or less. And any good machine shop could start cranking them out.

Yes but that machine shop MUST be a licensed manufacturer even if HPA passes. And they will not be able to compete with silencer manufacturers already in business. The biggest reason why is baffle designs are patented so they either have to spend a ton on research to design their own, license the design or risk being sued for patent infringement. And baffle designs are guarded ferociously by those who hold the patent. 

One could build a silencer for under $20 in materials and it will be decent. 

[Oh Shoot]

13 hours ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

..The cost for the licenses is cheap, $650, but the ITAR is what costs so much. ...the ITAR fee which is over $2,000 a year.

Well, really, $3k/ year is only prohibitive to small "hobby" type output. Think bigger!

- OS

[mikegideon]

34 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Well, really, $3k/ year is only prohibitive to small "hobby" type output. Think bigger!

- OS

Dolomite Industries! Get some train tracks up to your back door.  

[FreedomGunCo]

As an 07/02, I think this has a high probability to pass, but it will be a while.  Nothing in .gov is fast, and there are bigger fish to fry.  It could get tagged onto something else though. 

[btq96r]

Washington Post posted an article on this.  Nothing groundbreaking, though I didn't know the Congressman who introduced it retired. No big deal, someone else can just dust it off and start over since the new Congress is in session.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.81fa810f6511

 

[300winmag]

I could see this attached to some type of other legislation, like taxes, since NFA is a tax.  You also wouldn't need 60 votes in the Senate because it can be attached to a budgetary bill.

I honestly would see silencers less regulated before I would see nationwide reciprocity.  It's my understanding you'd need 60 votes in the Senate for anything related to the Gun Control Act.  LEOSA is a part of the federal GCA and needed 60 in the Senate.  I just don't see enough democrats voting for reciprocity in the senate to get the required votes.

[btq96r]

On 1/8/2017 at 0:12 AM, 300winmag said:

I just don't see enough democrats voting for reciprocity in the senate to get the required votes.

With a few "red state" Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2018, there is an outside chance they would at least not vote against a cloture motion, which would then bring it up for a straight up or down vote only needing 51 votes, or 50+the VP to pass.

[Capbyrd]

ASA posted that the bill has been reintroduced.  

[btq96r]

10 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

ASA posted that the bill has been reintroduced.  

H.R.367 - To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21

 

The full text will come as it gets uploaded to the site.  The House alone almost hit almost 400 bills filed in just a week since the new Congress convened, so they'll understandably need a few days to update the website.

[Fourtyfive]

http://www.gunowners.org/alert01102017.htm

[Wingshooter]

This will pass about the same day I get my stamps 

 

I hope it passes ASAP

[Ronald_55]

If it passes, as discussed before, I think prices will go up first since demand will overwhelm supply. If for no other reason that the buyers that buy all they can get to resell. At some point production supply will catch up and prices should fall to hopefully well below the current cost. Not sure how long that will take though.

[rugerla1]

15 minutes ago, Wingshooter said:

This will pass about the same day I get my stamps 

 

I hope it passes ASAP

I'm waiting on one too and that's my luck as well. But I hope it passes so I can add to the safe! 

[jonnnyboy]

What does the "Hearing Protection Act" mean to those who might want to build their own suppressors? 

[Omega]

5 minutes ago, jonnnyboy said:

What does the "Hearing Protection Act" mean to those who might want to build their own suppressors? 

I figure if they are removed from the NFA then they would possibly be like the 80% lowers, or 100% if you have the skills.  Heck if you want to push your luck, TN allows you to make them if they are kept in TN.

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, jonnnyboy said:

What does the "Hearing Protection Act" mean to those who might want to build their own suppressors? 

Same as any other firearm, a per the original version, dunno if any changes in this one.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

I figure if they are removed from the NFA then they would possibly be like the 80% lowers, or 100% if you have the skills.  Heck if you want to push your luck, TN allows you to make them if they are kept in TN.

Ever notice they never changed the prohibited weapons statute to even mention that as an exception? So you have one statute that says you can't possess one without NFA approval and one that says you can.

Typical sloppy lawmaking.

- OS

[Omega]

7 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Ever notice they never changed the prohibited weapons statute to even mention that as an exception? So you have one statute that says you can't possess one without NFA approval and one that says you can.

Typical sloppy lawmaking.

- OS

Yea, hopefully the HPA will pass and supersede it.  They always leave you in a catch 22.

[Dolomite_supafly]

For pricing after things settle down all you have to do is look overseas. A budget silencer is under $50 and top of the line silencers are under $500. Can you imagine if China can import them? You will see 22 silencers for under $40.

Take a look to see how low they will probably go.

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Moderators-for-sale/A/Accessories

 

I am excited to hopefully be able to try some of the unique designs I have read about that people in other countries are coming up with. Silencers, for the most part, are the same as they were 100 years ago but I believe once a person can legally make them without registration we will see some pretty big advancements in the industry pretty quickly.

They will become more disposable and when that happens the prices will start to really drop. Imagine a plastic 22 can that you could buy for $10. At that price who cares if it falls apart after 500 rounds. And if I were a betting person I bet a tube made out of plastic or polymer will be quieter than one made out of steel, titanium and maybe even aluminum.

One can use less durable materials to keep costs down. And something else, the materials actually used to make the baffles have an impact on sound suppression. I can hear a difference when I add a cover to my 30 caliber can and that is because it uses a .035" tube. So without the cover you hear a "tink" from the gasses hitting the thin outer tube. So I imagine once we are able to build them for testing we will see some other materials that will make them even more quieter.  

 

 

[JAB]

On 11/12/2016 at 8:20 PM, btq96r said:

Meh...stop thinking in terms of membership numbers. 

NRA needs members (private and industry) to keep funding their operations and lifestyle standards...in turn, conservative politicians, or center-left politicians in gun friendly areas, need the NRA to help fund their campaigns and put up ad's in their media markets, along with the endorsement that they would be scared to let go to a primary challenger.   The Democrats have no venue to stop things aside from a filibuster in the Senate.  Tuck gun stuff into other bills, spending authorizations (especially things that constrain the ATF), and it can pass easy enough.  Hell, Democrats might even be okay with it passing so they can fund raise off of it.

Some social media targeting, a few interviews by the NRA heads on key venues...both dropping some not so subtle hints that the NRA expects a Republican Congress, the Judiciary Committees especially, to action the 2A part of the MAGA plan.

Look at this as a behind the scenes political issue and a road to results starts to form.

Responding specifically to the underlined portion of your quote I think that the reality is that groups which make their living fighting against anti-gun laws don't really want all such laws to go away for the same reason you state that some Democrats might be okay with some pro-gun rights legislation - because such laws are their best fund raising tools.  In other words, if pro-rights groups get too much done then they will have destroyed the specter of 'losing your gun rights', put themselves out of a job (or at least reduced the perceived need for them to be so sizeable) and effectively killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.  I'm not saying that such groups don't do good things for gun owners.  I am just saying that they have just as much stake in keeping their supporters worried as liberals have in keeping the antis stirred up so they probably wouldn't want to do too much too fast even if they could.

As to the main topic, I have personally never really had that much interest in owning anything NFA because of the funds and the red tape and jumping through hoops involved.  Specifically speaking of suppressors I haven't had much interest due to not only the stamp and hassle of owning the suppressor, itself, but also because I don't want to fool with the expense of having any of my pistols set up to run one (threaded barrels, etc.)  However, if suppressors were legal and readily available to the point that some major manufacturers could set up combo deals - for instance, if I went to buy a Ruger MK whatever or other, new .22 pistol and it was available as a set with a factory threaded barrel and a suppressor all in the same box for maybe $75 or $100 more or so above the price of the base model pistol alone then I'd likely opt for the combo.  Further, I personally think that would be the way a manufacturer could get an edge (initially) over similar pistols from competitors (until those competitors started offering similar packages) and I also think that such would be the way that a whole lot of suppressors would be sold in a hypothetical world without the current restrictions.

Edited January 11, 2017 by JAB

[btq96r]

2 minutes ago, JAB said:

Responding specifically to the underlined portion of your quote I think that the reality is that groups which make their living fighting against anti-gun laws don't really want all such laws to go away for the same reason you state that some Democrats might be okay with some pro-gun rights legislation.  In other words, if pro-rights groups get too much done then they will have destroyed the specter of 'losing your gun rights', put themselves out of a job (or at least reduced the perceived need for them to be so sizeable) and effectively killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.  I'm not saying that such groups don't do good things for gun owners.  I am just saying that they have just as much stake in keeping their supporters worried as liberals have in keeping the antis stirred up.

Yup.  With a fully in control Republican Congress and a President-elect who ran on one of the most pro-gun platforms in modern history, there is zero excuse material to not see a lot of very good things come from Washington regarding gun rights.  We'll see how much actually gets done before sometime around June or July of next year, which is when Congress will take a nice fat break to tend to their own re-election matters.  If they don't have results to show, and the 2A orgs aren't supporting primary candidates, we'll know the deal.