Rule 41P

[John Wells]

Just a little update from the good people at American Silencer Association:

 

http://americansilencerassociation.com/an-update-on-41p/

[KOM2]

I noticed it in one of the comments, but why are suppressors Class 3 anyway? I guess the same argument could be made for SBR.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I wish silencers were unregulated. If they were our military would benefit from the advances made by individuals. I have read a lot of different theories about how to make them better but individuals can't afford to experiment and most companies don't want to hear from individuals about their ideas.

And another thing is cost would go down. In Countries where silencers are unregulated silencers sell for 1/10 of what they do here. I would buy one for every gun I own if it didn't cost me $200, plus the cost of the can, for each one.

[Luke E.]

I wish silencers were unregulated. If they were our military would benefit from the advances made by individuals. I have read a lot of different theories about how to make them better but individuals can't afford to experiment and most companies don't want to hear from individuals about their ideas.

And another thing is cost would go down. In Countries where silencers are unregulated silencers sell for 1/10 of what they do here. I would buy one for every gun I own if it didn't cost me $200, plus the cost of the can, for each one.

 

 My almost brother in law is Irish and he said he can go buy a can for his rifle just as easily as he could buy a can of Coke. Of course they can pretty much only own bolt action rifles and pump shotguns and even then they have to provide the police with a reason for them to "need" one as well as the police having approve that reason so I think I much prefer it to be the way it is here. Sure would be nice to have the best of both worlds though.

[John Wells]

I'd settle for being able to pay the tax and buy a suppressor at any stocking store with an instant background check.  Even a 10 day waiting period would be less offensive than the 9 months I'm sitting at right now.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think if they continue to regulate certain NFA items there should be some sort of frequent flyer program. Initially you go through an extensive background. After that you fill out a form that asks you disqualifying questions. If you lie on the form you could be charged criminally for lying on the form as well as possession of an illegal NFA item.

Personally nothing should be regulated, only regulate who can own them. If you are allowed to own a single shot 22 you should be allowed to own a MG, a tank or a fighter jet if you want to. If you can't own that 22 because you are violent or insane then you should not be allowed to own any type of firearm.

[tnguy]

All this stuff should have sunset provisions where it goes back to being fully legal anyway (not that it should be restricted in the first place but let's not make screw-ups permanent).

[RED333]

Personally nothing should be regulated, only regulate who can own them. If you are allowed to own a single shot 22 you should be allowed to own a MG, a tank or a fighter jet if you want to. If you can't own that 22 because you are violent or insane then you should not be allowed to own any type of firearm.

This times 1000

The 2nd does not define what "ARMs" are.

All gun laws are unjust as to what arms can be owned.

[Luke E.]

I want to build my own can but I just can't get my head wrapped around me sending off paperwork and cash and wait damn near a year just to walk out there and use my equipment to turn my material into something I want to use in a legal manner. I guess this thought pattern translates into other things besides guns such as personally owned private property and having to go get permission to build a new shop or even a friggen outhouse.

[Dolomite_supafly]

And then those who are not allowed are the ones who are violent. Forget misdemeanor or felony distinction. It should be violent vs non-violent. If a person has proven to be violent, regardless if the charge is only a misdemeanor, they should be barred from owning firearms. Now if a person is a felon, but non-violent, they should be allowed to own a firearm.

 

Honestly the $200 isn't that bad but it should not be regulated anyways.

 

I know some people who would not buy unless they could walk out with it and to those I say suppressors are well worth the wait. Everything else isn't really worth the wait to me. I am waiting to SBR my AR but that is only because it will have a suppressor added to the barrel. I spent 10 years debating on buying or building but when I finally took that first shot with my suppressor I realized I should have jumped on it years earlier. There is nothing more satisfying that shooting a super quiet subsonic bullet at steel. Especially if the target is at 100+ yards. There is something mesmerizing about "poof", as the bullet fires, then a few seconds later you hear the "tink" of the bullet hitting the target. I have shot thousands of suppressed rounds and it still makes me giggle like a school boy after getting his first kiss.

 

Then there is the practical use of a suppressor. I have used mine off the range all the time. Being able to shoot at 2am without anyone the wiser is a great thing to be able to do.

 

My Form 1 can for my 300 BlackoutWhisper will be HUGE. It will be bigger than anything out there right now and that is because I want it to be as quiet as humanly possible. I am hoping to have it slingshot quiet. My AR will be tuned to barely cycle with one load so it is as quiet as possible. But when I really want quiet I will attach the suppressor to either my bolt gun or my Contender in 300 Whisper.

[whitewolf001]

I noticed it in one of the comments, but why are suppressors Class 3 anyway? I guess the same argument could be made for SBR.

Because they are demonized by the right and left arms of the progressives, Hollywood and the media respectively. Idiocy to the maximum and I agree 110% with Dolomite, if you can own a .22, you can own anything if you have the money. Technically I can own a Russian BTR-80 but I don't have $80k to throw at it. :p

[tnguy]

I want to build my own can but I just can't get my head wrapped around me sending off paperwork and cash and wait damn near a year just to walk out there and use my equipment to turn my material into something I want to use in a legal manner. I guess this thought pattern translates into other things besides guns such as personally owned private property and having to go get permission to build a new shop or even a friggen outhouse.

 

 

Concealed is concealed.

 

Silent is silent.

 

(J/K. Don't do anything illegal and yes, suppressed is not silent.)

[tnguy]

So it sounds like if one might possibly be considering a supressor at some point in the future, it would be worth getting the paperwork in right away?

Edited January 16, 2014 by tnguy

[midtennchip]

Just a little update from the good people at American Silencer Association:
 
http://americansilencerassociation.com/an-update-on-41p/

To be honest, I am not sure if the ATF gave them some bad information or they just made an assumption regarding the need to respond to each comment. That is not required. The basic rule making process is explained in the document below, but there is no requirement to respond to each individual comment in writing. Just a requirement to take the comments into consideration.

I worked on comments for tax law issues numerous times over the years and have never received a direct response to the comment from the issuing agency. Like everyone else, I hope the ATF figures out its problems, but I get perplexed with all the misinformation going around. Maybe the information came directly from the ATF people, but I highly doubt the ATF will respond individually to all 8,500 comments.

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

[Guest StorminMormon]

I know this is going to be unpopular but, where exactly in the 2A does it mention that the 2nd only applies to "non-violent" citizens? I can, and have been proven at times to be violent, and anyone who has ever gotten into a playground scuffle, stood up to a bully, or defended themselves or a loved one has shown to be violent. What use is a right to own and bear arms if one has no propensity to use them?

And then those who are not allowed are the ones who are violent. Forget misdemeanor or felony distinction. It should be violent vs non-violent. If a person has proven to be violent, regardless if the charge is only a misdemeanor, they should be barred from owning firearms. Now if a person is a felon, but non-violent, they should be allowed to own a firearm.

 

Honestly the $200 isn't that bad but it should not be regulated anyways.

 

I know some people who would not buy unless they could walk out with it and to those I say suppressors are well worth the wait. Everything else isn't really worth the wait to me. I am waiting to SBR my AR but that is only because it will have a suppressor added to the barrel. I spent 10 years debating on buying or building but when I finally took that first shot with my suppressor I realized I should have jumped on it years earlier. There is nothing more satisfying that shooting a super quiet subsonic bullet at steel. Especially if the target is at 100+ yards. There is something mesmerizing about "poof", as the bullet fires, then a few seconds later you hear the "tink" of the bullet hitting the target. I have shot thousands of suppressed rounds and it still makes me giggle like a school boy after getting his first kiss.

 

Then there is the practical use of a suppressor. I have used mine off the range all the time. Being able to shoot at 2am without anyone the wiser is a great thing to be able to do.

 

My Form 1 can for my 300 BlackoutWhisper will be HUGE. It will be bigger than anything out there right now and that is because I want it to be as quiet as humanly possible. I am hoping to have it slingshot quiet. My AR will be tuned to barely cycle with one load so it is as quiet as possible. But when I really want quiet I will attach the suppressor to either my bolt gun or my Contender in 300 Whisper.

[Dolomite_supafly]

You know what I am talking about, I am not talking about instances where you cite. I am talking about violent criminals, as in people who have been convicted or plead guilty to a violent crime. Those people should never be allowed to own a firearm. There are consequences for committing crimes, some are lifelong. And I don't care if they have done their time and are free they should still never be allowed to own a firearm.

[tnguy]

OTOH, I thought we'd established that laws don't prevent bad guys from having guns.

 

Personally, my thought is that if you can't trust someone with a gun, you probably can't trust them on the street. But the legal system is what it is I guess.

[Guest StorminMormon]

I swear, I am not trying to troll or argue for the sake of argument. However,  in regards to the two sentences that I have made bold below :

You know what I am talking about, I am not talking about instances where you cite. I am talking about violent criminals, as in people who have been convicted or plead guilty to a violent crime. Those people should never be allowed to own a firearm. There are consequences for committing crimes, some are lifelong. And I don't care if they have done their time and are free they should still never be allowed to own a firearm.

 

In my interpretation of the Bill of Rights; your opinion, the opinion of the general public, nor even precedent set by the Supreme Court of these United States has no bearing on a GOD given right that is merely recognized as such by said document.

Edited February 9, 2014 by StorminMormon

[Guest StorminMormon]

OTOH, I thought we'd established that laws don't prevent bad guys from having guns.

 

Personally, my thought is that if you can't trust someone with a gun, you probably can't trust them on the street. But the legal system is what it is I guess.

 To me it's akin to enacting magazine/assaultweapons bans to prevent mass shootings. Bad people are going to do bad things, and when they do bring down the full fury of justice upon them. But until then, laws, rules, and regulations intent on "preventing" crime accomplish only one thing: Limiting the freedom of those so inclined to abide them.

[TMF]

Losing your rights is part of the punishment for committing a felony. You lose your freedom for a while, you lose other rights permanently. Everyone who commits a felony knows what the punishment may be. Sorry, you want to play the game you're gonna pay the consequences. We can debate on whether we should change the law based on the type of felony committed, but I simply don't buy the Constitutional argument. If people are entitled to life and liberty we wouldn't be able to imprison or execute them when the are convicted of a crime.

Personally, I don't see an issue with changing the restriction to violent criminals only, but then again, I also believe felons convicted of violent crimes such as rape, murder, attempted murder or unprovoked assaults resulting in permanent disability to the victim should be put to death. But that is my personal belief, not the belief of society as a whole. Just like it may be someone's PERSONAL belief that a felon's punishment ends when he is released from prison. The law says different and the constitution has nothing to do with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited February 9, 2014 by TMF

[Dolomite_supafly]

OTOH, I thought we'd established that laws don't prevent bad guys from having guns.

 

Personally, my thought is that if you can't trust someone with a gun, you probably can't trust them on the street. But the legal system is what it is I guess.

The thought of them going back to prison definitely plays a role in a lot of criminals thought process. There are a lot of criminals out there who wish they could have a gun but don't because they don't want to go back to prison. For those hardcore criminals that don't care it can be used to give them additional time in prison.

 

I swear, I am not trying to troll or argue for the sake of argument. However,  in regards to the two sentences that I have made bold below :

 

In my interpretation of the Bill of Rights; your opinion, the opinion of the general public, nor even precedent set by the Supreme Court of these United States has no bearing on a GOD given right that is merely recognized as such by said document.

 

Self defense is a God given right but what you use for that defense is, in fact, regulated.

 

Why should someone who has chosen a life of crime or hurt people have the exact same rights as a person who has never done so? After breaking the law your are, and always will be, a criminal. That is a fact and there is really no way to change it. You can get your recod expunged but you are still a criminal. And when you become a criminal, which is a lifelong label, you should loose certain priveleges.

 

I don't hear anybody screaming that the child molester should have the right to open a childcare facility after he is released. He has paid his dues and has just as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any one of us. The reason why he can't is because he is a verified danger to children. A convicted violent criminal is a verified danger to the public and we should try to do everything in our power to limit his ability to harm anyone else like we limit a child molester from having access to children.

 

There are a lot of BS felony charges out there. Seems like every new law that gets enacted is a felony now. There should be a distinction between violent and non violent criminals. A non violent criminal should be allowed to own a firearm but those who are violent should not.

[TMF]

OTOH, I thought we'd established that laws don't prevent bad guys from having guns.

 

Personally, my thought is that if you can't trust someone with a gun, you probably can't trust them on the street. But the legal system is what it is I guess.

 

You're ignoring the intangibles here.  Yes, if a criminal really, really wants to have a firearm, he's gonna get one.  But making it illegal to possess one certainly plays a role in preventing many of them from acquiring a firearm, which, in my opinion, is a good thing if they have already proven themselves to be a violent criminal.  Just like someone who has been proven to be loony tunes. 

 

The plus side, also, is that it throws an extra charge on there if they're caught with one or commit a crime with one.  All the better.  Everyone is born with the same rights.  When you victimize other people you lose rights.  Some you never can earn back.  My heart doesn't bleen for those folks; we all make choices and have to live with those choices.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So a felon who stole millions of dollars from grannys and orphans, should get to keep his guns because it was not a violent crime? Edited February 9, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[TMF]

So a felon who stole millions of dollars from grannys and orphans, should get to keep his guns because it was not a violent crime?

Sure, why not? He didn't prove that he is predisposed to unprovoked violence. Someone who steals should be locked up long enough to make the issue of owning a firearm moot anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tnguy]

TMF, I think we agree on the non-violent crimes. Probably we don't disagree completely on the violent crimes. It just seems to me that if someone has served their time and has properly reformed, there should probably be a way for them to re-attain the possibility to legally exercise that right. Consider also that one may not necessarily be a violent individual to end up convicted of a violent crime.