What Happens When Suppressors Are No Longer NFA Items?

The author found that the C.O.R.E. was equally at home in a CCW or a tactical role.

The Smith & Wesson C.O.R.E. with the Burris FastFire3 optic and the GEMTECH GM-9 suppressor is James Bond ready! Read full review! (Photo: Clay Martin)

The process of buying a gun muffler — aka a “suppressor” or, more inaccurately, a “silencer” — is long, expensive, and complex. But that process might change drastically in the next few months as legislators and activists work to de-regulate the purchase and possessions of suppressors in the United States.

If that happens, gun owners can expect to see some drastic changes in the market.

The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) is currently making its way through the U.S. Congress. If it passes, suppressors will move from NFA Class III items to the same regulatory category as long rifles. Purchasers will still have to pass a background check, but they will no longer have to pay for a $200 tax stamp or wait six to nine months for the ATF to process their paperwork.

This got me thinking — what happens when President Trump signs the bill into law? What will happen to the suppressor industry and how will that affect gun owners?

To answer my questions I reached out to the American Suppressor Association and Owen Miller, their Director of Outreach.

Miller told me that the passage of the HPA will make suppressor sales rise exponentially. “The HPA will absolutely make the market explode,” he said. “I would expect that once the HPA passes you’ll see a spike in demand nearly overnight.”

He explained that removing the tax stamp requirement will automatically make suppressors cheaper, but that won’t be the primary driver of the market expansion. The real win for the suppressor industry will be the shortened wait time.

Right now if someone wants to purchase a suppressor, they have to pay for it up front and wait up to nine months before actually using it. Most people, Miller said, would rather purchase a firearm (or two) that they’re able to take them home the same day.

The ability to drive to a gun shop, purchase a suppressor, and take it to the range is what will really drive the rise in demand.

The most important question, of course, is whether or not de-regulating suppressors will make them cheaper. Unfortunately, Miller didn’t seem to think so. The initial rise in demand might actually make suppressors more expensive for the first 12-18 months until manufacturers are able to catch up.

That being said, Miller did concede that de-regulating suppressors will allow more players to enter the market. Increased competition will, over time, lead to a wider range in the quality of suppressors available. A good quality suppressor might still cost $800 post-HPA, but customers will also be able to purchase a lower-quality version from another manufacturer for less money.

This is all assuming Congress passes the Act.

SEE ALSO: To NFA or not NFA? Nighthawk Custom 870 SBS 12 Ga.—Full Review

I asked Miller what he sees as the biggest challenge to the Act’s passage. He cited education — both of legislators and gun owners — as the ASA’s most important objective.

Contrary to Hollywood’s depiction, suppressors aren’t primarily the tool of spies and assassins. They were included in the NFA as a “last-minute addition” because legislators were worried about poaching during the Great Depression.

They also don’t make guns completely silent. Even with a suppressor, firearms still run in the 130-140 decibel range, much too loud for the silent commission of crimes.

Like the HPA implies, suppressors are all about gun safety. Suppressors protect the hearing of hunters and shooters, and, Miller pointed out, allow hunters to maintain their situational awareness. Using suppressors, hunters are able to hunt without hearing protection, allowing them to communicate with other hunters as well as hear game. This keeps everyone safe in the field and allows for a more efficient hunt.

Congress will consider the HPA’s passage in the upcoming legislative session, and the ASA hopes to pass it within the first 100 days of President Trump’s time in office.

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck and email him at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

{ 163 comments… add one }
  • JeffG May 28, 2017, 4:16 pm

    After they are legal prices on suppressors will quickly start to drop as the large firearms companies start making them. More will be integrated into firearms and larger sales volumes will mean more development so more effective ones will start showing up. We will probably see very inexpensive ones with plastic baffles that you just replace when they stop being effective. I don’t see why even titanium ones would cost more than a couple of hundred dollars. Making silencers is just not very complicated.

  • Bufford April 7, 2017, 9:46 pm

    What happens to those applications being processed at the time the bill is passed? Since the need for a tax stamp goes away does the $200 get refunded and an immediate delivery (NICS) Happen?

    • Terrence Brachmanski May 28, 2017, 4:50 pm

      A provision of HPA will refund all NFA stamp fees from the date of its introduction (introduced in House 01/09/2017).

  • Don Jackson February 8, 2017, 9:10 pm

    OK people, we need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and further buying into the bullshit that “because I served in the military and I shot guns my hearing is all shot to shit.” I’m very much in favor of the HPA, no more or less than anyone else posting here, but please lets at least be real with ourselves about this. I think that this is a really good way to make it legal to own suppressors, and that’s it (if it actually works). But to somehow try to get someone believe that 23 years of range qualifications, live fire exercises and actual combat is why I can’t (don’t) hear my wife talking is straight-up bullshit… and we all know it. Now, I can totally make the same argument for the fact that I was a paratrooper all of that time and accumulated 294 jumps from C130 and other high performance aircraft, yeah, I can do that as many of you probably can too. And I will not even get into the number of concerts I’ve been to.

    I know many of you will not like my words, but that’s cool… this is me just flexing my other inalienable rights. Oh yeah… and can hear just fine and I love my Saker 7.62.

    • Scott February 13, 2017, 1:59 pm

      First I would like to say thank you for your service to this great nation. Secondly I will have to disagree with your statement about combat and general service doesn’t have any effect on hearing. When I first entered the Military they did a hearing exam. I was given a hearing exam every year I served in the Army They documented significant hearing loss over the course of my time in service. During the last few years of service is where the most significant damage was recorded. It also happens to coincide with my tours of combat. Yes it has had an adverse effect on my ability to hear in general. I have a difficult time conversing in a crowded room unless I am next to the person. If I am having dinner in public I can’t hear the majority of the conversation at the table. Same goes for talking with people in a public setting where other conversations are going on.

      • Me October 21, 2019, 12:24 pm

        I realize this is an old post but the article above is still actively being pushed in links.

        I’d like to add my two cents worth of hearing loss experiences. Not to forget the multiple octives of “high E” notes constantly ringing in my ears. Which both adds to my difficulty in hearing conversations and make it extremely difficult to fall asleep. At night when the world is quiet, the ringing becomes a loud roar which makes it very difficult to settle in and fall asleep.

        Yeah, I know the original article is dated 2017 and that the Bill wasn’t passed but that doesn’t mean our hearing loss Is in any less important.

        I’d also like to add that ANY background noise…
        Air conditioners, vehicle motors, muzak in retail stores (when it’s played a just a bit too loud), heavy rain, electric motors and generators…
        I could go on and on but I think everyone gets my drift.
        Anything which creates sound waves interferes with my hearing. I’m sure that others can attest to this.

        I’ve always thought the NFA ban on “silencers” was based on ignorance or just plain stupidity. They do not make a weapon’s report silent! No “stealthy soundness report”.
        I blame Hollywood and the public perception which the movies created. Hollywood’s “suppressed” firearms sound like a baby’s dart. As someone who has fired suppressed weapons, I can assure anyone who hasn’t that they are still pretty loud…
        just not ear splitting, monstrously loud.

        I bid you all a good day. Now repeal the NFA.

    • Larry July 25, 2017, 9:15 am

      At least I can still use the excuse with my wife that I couldn’t hear her because surpressors were not available when I was on the range…

  • Christopher E. Cole December 17, 2016, 5:23 pm

    What proof is there that Trump will even sign such a law?

    • Fuque January 13, 2017, 8:36 pm

      His son is a huge supporter of the bill.

  • Dr. J L Smith December 11, 2016, 8:41 pm

    For an interesting article on some of the science behind suppressors, see: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/

  • BJG December 10, 2016, 9:18 pm

    If they ever do allow suppressors, Illinois will be the last State to allow them.

    • Bill December 12, 2016, 5:57 pm

      I don’t think so…..Mass. will be the last State…if ever.

  • Reticent Rogue December 10, 2016, 5:40 pm

    Passage of the bill would be a boon for do-it-yourselfers…bring all those homemade cans out of the closet and to the range! It will be fun to see what happens.

  • bob hunt December 10, 2016, 2:48 pm

    Suppressors are legal in the UK and UK prices for suppressors (they call them “moderators”) for centerfire rifles start at about $150 USD while suppressors for rimfires start at about $40. I’d expect US prices to fall drastically if the HPA becomes law. If US prices DON’T drop after HPA becomes law it will be price gouging, plain and simple.

  • jim December 10, 2016, 11:52 am

    Yes, the media WILL have a field day with this topic, but there are so many anti-gun Republicans that the bill will never get out of the House anyways! I’d surely like to see it pass though as a great deal of my hearing loss was contributed to gunshooting of my fellow servicemen.

  • Rrudytoo December 10, 2016, 12:21 am

    Suppressors are over-priced considering the materials and labor involved. I want to know if a DIY suppressor would become legal with the passage of the HPA.

    I’m 100% in favor of this act. I have had tinnitus in both ears since 1970 in part from both the M60 I carried and the M16s of my fellow Marines.

    Semper Fi

  • John Dow December 9, 2016, 11:31 pm

    All well and good, but the Hearing Protection Act has been sitting in committee gathering dust since late 2015. This particular instance of the bill isn’t going to get signed.

    Hopefully, its sponsor will reintroduce it, and the powers that be will let it be heard and voted one in the new Congress.

  • BRASS December 9, 2016, 9:45 pm

    I would immediately purchase one fitting standard thread sizes for my various home defense & CC guns, with one for all my .22LR hand & long guns, plus another for 5.56 cal ARs as soon after as possible.

  • Dale Bailey December 9, 2016, 9:04 pm

    Why is “silencer ” a less accurate name ? Perhaps less descriptive , but silencer is what Hiam Maxim the younger , inventor of the first viable firearm silencer named the thing ! He also invented the first viable automotive muffler which he named . President Theodore Roosevelt had Maxim’s Silencers installed on his files so the neighbors were not discomfited by target practice . His cousin , President Franklin Roosevelt had Silencers placed in the same category as fully automatic arms bringing us to this discussion .

  • Gerald Mann December 9, 2016, 8:38 pm

    It would have been nice had my hearing been destroyed while serving in the Marines 65 to 68 and I am sure a lot more of our guys would have got to come home had it not been for gunfire giving away out position ! There is absolutely no reason why other then the Geneva Convention that we should not have silencers on our weapons . The Geniva convention only served the enemy’s I cannot think of a single time where it actually helped American Service Men , after all we were the only ones observing it ! Thank Bush , Obama and other that never actually served !

    • Rich K. January 13, 2017, 10:53 am

      The Geneva Convention, last I knew, had NOTHING to do with silencers. It mainly deals with things like the humane treatment of POW’s and such things like making it illegal under the terms of the treaty to use an ambulance as a ruse to ambush the enemy, or pretending to surrender and then ambushing under a white flag, etc. The HAGUE convention, which was much earlier, made things like poison gas and expanding bullets technically unlawful for combat.

  • Dennis K December 9, 2016, 7:12 pm

    Yes, people have and will continue to make home-made mufflers as well as buy factory manufactured versions but I’ve fired quite a few 174 gr hollow based cast bullets designed for Remington cap & ball revolvers. When seated down against light charges of fast burning powder and fired in a number of longer barreled 45-70’s at air rifle velocities they are dead silent and dispatch ground hogs out to 30 yds or so effectively. Now if I could only figure out some way to get rid of the gun powder smell…

  • Sam Whittemore December 9, 2016, 5:30 pm

    I will definitely buy one or two, and manufacture several additional cans, once the tax requirement goes away. I like shooting, hunting, and teaching, and the suppressors will help make all these activities more fun. A suppressor will make home defense less painful on the ears if it ever comes to that. I do not expect to ever have to do so; but I plan to be prepared JIC. I do not plan to ever use for conceal carry 🙂 Shoot straight and Merry X-Mas everyone. See you at SHOT Show!

  • Warner Anderson December 9, 2016, 3:51 pm

    Okay, I want to throw out the Bullshit Flag. First, I am in favor of the bill – enough said on that. But the idea that suppressors don’t reduce and disguise the sound signature of a firearm, making it difficult for most folks to recognize, is revisionism, rewriting the argument to suit the politics. I plan to get one to protect my hearing, but also not to draw attention to my shooting – even though I live on 150 acres next to BLM land. Why announce yourself to your distant neighbors, or passers-by? Why excessively disturb the wildlife?

    • david December 9, 2016, 8:38 pm

      I like the way you think my friend!

  • Scott December 9, 2016, 2:51 pm

    The hpa act was in 2015, is it still on the table?

    • Rich K. January 13, 2017, 10:55 am

      Supposedly it was re-introduced this week (the 10th of January).

  • matthew martinez December 9, 2016, 2:24 pm

    So when does this bill pass and who did i invest in? whos publicly traded?

  • Matt December 9, 2016, 12:29 pm

    One provision that should be included would be the destruction of information pertaining to people that properly acquired suppressors in the past. Eliminate partial registries.

    • Dmandave December 9, 2016, 7:31 pm

      Something I had not thought about. Great idea!

  • cisco kid December 9, 2016, 12:15 pm

    It will never happen. The News Media will go nuts over this one feeding all kinds of panic disinformation about silencers. I think that this forum just played right into their hands by using the disingenuous term “muffler”. The News Media will really run with this term.

    In all honesty silencing a .22 rimfire does indeed make it possible to commit mass murder and get away it as a shooting in the house next door would be so silent as to be almost impossible to hear. I have even silenced some .45 acp pistols that would be difficult to hear if fired inside a house or building as a person outside the house would probably never hear the noise, I am no stranger to the use of silencers, I played with them in all calibers back 45 years ago. I am not against silencers but I am not a liar either as to the problems they would create if made available en-masse to the general public. The Criminals would have a field day and the public would panic and the various anti-gun States on the east and west coast would simply keep the current bans on them anyway even if the Federal law was totally abolished, which probably never will be because once an anti-gun law is passed its on the books for eternity. I have not checked the laws in every U.S. State but would be surprised if I found even one State that did not already have bans or severe restrictions on them over and above Federal Laws.

    I personally have never seen any need for them. Using todays advanced hearing protection does indeed protect ones hearing so the excuse that it is a hearing protection law is just pure bunk anyway. I found this out years ago pulling targets in “the pits” at our gun club 600 yards away from the shooters as the noise would blow out your ear drums without hearing protection.

    The hunting excuse is another lie also as when a bullet breaks the sound barrier the noise down range is every bit as loud as the explosion of the gun powder and using under powered ammo made for silencers results in wounded game that is left to linger and die in agony.

    The “disturbing the neighbors” is also a myth as with todays human population explosion few places are safe to shoot at and one should shoot at an approved range that has been built with all the safety requirements. Here in Ohio many people over the years have been accidentally killed by “Hillbilly Morons” shooting on their property and not on approved ranges.

    The silencer is bulky and often requires changing sights to see over them, (at least on the older models) and of course carrying a gun everyday would not be possible with a big silencer sticking out the end of the barrel. So in all honesty besides “keeping up with the Kardashian’s” what real need is there for them? Answer, in reality none whatsoever.

    Basically posts like this are nothing more than advertisements for the Silencer Industry to drum up business, and increase sales to the novice who may never have owned a silencer and has the usual James Bond fantasies about them, none of which are true.

    • roger Dodger December 9, 2016, 1:11 pm

      Thankyou!!!! Just be honest with people…we want you to own one because we know you think it’s cool and fun…but there is no “need” for it…so we will create that belief because we know most Americans are intellectual lemmings…but clearly not you so thankyou for your comment..merry xmas

      • Mahatma Muhjesbude December 9, 2016, 1:54 pm

        Here we go again with our submissive tail-between-our-asses compliance mentality. Why not eliminate ALL fucking Firearm registries? Starting with NO fucking NICS background checks, which don’t help prevent anything, don’t stop anybody from getting firearms, or even the most deadliest of weapons of mass destruction…like a large truck or gasoline accelerated forest fire Arsons, and amount to nothing less than an illegal, Unconstitutional Gun Registration precursor to NAD! (Nationalized American Disarmament by ANY government party in power who allows Background Checks to even exist.

        • mach37 December 9, 2016, 3:17 pm

          Agreed; the 2nd amendment does not specify “firearms,” it says simply “Arms.” That would include virtually any weapon, such as cannons, swords, knives, clubs, petards, and today’s “Arms” – bazookas, grenades, cannons and the like. The founding fathers assumed an educated and moral citizenry who would handle these weapons responsibly. Of course there were irresponsible people in the 1700s, but if the percentage of such characters was similar to those of today, numbers alone would have dictate many fewer incidents of criminal use of these weapons. Today’s supposed “rash” of criminal use is mainly a factor of increased population, combined with more cases of mental illness due to people unable to cope with our technically advanced society and much denser population pressure.

          • Mark Claypool December 9, 2016, 5:49 pm

            In the 1700’s/1800’s those irresponsible users didn’t last long with a few exceptions….the neighbors didn’t hesitate to take rather permanent action against those kinds of people. Either just shoot them on general principles, or the old tall tree, short rope trick.
            No registry then and I doubt that the thought of registry ever crossed the minds of the good people…..it was an infringement.

      • vincent smith December 9, 2016, 2:18 pm

        Im 81 years old and have been shooting since I was 8. No one told me when I was growing up that shooting was damaging my hearing and now myself and over half of my friends or acquaintances who have been shooting most of thier lives have a hearing problem.Some need hearing aids and most of it was caused from load noises and had we had silencers we probably wouldnt have a hearing problem.

        • William Dahl December 9, 2016, 4:29 pm

          It’s called “repetitive noise injury”. You go deaf to frequencies that you are exposed to too often. That’s why men go deaf to the frequency of the voice of their wives.

        • Michael Smith December 9, 2016, 5:12 pm

          Yep. Vince, I am in the same boat as you and many other older shooters. It would have been great to have suppressors to obtain as easily as a fire arm. back when I first started shooting. Loud noises make me jump now. I can’t here people talking, but a loud noise makes me like a cat on a hot tin roof now.

      • RetNavet December 9, 2016, 2:30 pm

        Eff you both….If you don’t want one, don’t buy one. I have several and I will legally obtain several more. Your opinions are just like your assholes….they stink so badly that they should be kept to yourselves.

      • daveyjones423@gmail.com December 9, 2016, 9:02 pm

        I agree with some “not everyone needs them” I am a avid hunter, gun collector for 30 plus years, retired military to boot. Here is devils advocate. There easy to obtain now if you can purchase a gun , then your golden on the suppressors. NC and Alabama both the past couple of years legalized them for hunting. Im like really, with todays optics we hunters have can push the legal limit on fair chase, legal shooting hours give me an open field and full moon and I can sit all night. . I mean we all no big boy comes out after dark, and you’ve been hunting him and seeing his pics for months, it will happen. Don’t even go there, true sportsman with me…lol..boys will be boys..not for it. personally. I just cannot see the need for them on handguns either. here in NC the county sheriff must approve your form, in the neighboring county the sheriff will not do them, so no one can get them , have sheriff refusing to do it against state law is WRONG. I believe its our right to have ,but making it to easy to obtain will increase crime n the worst of the cities in the US. Detroit comes to mind first. Anyone can make one by youtubing as any other thing destructive or nondestructive by a simple search..I just don’t see the need for one,,outweighing the “right to bear arms” to protect yourself. heck ive been contemplating one for years.. I go get the paper work or print it off, and lay it aside…going weeks later, I don’t want the govt into my personal life anymore then necessary now that im retired, I just don’t want to do business wth them as i did for 30 yrs.. ok …I don’t need one but I got the want for one. I live in rural area , hunt and fish my own land exclusively. so I want one as I want a new drone with hd cam because it would be neat..lol.. if you want one, really want one do the paperwork , wait and get it. My friends own many many of them.. .But my god this country is out of control and no signs of getting better, we just don’t need these fools running around with a muffler on their 45’s. I mean the govt has control over Sudafed now on how much a month you can buy…. why because of dope heads, but we might make getting a silencer easier to get.. that makes as much sense as using a condom with holes in it.

        • sudon"t December 10, 2016, 7:56 am

          If criminals wanted suppressors now, they’d have them. See, the thing about criminals is that they don’t obey the law. The law only really affects law-abiding citizens. If there were a demand for suppressors, there would be a black market to supply them. Just like your Sudafed example. It made it harder for people to make homemade meth, so the cartels stepped up to fill the gaps.
          We shouldn’t be treating anyone like children, (except children). If people want to own guns, that’s their business. If you use a gun to interfere in the rights of others, whether by robbing or shooting them, that’s when the government should step in. If people want to take drugs, that’s their business. The government has no constitutional role in that decision. Once you give the government the right to tell others when they can and can’t ingest drugs, the next thing you know, they’re telling you how much soda pop you’re allowed to drink.

          • Rich K. January 13, 2017, 11:06 am

            Suppressors are so simple to make, and there are so many books available (and online sources, as well) telling how to make them, that if they really WERE a favorite of criminals they would be using them on a large-scale basis. I have some very old issues of a magazine called “FIREPOWER”, that was published back in the Good Old Days before the Hayes Ammendment to GCA ’68 banned all manufacture of full-auto weapons by law-abiding citizens in 1989, and one type of item that was reviewed was a coupler that could be attached to a variety of firearms. One variant would accept an automobile oil filter screwed onto it, another variant accepted a 2-liter pop bottle. In either case, the item screwed onto the end acted as the “can” of the suppressor (the coupler was apparently an NFA regulated item), and the filter or bottle was simply a “shoot-through” device. Supposedly worked pretty well for .22 pistols and rifles, and the pop bottle one even worked okay on a .45 pistol.

        • Mahatma Muhjesbude December 11, 2016, 9:36 am

          Hey Davyjones, sounds like you’re a bit of a hypocrite. You don’t like the Sherrif in your area there thinking he knows best for everybody by not allowing silencers. But you swashbuckle your holier-than-thou moral authoritarianism by saying anti-Constitutional bullshit like “We don’t need fools running around with mufflers on their .45’s”.

          It’s none of your fucking business if fools want to run around with 30 gallon garbage cans on their .45’s if they aren’t hurting anybody with it!

    • Oaf December 9, 2016, 1:37 pm

      I too am from Ohio and I would like to see where you obtained your stats on the “many” people who were killed by “Hillbilly Morons” in our Buckeye State. You make it sound like stray bullets are buzzing around our great State like bees, killing folks right and left after Jethro, Jed, and other “Hillbilly Morons” take their shooting irons out and commence to firing willy nilly at anything and everything. Basically what you are saying is that only people such as yourself should own a silencer, but the unwashed “Hillbilly Morons” like the rest of us are too damned dumb to own one? And to the general public the word “muffler” carries a far less sinister connotation than “silencer” does when describing a firearm decibel reducing device. Elitist gun owners such as yourself have done far more damage to gun Rights than the Left ever could.

      • cisco kid December 9, 2016, 4:57 pm

        Just off the top of my head lets review just a few of the needless deaths in Ohio. The current law limiting shotguns to 3 shells for deer season came about because some Moron shot across a road killing an innocent woman on her way to work during deer season. A young girl was killed in her car when some idiot on his farm shot a muzzle loader into the air and the bullet went almost a mile and came down and shot the girl in the head. Just a few examples of such lunacy by shooting on a non approved and safe gun range. So do not tell me I do not know what I am talking about when Morons start shooting on non-approved places. Again Ohio has seen a phenomenal growth of population in the last 50 years despite many people moving away because of the rust belt. Again there are very few places you can safely shoot in Ohio without going to an approved range. That is stone cold provable fact. Most of the places I hunted ground hogs at in the 60’s are now so overpopulated with people you could literally walk on people and/or their houses for miles. Farms have been ate up and turned into shopping malls, parking lots, suburban developments etc. etc.

        Your right, the word muffler is an attempt to cover up the real fact that Silencers are meant to take away the noise and that is exactly what they do. Lets also face facts that if they did not take away noise to a significant degree no one would want them right? So why shouldn’t the public be alarmed eh? I would not want any of my next door neighbors to own one that’s for sure. Why? Number one, it encourages them to fire away in their back yards because they think , “what the heck my neighbor will not know what I am doing” and meanwhile while I am mowing the law I have some Idiot firing his handgun in every directions right next door. Now that is what really happens when you sell silencers cheaply and with no hoops to jump through or mandatory training and restrictions as to how they can be purchased or where they can be used safely. Believe me I have seen more Morons do crazy things with guns than I want to remember, its one of the reasons I gave up deer hunting in Ohio and small game hunting as well as too many times I have had Morons fire right in my direction when they actually saw me standing in their line of fire. They did not give a flying f**k if they hit me or not because they were shooting at a deer they wanted to get or a rabbit.

        It does not matter what device we are speaking of. The current danger to commercial air line pilots having lasers shined in their faces while trying to land or running into illegal drones flying in banned air space are just more examples of what the Morons in the Public at large will do with no restrictions or training. Its no different with silencers. I used to think that some of the extreme mandatory training and restrictions in Germany were ridiculous until I saw statistics showing how much lower an accident rate they had there, especially with their extensive mandatory training. You even have to jump through hoops to get a fishing license but there were reasons for all of this and that was safety, responsibility, and understanding of why the laws were passed for the good of all. And contrary to popular belief, yes Germans do indeed own weapons and enjoy the shooting sports its just they are a far more advanced nation then we are. An example: In 2015 well trained German Police that receive 3 years of intensive training only shot and killed 12 people while the untrained U.S. Police shot and killed over 1,500 people some of which were accidentally shot and killed because of a lack of training given to the Police. Again proving that mandatory firearms training and a thorough understanding of the law does indeed save lives whether it be with the police or with civilians.

        Now lets face facts we do have legitimate reasons for owning guns, such as self defense, hunting or target shooting but as far a silencers are concerned they are not needed for anything because as I have said with modern hearing protection they are not needed period and the danger to the public at large far outweighs the want to own one simply “because I want to”.

        I would say if they do become “over the counter” so to speak, the first time there is a mass murder with one you can bet the State in question will ban them as fast as a cat can jump off of a hot tin roof. Its simply a case of the fact that there is no legitimate reason or real need to own one period. I think the loosening up on the ease of availability of silencers will in the short and long run actually lead to an outright total ban on them starting with States that had loose laws on them and then progressing to the Federal level that the next time around will result in a total ban on them. In other words we should have been satisfied with the freedom to own one that we had to begin with at least in regards to Federal laws.

        I would say the original Federal law on silencers actually “got it right” from the beginning as many decades now have proved that when the silencer was registered to the owner he could not turn around and then sell it on the street to the first street punk he came across which would then sooner than later put them in the hands of criminals or some nut case that wanted to kill people and get away with it.

        • Me December 9, 2016, 6:27 pm

          I am not a criminal or a “Hillbilly Moron”. I hunt and fish and enjoy shooting. I do not care what you or anyone like you thinks. I have shot my whole life and put more rounds downrange in the field and in defense of our nation than you have in your entire life. I have never hit anything that I didn’t mean to hit. If I was able to access suppressors when I was younger I wouldn’t have the tinnitus I do now. if you don’t want one, fine, don’t buy one… However leave the rest of us that actually believe in freedom and common sense in peace.

        • Mark Roberts December 9, 2016, 8:31 pm

          Cisco you are wrong. Have you ever heard of tinnitus, Ringing in the ears/head from severe hearing loss due to loud noises. I suffer from that. The heck with hearing loss. If that is all I had I would jump up and down with joy. But tinnitus is a whole different beast. I wish I had silencers on my guns. I have to deal with this horrible condition and I know silencers may have saved me from all the pain I have now. Earplugs only block a small amount harmful noise. Go jump in the lake you opinionated blow hard. I know silencers can be a blessing for future generations that participate in the shooting sports.

        • SGT-N December 9, 2016, 11:27 pm

          Your thesis regarding the number of people shot by the Deutsches Staadt Polizie is limited by training, the state of German gun laws, and your contempt for American gun owners is untenable. Contrary to your representation, German gun laws are so strict that they would make an antigun Democrat, which this appellation is an oxymoron, drool (e.g., 5.5 million firearms were owned by 1.4 million people according to the 2012 German National Firearm Registry and no citizen may publicly carry a firearm whatsoever). Germany’s citizens even need a permit to purchase and own devices that shoot blanks or gas. Germany also has a mostly homogeneous population of around 82 million people, until the recent refugee influx that has changed the ethnic makeup, in a land area about half the size of Texas. United States, on the hand, has a heterogeneous population of 319 million people in a land that is larger than all of Europe. American citizens purportedly own over 300 million actual firearms (e.g., approximately one firearm per person). As opposed to German law, 41 out of 50 states have shall issue/constitutional/no concealed firearms laws, and a majority of these states allow some form of open carry. With these statistics in mind, the Polizie have shot .00000013 persons per capita; whereas, American police have shot .00000470 persons per capita. In other words, the difference between police shootings in Germany and the United States is statistically irrelevant even though we have more firearms, more diverse population spread over a larger land mass, and more liberal laws.
          Last, I’m a Veteran, who now lives in a rural area in a state with liberal gun laws after living and working in major metropolitan areas before their passage, that has neither negligently discharged a firearm nor endangered the general populous or neighbors while target practicing or hunting, and do not know anyone who has done either. In my state, cardiac disease kills more hunters then any other reason. In contrast, nearly all negligent discharges and outright voluntary shootings are perpetrated by inner-city youths/young adults of all racial backgrounds who illegally carry firearms that were probably not purchased/obtained according to either state or law. Do your research before you denigrate our police and law abiding gun owners next time.

          P.S.: your silencer theory has been used by the opposition trying to halt shall issue firearm permits and has been shown to be fallacious each time, so I’m not even going to waste my time to refute it. Moreover, call the police if you have so called idiotic neighbors who you believe are mishandling firearms instead of writing a diatribe using worn, refuted arguments.

          P.P.S.: I lived in Germany when the Baader-Meinhof terrorist group was active, and I can tell you it was no fun to have a MP5 stuck in your face and a number of G3 battle rifles pointed at your car while the Polizie and the Bundesgrenshuttes checked your ID and car at an antiterrorist checkpoint, which had prominent signs advising the occupants that deadly force was authorized. It was a known fact that people who did not totally obey all orders had their vehicles “ventilated” by automatic gunfire with some fatalities occurring. In the United States, drunk driver checkpoint laws have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional even though more people have been killed by inebriated drivers than were killed by the aforementioned terrorist group. So much for safety through training.

          • cisco kid December 10, 2016, 3:18 pm

            Quote——————-Germany also has a mostly homogeneous population of around 82 million people, until the recent refugee influx that has changed the ethnic makeup, in a land area about half the size of Texas. United States, on the hand, has a heterogeneous population of 319 million people in a land that is larger than all of Europe.-American citizens purportedly own over 300 million actual firearms (e.g., approximately one firearm per person). ————-Quote.

            Your statement about a homogeneous population is pure bunk. As long ago as the 1961Germany had such a shortage of workers they imported 2.7 million workers plus from Turkey and some other East European Countries and the majority of them stayed and married and had more children because of the better economy and social benefits there (most of which the primitive U.S. still does not have) and that was 47 years ago not counting the million plus refugees that were already in Germany in 2015 when only 12 police killings took place.

            Quote—————American citizens purportedly own over 300 million actual firearms (e.g., approximately one firearm per person).—————-Quote You tripped yourself up on that one as that is exactly my point. With a firearms market that large the silencer problem would be many times more serious than compared to the smaller country of Germany that has less people and less weapons.

            Quote: ———————–the Polizie have shot .00000013 persons per capita; whereas, American police have shot .00000470 persons per capita. In other words, the difference between police shootings in Germany and the United States is statistically irrelevant even though we have more firearms, more diverse population spread over a larger land mass, and more liberal laws.——————–Quote.

            You can try and hid the facts through false mathematical masturbation but the “real facts are” 1,500 people in the U.S. are dead as opposed to 12 in Germany. And if you want truthful real shocking figures simple math will tell you that only 1 person out of 67 1/4 million was killed by police in Germany in 2015 but 1 out of every 21,200 (read that thousand) was killed in the U.S. by police. Anyone with any common sense knows those figures are shocking and horrific and any sane person would agree that the lack of professional training for Police in America results in the wholesale slaughter of its population. Some districts put an automatic pistol in a cops hand after only 4 weeks of training and some even use “rent a cops” and they tell them to go out and solve problems by shooting people because the corrupt Judicial System is geared to make it almost impossible to convict a Cop in a shooting death and believe me they all know this. The use of throw down weapons was legendary up till the time body cameras came into wide spread use. To state as you have just stated that the difference in deaths between the two countries in “statistically irrelevant” is not only obscene but reminds me of Joseph Stalin when he too quoted statistics by stating “The death of one person is a tragedy but the death of a million is only a statistic.” Tell that to the 1,500 grieving families most of which would still have their loved ones simply through better training and a Judicial System that put rogue Cops in jail for murder.

            In conclusion, with the tremendous ownership of firearms in the U.S. (as you admitted to) the wholesale dumping of silencers on the non-homogenous violent prone population (which you admit to) would be an absolute catastrophe. Again History proves you wrong as the “old system worked” by registering them, thereby making them expensive and through registration prevented the owner from dumping them on the street to anyone who wanted one without any background checks or transfer of the silencer. Statistic’s may deceive but the History of Silencers in the U.S. and the history of the Federal Law does not lie. The Federal Law came about because the underworld started to use them more and more and no one who is sane wants those days to return. I am sure the street punks and professional dope dealers in Chicago will thank you on bended knee for your support of silencers for them at discount prices.

            I must conclude with this statement. Yes because America is one of the violent countries on earth there is a need to own weapons for self defense but when it comes to Silencers we do not need them or should we have them over the counter unregistered when it jeopardized the public safety as has been proven back in the 1930’s with its wholesale gang warfare and if anything the gang warfare today is far worse than it was in the 1930’s. Think about that one for awhile I am sure it will eventually sink in.

          • Rick December 11, 2016, 3:54 am

            Sgt- very elegant and fortuitous…

        • Oaf December 10, 2016, 2:50 am

          My friend was walking through the woods and he was killed by a rock thrown by Bigfoot! It’s true because I say it is. You say “many” Ohioans are killed by folks with firearms who are not up to your high standards. Show us where you’re getting your statistics that “many” are being killed by reckless shooting (other than by gang bangers and others of their kind in the big cities). I’m a retired Ohio LE officer who worked for ODNR for over 25 years and I totally refute your statement. And the “girl killed in a car” incident you’re referring to was an Amish girl riding in a horse drawn buggy in 2011 and the round was fired by a man cleaning a muzzle loading rifle who fired it into the air to unload it. Never heard of a silencer/muffler/suppressor for a muzzle loading firearm so I don’t even know why that is even relevant. Bottom line is that you are a gun elitist snob who thinks that most gun owners are knuckle dragging morons who are too stupid to own a silencer. But of course smart guys like you should own them because, well you know, you’re superior to most every other gun owner. The anti gunners couldn’t have a better friend and ally than you Cisco!

        • Rick December 11, 2016, 3:45 am

          Amazing how many morons spout off here and say stupid shit about something they know nothing about. If you have never used a suppressor, keep your stupid pie hole shut. Your opinion is as retarded as the dumb things you are saying.

          Oh, and quit watching movies to form your opinion … get a life!

        • Bob January 14, 2017, 9:22 am

          I’ve been shooting ground hogs in Ohio SUPPRESSED since 1994….
          I could go on about how many ways your wrong, but I just don’t care…

          Don’t like it, don’t buy it…. Otherwise STFU….

        • Hillbilly Moron November 20, 2017, 7:05 pm

          Your opinion does not make something a fact. In fact, you actually have not stated one fact referencing silencers.

          Your neighbor can commit mass murder today and you’d never know it using .22 shorts.

          Using a silencer while hunting is a very legitimate reason. A hunter doesn’t always have time to put in ear plugs before taking a shot.

          “Again there are very few places you can safely shoot in Ohio without going to an approved range. That is stone cold provable fact.”

          You obviously have no freaking clue what a fact is. That’s so far from being a fact it’s ridiculous.

          “The criminals would have a field day”
          Criminals don’t give a shit about the law, that’s how they got the title criminal. So, if they wanted silencers they’d have them already.

          “too many times I have had Morons fire right in my direction”
          There you go with that too many times claim again. If bullets have come in your direction that many times it sounds like you were the one not paying attention and were somewhere you shouldn’t have been.

          You need it get out of that city and spend more time in the country so you can be more informed on the subject.

    • C December 9, 2016, 3:00 pm

      I reject your reality and substitute my own… Suppressors??!! Man, this is gonna be GREAT!!!

    • Penrod December 9, 2016, 3:00 pm

      Cisco, for someone who is awfully quick to call people you disagree with ‘liars’, you have some serious problems with your facts. I won’t call you a liar, because you are likely misinformed.

      “once an anti-gun law is passed its on the books for eternity. ” We know that is untrue: just look at the dozens of states which have repealed bans on concealed carry in favor of licensed carry or even Constitutional carry. That has been a revolutionary change in our gun laws, and it is all because bans were repealed.

      “I have not checked the laws in every U.S. State but would be surprised if I found even one State that did not already have bans or severe restrictions on them over and above Federal Laws.” If that is true, why are so many people applying for suppressor transfers that they are clogging up the BATFE bureaucracy? Sure there are some state bans, like here in the People’s Republic of Hawaii, but there are LOTS of states which allow them, subject to complying with federal requirements. If that wasn’t the case, the industry would not exist, and we would not be seeing some guns coming with threaded muzzles standard.

      “I am not against silencers but I am not a liar either” Thanks for encouraging conversation by trying to shut it down with unprovoked insults. I disagree with your position on suppressors, and I disagree with your claim that anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a liar. The overall tenor of your remarks strikes me as genuinely anti-suppressor, but I may be mistaken.

      “The hunting excuse is another lie” Gosh, thanks for the respect you accord to people who come to different conclusions: you do like to shut down conversation with personal insults. Say….are you a Democrat? And by the way, are you claiming that no one hunts small game with .22s? I’m not going to be bothered wading through all the responses to Googling “silencers are required for hunting in europe”, but anyone interested may look for themselves. Plenty of people there use them, some places require them.

      “The “disturbing the neighbors” is also a myth as with todays human population explosion few places are safe to shoot at and one should shoot at an approved range” So you are claiming that there is no hunting in Ohio, except on “approved” ranges? No one with some land and a hill or gravel pit should hunt or plink there? In the entire state of Ohio? Really? Europe is far more densely populated than most of the US, and somehow hunting still takes place. Safely.

      “The silencer is bulky and often requires changing sights to see over them, (at least on the older models)” What is your point? I have shot modern handguns, and an HK MP5, with a suppressor, and had no problems with using the sights. Aren’t you really saying that since some guns are not particularly appropriate for suppressors, no one has any reason to have one on any gun?

      “of course carrying a gun everyday would not be possible with a big silencer sticking out the end of the barrel.” Doesn’t this make it a bit harder to routinely commit those mass murders you were concerned about? Or does it just make “silencing a .22 rimfire does indeed make it possible to commit mass murder and get away it” easier in someone’s house, but nor the street?

      “The Criminals would have a field day and the public would panic” just like they are doing already in all the states which allow the public to have suppressors?

      “what real need is there for them? Answer, in reality none whatsoever.” Again: What is your point? There is no reason one ‘needs’ to hunt ducks. People do it, and do it with shotguns, because they like to. There is no ‘need’ for most deer hunters to hunt deer, nor to hunt them with rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders, handguns, or with bows and arrows. They do so because they merely want to.

      So exactly what is your problem with people wanting things they may not need? Because your comments really do seem to boil down to “I don’t want a suppressor, therefore anyone who does is a liar.”

      • cisco kid December 9, 2016, 5:05 pm

        See my above reply post to the other fellow from Ohio.

        • Penrod December 9, 2016, 8:00 pm

          I don’t see that you addressed my points, but let it go. I won’t convince you, you won’t convince me, and our opinions will have little effect on the laws. Your remarks consist largely of insulting people for ‘lieing’, which really means they disagree with you.

          I suspect you do vote Democrat.

      • cisco kid December 9, 2016, 11:53 pm

        Quote:—————-Say….are you a Democrat? And by the way, are you claiming that no one hunts small game with .22s? I’m not going to be bothered wading through all the responses to Googling “silencers are required for hunting in europe”, but anyone interested may look for themselves. Plenty of people there use them, some places require them. Europe is far more densely populated than most of the US, and somehow hunting still takes place. Safely. ——————Quote

        You must not be very well educated as to how many Democrats are firm believers in the Second Amendment. My own shooting club has almost 1,000 members and about half are rabid Democrats. As far as using .22’s for hunting there are some sports where they should be banned and that is hunting squirrels in many areas in Ohio. The warning that has been on the box of .22’s in years past said “dangerous up to 1 mile” obviously you never read it or understood it. Shooting a .22 up into a tree is the reason they should be banned. Most people I know that are responsible squirrel hunters use a shotgun. None of this may pertain to some parts of the far west where people are few and far between but certainly not for densely populated Ohio. As far as your mentioning Europe you know little about Europe that’s for sure. The training they get far surpasses anything that we are required to do here and remember few shots are spent in hunting. As far as recreational shooting most places in Europe make it mandatory you belong to a club and undergo extreme safety training. Europeans do not simply go out into the woods and blast away target practicing. Most land is private and again even to hunt you must often belong to a club or hunting organization along with the mandatory training. And some of the inquires I made about silencers are somewhat similar to our current Federal Law, you are not allowed to buy one right over the counter with no paperwork and then sell it to anyone you wish with no paper work. The laws of course differ from country to country and their laws change just like ours often do. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst.

        Quote—————So you are claiming that there is no hunting in Ohio, except on “approved” ranges? No one with some land and a hill or gravel pit should hunt or plink there? In the entire state of Ohio? Really?—————-Quote

        I never said there was not any hunting in Ohio and my reference to “approved ranges” was in reference to “shooting clubs with approved ranges for recreational or competitive shooting”. And yes just because you own a gravel pit does not give you the right to blast away if you are in danger of killing your neighbors. Obviously you are totally oblivious to the fact that shooting even down into a stone pit produces ricochets that can go upward out of the pit and land a mile or more away on top of children at play. Again just because you own land does not give you the right to jeopardize public safety. I think your statement only shouts out that most places in the U.S. need to educate people like you about firearms safety and in some densely populated areas new laws mandating the use of recreational shooting on approved ranges is long overdue. The deaths in Ohio prove it beyond any doubt. I remember one tragic instance (not in Ohio) but published in Readers Digest where some Moron with a .303 British Enfield was on his boat on his pond shooting at tin cans when the bullet glanced off the water went clear through a fence and a woods and then hit a girl driving on the freeway killing her instantly. She was being followed by a man from the F.B.I. who immediately got an ambulance. When she was examined at the hospital for the autopsy no one could figure out what killed her until they looked behind her ear. The bullet had just enough velocity to penetrate her skull and kill her. They said if her window had been rolled up she probably would have survived, but I only mention this to make clear how far a bullet can go and how little remaining velocity it takes for a bullet to kill someone. Again according to your cockeyed beliefs the Moron in question had every right to blast away because he was on his own property.

        “what real need is there for them? Answer, in reality none whatsoever.” Quote——-Again: What is your point?—————Quote

        Since your reading comprehension is quite low I will try and explain it to you once again. My point is that when the public safety is endangered through reckless acts or due to criminals or nut cases now suddenly having access to unregistered silencers being dumped on the public by the thousands this puts the public in way more danger than when the silencers were “legal” but “controlled” making it mandatory that people who buy them cannot just dump them out onto the street when they become bored with them as they will find there way into the wrong hands rather quickly. Because of extreme regulation to date we have not had a problem with extreme waves of crime with silencers and I do not want to see that change which it will if they become available over the counter and with no registration restrictions. The Federal law we have now works and has worked for many decades, the new law will not work its just that plain and simple.

        I leave you with a final thought. I have in the past survived because I heard someone shooting at me and since the first shot missed I was able to take cover. If the person shooting at me had been using a silencer he would have probably been able to get off more than one shot at me before I even realized someone was shooting at me especially if there was background noise coming from traffic, or construction or even a roaring river. Now just think how many people a “nut case” could kill with a silencer before the crowd even realized they were being shot at. Again all the more reason to keep Federal law the way it currently is. No law is perfect but the Federal law we have now has worked for decades and worked very well.

        • F Miller December 10, 2016, 5:52 pm


          You wrote “You must not be very well educated as to how many Democrats are firm believers in the Second Amendment. My own shooting club has almost 1,000 members and about half are rabid Democrats.” This one statement shows your overall deception. I am a member in (3) different shooting organizations in my state and have only every met one guy who is a democrat. He happens to be one of my shooting sporting clay shooting partners. So you liar why don’t you tell us which 1000 man shooting club you are a part of that is made up of 50% democrats. There is no such club anywhere in the U.S. I suspect you are a lib just trying to stir up trouble.

          • cisco kid December 10, 2016, 8:08 pm

            Quote————–So you liar why don’t you tell us which 1000 man shooting club you are a part of that is made up of 50% democrats. There is no such club anywhere in the U.S. I suspect you are a lib just trying to stir up trouble.—————–Quote.

            I have been a member of the club for almost 40 years so I do indeed know what I am talking about. The ignorance of the far right always amazes me. I also belong to a very large gun collector organization which I have also been member for again over 40 years and the people of that club run the complete spectrum of political view points ranging from radical left wing Liberals to radical right wing White Supremacy. You only show your complete ignorance of the politics of the gun owners of America. But that is the problem with right wing fanatics as they only see everything in pure black or white with no varying shades of grey in between. To say that all Liberals are anti-gun or all non-Whites are anti-gun or all Conservatives are pro-gun shouts your complete ignorance to the world. Remember Reagan and his ban on fully automatic weapons and Busch when he tore up his NRA card and refused to stand with the NRA on various pro-gun issues? Down through the last 50 some years I have watched closely the voting records of various Republican and Democratic Congressman and both sides have often voted anti-gun. Its not cut and dry and not black and white, it never has been but if you had been living in reality and actually following what goes on in Congress or even at the State or Local level you never would have made such ignorant statements. The classic case of some Democrats in our club that I have talked to is that they always vote Democrat for the President but believe they will not see any anti-gun Laws passed because Congress will not pass the anti-gun bills. I had to “eat crow” during the Obama Administration because that is exactly what did happen and the Democrats in our club have not let me forget it. Would it not be ironic if under Trump he reverses course (he is from New York) as he has already done on many issues already and he then supports a new gun ban law. Don’t poo, poo, such a thought, it may just happen if we have more nut cases perpetrating more mass murders. Politicians down through American History vote to stay in power, not to uphold the Constitution and to stay in power they have to do what is popular with the people at the time and ditto for the Supreme Court as well. Its a well known fact that even with the tremendous amount of weapons in America there are still more non-gun owners than people who do own guns so antigun laws will not affect them in the least and when they panic over gun violence in order for those in Power to remain in Power they must act on the will of the majority and we gun owners are not the majority of voters and the Politicians damn well know this Trump included.

        • Rick December 11, 2016, 4:01 am

          WOW- My God, you are truly the eptome of ignorancea the reason I voted for Trump. Get out of here Hillary troll! True liberal democrap…

    • Bernard Saucier December 9, 2016, 3:56 pm

      Excellent Article and my sincerest thanks for posting.

    • Chris Meadows December 9, 2016, 4:43 pm

      38 States. My state allows them to be used for hunting. They make a great deal of sense for range use, hunting, tactical, military/police use, reduction of noise pollution and numerous other applications. The whole point of a suppressor is so you do not have to use hearing protection.If you do not want one by all means don’t buy one but I your argument to be a lot of nonsense to the point that you come off as being very uneducated or a troller .

    • Coyote December 9, 2016, 4:44 pm

      I’ve hunted and shot extensively suppressed and feel you are very uneducated from the opinions you have just made. My neighbors get upset when I shoot at my place quite a bit and the nearest is .5 miles away. Maybe the Ohio hillbilly morons you are talking about should get an education on firearm safety instead of you trying to leverage the left as you sound. Get a clue Cisco Kid. DON’T TREAD ON ME!

    • Steven Kaspar December 9, 2016, 5:34 pm

      You are a IDIOT!

    • Upyours December 9, 2016, 8:38 pm

      I disagree completely about the suppressors for hunting point. Sure a .300 Winchester won’t be quiet, but it’s going to be a whole lot fucking louder without a can. As for Criminals having “a field day”… why wouldn’t they make their own suppressors and get around the background check. All you need can be bought at a hardware store. Your logic is flawed.

    • Ed December 9, 2016, 8:52 pm

      Cisco, you seem to think you know all about this subject and surprise surprise, you don’t. First of all, you have no idea if it will ever happen or not. You sound like the people who said Trump would never get elected. You don’t really know especially since we have a very pro gun president coming in, plus there already has been some positive state legislation in regards to suppressors . Will he end up being a compromiser or an ineffective proponent of the 2nd amendment and all other parallel issues? I don’t know but neither do you.
      You like everyone else in this society seem to think they can predict the outcome of every gun legislation that is proposed. Many times the outcome is NOT like predicted. Also, if you have been around suppressors, you should already know they shouldn’t be called “silencers”. Only in some cases would that term come close to even being accurate. As far as states having restrictions on suppressors more than the feds is false at least in my state. The whole setup where it takes several months to get your tax stamp is complete governmental crap, especially with all the money being paid up front. Some people get lawyers to set up their trust, pay for the suppressor and tax stamp, and wait 5 to nine months for it to clear. Why? I have two suppressors and one took 5 months to get the stamp and the other I am still waiting on but have been told by my phone call to the feds that it will take nine. Just exactly why does it take that long unless intentionally trying to “suppress” suppressors? If the length of time has to do with under staffing, then why has that not been addressed? Have you shot any game with a suppressor? Your statement makes a lot of assumptions when the truth is, it depends on many factors whether a below the sound barrier round is effective or not, such as range and caliber. There is more than one reason to hunt with a suppressor and my main reason for it is the fact I can dress warm and more comfortably without the headphone type of sound control. I could wear typical earplugs but I don’t like losing my ability to hear well around me as I hunt. Then there is your assertion that there are not many places to shoot safely when there are neighbors close by. Not true, Your area doesn’t necessarily represent the whole United States. I have a long range setup with my neighbors right over the hill to my back. They tolerate our constant shooting but they would rather it be suppressed as much as possible. Then there is your last insulting statement. I have not addressed all the reasons to have a suppressor, but your acting like it’s mostly a James Bond fantasy or a “keeping up” actually shows your immaturity, and in my opinion, deception. Also, I’d like to call BS on your statement about you not being against silencers as you then lay out your argument against them. Who are you trying to kid?

    • Larry March 29, 2017, 1:21 am

      cisco kid…
      I call bullshit!! This statement alone shows you are a SNOW FLAKE!!!
      “I found this out years ago, pulling targets in “the pits” at our gun club 600 yards away from the shooters as the noise would blow out your ear drums without hearing protection.”
      That isn’t even possible. I was a Police Officer for years and have been part of a hunting ranch for years and it’s just not true. Not what I’ve experienced!! You my friend, are a FAKE!!!!

    • Walt Morris January 28, 2019, 9:31 am

      To state that@600. Yards down range the noise level is extensive is not even close. At nearly any range if you are on the receiving end of that shot all you hear is a snap/ boom the boom is much reduced. The snap is the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier which you hear before the boom.

  • ~ Occams December 9, 2016, 11:45 am

    Saw a 1900’s advertisement for the suggested use of suppressors. Wished I’d saved the little GIF, but it was some tophat/handlebar mustached gentleman with the suggestion:

    “Gentleman ALWAYS use a sound suppressor”
    More Hollywood gun BS took away a simple health-hazard by portraying them as ‘silent’ to a dumbed-down nation.

  • Jerry December 9, 2016, 11:16 am

    What’s in the HPA that we are not going to like?

  • Chasrlie December 9, 2016, 11:08 am

    Dear Jimbo. You as an American made the choice to pay the tax for the suppressors that you have now. You could have waited and supported the removal of the suppressor band as many others have. You made the choice to pay the tax. Don’t cry about your investment or be a stick in the mud for other Americans who have supported the removal of the band. Cry Baby ,Cry Baby Suck it up like a Man and support the removal, write or call your government representative.

    • William Dahl December 9, 2016, 4:39 pm

      It’s not like the people who paid the suppressor tax were going to get that money back when they sold their suppressor anyway. Let’s say you bought a suppressor for $400 and then the tax stamp was another $200. When you decide to sell it, you’re unlikely to get more than what a new suppressor would cost.

      Suppressors should not even be regulated as much as firearms. They should be the same as flash guards and compensators — totally unregulated.

      If this portion of the NFA gets repealed, I might be tempted to try to build a suppressor for one of my firearms, just to see what it might do. I can already reduce the noise from my firearms quite a bit just be reducing the handloading light slow loads.

  • Kevin December 9, 2016, 11:05 am

    Save $200 at point of purchase. Does the maker also have to pay a $200 making tax too? So it looks like prices will drop $400. I call that a win.

    It would be nice if short barrel rifles and shoguns, plus smoothbore pistols could also be removed from the NFA as well. These guns don’t need to be regulated more than a “long barreled” version.

    While we are wishing, the 1986 machine gun ban needs to go too.

    • William Dahl December 9, 2016, 4:41 pm

      Both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 are blatantly unconstitutional since their entire purpose is to INFRINGE upon our 2nd Amendment rights.

    • Walt Morris January 28, 2019, 9:38 am

      When supressors were first made they cost about$3.50-which probably would be equal to$100.00 in today’s dollars.

  • Rich K. December 9, 2016, 10:47 am

    Of course, if they DO deregulate sound moderators for firearms, gun owners who are machinists and have access to machine shop facilities (mills, lathes, etc) can just make their own – without having to look over their shoulders for a pair of ATF jack-boots to come marching through the door!

    • kane December 9, 2016, 11:37 am

      great point

  • Leighton Cavendish December 9, 2016, 10:47 am

    Let’s see…people will also need threaded barrels for those guns that don’t have them…probably different ammo as well…likely subsonic to take best advantage
    And maybe a drop in prices of suppressors as production increases…hopefully…
    Probably a slew of new companies making them as well
    Win win for everyone except the government…no more tax stamps

  • Ken December 9, 2016, 10:34 am

    Getting past the big IF – expect to see some acquisitions as the gun makers move into the market. The thought of fully integrated suppression in off-the-shelf products I find rather exciting, even if it renders my current collection obsolete.

  • KB31416 December 9, 2016, 10:17 am

    A question: will the HPA allow manufacture of your own suppressor just like one can manufacture a firearm for personal use under the GCA? A reasonable suppressor is dirt simple to make, and can probably be made by a home machinist for about $100.

    • Penrod December 9, 2016, 3:05 pm

      Or one might just make an adapter for a large lawn mower muffler, or something along those lines. Mufflers are hundred year old technology, and they can be stamped out of sheet metal quite cheaply. Just look at auto mufflers. Let the Chinese get involved and prices will fall in a hurry.

  • John December 9, 2016, 10:16 am

    My anti gun neighbor chose to call the police to my house while 6 of us were exercising our 2nd amendment right safely on my property. His main complaint? The noise . If suppressors were affordable maybe my neighbor would stop bitchin hmm probably not lol

  • John December 9, 2016, 10:00 am

    PLEASE do not mention James Bond when talking about suppressors, there is enough of that type thinking by our representatives in government already, that is why these SAFETY DEVICES are so hard to acquire.
    To prevent ear damaging noise, they should have NEVER been restricted in the first place!

  • Haywire4130 December 9, 2016, 9:48 am

    What would this mean in states (like mine, Massachusetts, unfortunately) that currently ban threaded barrels on firearms? Is a clamp-on silencer viable for those markets? Is it legal to buy an aftermarket drop in threaded barrel as long as the firearm wasnt sold with one? It’ll be interesting to see how this all pans out

    • Penrod December 9, 2016, 3:07 pm

      That all comes down to state law. If they ban threaded barrels they likely ban suppressors as well, no matter how they might be attached, so it is a moot point. If you moved to a more tolerant state, it might be cheaper to buy a threaded barrel than to have the existing barrel threaded. Or not. Who knows?

    • Earl December 9, 2016, 4:01 pm

      Unfortunately suppressors would still be illegal in states that have banned them like Massachusetts and California. This will do nothing to help you guys out.

  • Jimbo December 9, 2016, 9:39 am

    Hang on now.
    I hate to be a stick in the mud, but what about all us poor schmucks that have invested thousands into tax stamps and trusts? Are we going to get a refund from the Fed? Over the last 15 years I have probably waited 6 or 7 years to own suppressors. I’m sorry, but the difficulty and restrictions associated with attaining a suppressor automatically contribute to the items value – not just in dollars, but sweat equity. If cans become non-NFA, I stand to lose money in my investment that I will never recover. So, unless someone plans on cutting me a check, I hope the bill fails.

    • Topol318 December 9, 2016, 9:52 am

      Supposedly, I’ve heard, that there is a provision in the bill to allow for a refund of tax stamps if you have purchased your suppressor after the point in time when the bill was written. This would be somewhere around the third quarter of 2015 and beyond.
      Tax monies collected for silencers prior to that would not be refunded.

      • RetNavet December 9, 2016, 2:33 pm

        I heard and read the same and hope it comes to fruition….$800 back to me would be nice

    • Haywire4130 December 9, 2016, 9:55 am

      This is a similar problem as the states that recently passed legalized recreational marijuana bills. What do you say to those that were fined or imprisoned for marijuana posession prior to the bills’ passing? Set em free? Give them a refund of fines and associated legal fees? Its a slippery slope, we’re entering a time of great change.

      • Mahatma Muhjesbude December 9, 2016, 2:12 pm

        And we desperately need the change. Especially concerning the steady totalitarian corrosion of our liberties and the massively corrupt and unjust criminal justice system. Most of you wouldn’t ‘get’ it because stuff like this is ‘outside your little compliance comfort zones, courtesy of the almighty ‘G’, the bigdaddy woo woo who keeps all those in social submission quiet and compliant in their mind prisons prior to making you all criminal enough with bad disarmament agenda based laws. which ‘require’ gun forfeiture and prohibition. Even though the Constitution DOES NOT say ‘Shall not be infringed…except of course, if you took part in a domestic disturbance and were charged, or if you happened to commit a crime and were incarcerated, or smoked pot, or are ‘administratively’ opined by Fiat to be deemed a potential danger”– in some obscure logic– so as not to be ‘allowed’ your inalienable right to carry a gun.

        “It says: “…SHALL NOT BE FUCKING INFRINGED” PERIOD! No Qualifiers, No Exceptions.


    • David D December 9, 2016, 10:03 am

      That’s kind of a silly sentiment coming from a law-abiding gun owner. I’d expect that from a bed-wetting Hillary voter, not a responsible, thoughtful person.
      Is it not good enough that a foolishly conceived constraint is removed?
      Heck, you’re not the only person who will have made poorly timed purchases.

      • Russell December 9, 2016, 12:05 pm

        I agree

      • Russell December 9, 2016, 12:08 pm

        I agree Let’s get as many of these stupid regulations off as possible while we can. Piss on u cry babies

    • hey December 9, 2016, 10:04 am

      Your statement sounds very selfish. So you would rather everyone’s right to continue to be blocked because of the risk you took on your investment?

    • Gerald December 9, 2016, 10:25 am

      Tough nuggets….the masses should not have left the idiots in charge for so long. Its only money and merchandise, you cant take it with you when you die anyway…just my 2 cents.

    • Kelly Carlson December 9, 2016, 10:29 am

      Hey Jimbo….I see you’re thinking of only yourself. Apparently you don’t care about my hearing, or anyone else for that matter.
      I think the safety of thousands of shooters ears a lot more important, than your RTI on your silencer. Get a grip, this is for the better good!

    • Dan December 9, 2016, 10:40 am

      Jumbo, I too have spent a lot of money on tax stamps that will have been wasted if the law passes but that is water under the bridge. Hoping a bill doesn’t pass that will dramatically change the gun industry and allow safe hearing shooting for people like me that have heredity hearing problems is asinine. The change would also promote integrally suppressed guns as well that I would love to start on a new adventure buying :). So we will have spent more money on something in the past that is now cheaper. Same thing as most electronics. I can remember when we spent $2,000 for a computer that now can be bought for $500. Do you want to keep paying $2,000 for a $500 computer? I don’t think so. Time for you to get behind the Hearing Protection Act like the rest of us.

    • Bill Martin December 9, 2016, 10:51 am

      So because you played by the rules that were set forth at the time of purchase. And you have your suppressors. SCREW everyone else right!! Very selfish thinking. You knew what you were getting into with the tax stamp etc. What sweat equity do you have in the suppressors? Because you had to wait 6 to 9 months? I have 2 suppressors that I am waiting on and it’s my understanding I may get my tax stamp money back. Which is great. I wouldn’t be pissed off if I didn’t get it back because I knew what the deal was when I made the purchase.
      This is a nice win if we get this!! Lighten up Kimbo and think about others.

    • Joe Johnson December 9, 2016, 11:03 am

      Quit acting like a pussy.

    • Dan December 9, 2016, 11:21 am

      Only a shmuck would think like this guy. That’s like saying everyone arrested for dealing large quantities of marijuana should be let free from prison if it gets completely legalized…the fact is you committed the crime while it was illegal, making it legal now doesn’t change the passed. Same goes for your money you wasted on your tax stamps. You decided to obtain them while they’re nfa items, that’s your fault. Gun people need to stick together, not say things like “I hope this bill fails.” People like you are what makes this world suck. Be happy you got to see the USA before it turned into what it is now. People like you shouldn’t even be allowed to own a firearm. While you were wasting money on your silly tax stamps I stocked my safe full of firearms. I can’t wait to buy suppressors with all the money I saved on not paying for a tax stamp. And I won’t have to wait 7 years either! Hahaha you mad bruh?

      • kane December 9, 2016, 11:45 am

        Lots of people had guns confiscated and destroyed by laws that were later determined unconstitutional. They never got the guns back. Count your self lucky to only have lost with the tax stamp and not a confiscation.

        I suspect that there will be local restrictions like Chicago residents not being allowed to purchase a firearm with a laser attached.

      • Dan 1 December 13, 2016, 8:25 am

        Hey Dan, this is the first Dan that replied to Jimbo/Jumbo. Guess I need to use a longer name when I leave comments :).

    • Greg December 9, 2016, 1:16 pm

      Jimbo, you are forgetting 1 thing. The $200 you paid was not an investment, it was a tax, and your asset is worth LESS the moment you purchased it. It might actually go UP in value because you may gain the ability to sell it without dealing with a class 3 dealer and transfer fees.
      Currently, a consumer can buy a new silencer and pay the $200 tax stamp, OR they could buy your used supressor and pay the $200 tax stamp + a transfer fee through a class 3 dealer. So even if you had never fired yours, and it was NIB, it would cost another consumer more to purchase yours, so yours is currently worth LESS. With this bill, your $200 is still gone to uncle sam. You will gain the ability to sell it privately (in some states) or at least without the ATF involved.
      The moment I paid my $200 stamp, I realized my “asset” was nearly worthless as the process to sell them is cumbersome and the market for used ones is small, so I planned to have it until I die.
      Once i heard of this bill, I put any future purchasing on hold while still obtaining threaded barrels so that I can purchase once the initial frenzy dies down.

    • kaveman December 9, 2016, 1:29 pm

      Hey Jimbo,….you do realize that the “investment” you made in suppressors was lost when you made it, right? There’s nothing on planet earth with a lower resale value than a dated, ‘used’ suppressor that you had to pay a $200 tax to purchase(and will have to pay another $200 tax to sell(unless it sells out of state,….in which case it would require an additional $400 to sell!)). Used suppressors CURRENTLY have no resale value. Removing from NFA would actually increase the value of your holdings while at the same time increasing your available market by something like 50x. They’ll still be worth less than you paid because they’re ‘used’ and the $200 tax is a complete loss regardless, but at least they’ll be worth something. The only way for your suppressor “investment” to pay off is if new manufacture is outlawed entirely, so I guess that’s what you need to be hoping for. Be careful though,…..that strategy won’t work if possession is outlawed.

    • JR Hurd December 9, 2016, 1:46 pm

      That is a very selfish view Jimbo…………..

    • billybob December 9, 2016, 2:08 pm

      Just thank he could have bought a silencer along with the Glock he bought at the same time !
      CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — Dylann Roof hesitated for about 20 seconds when an FBI agent asked him what he was doing on the night nine black church members were killed during Bible study.

    • Jeff December 9, 2016, 2:12 pm

      I can’t believe anyone would consider a sound suppressor an investment. Lol. I would love to see your portfolio.

      • William Dahl December 9, 2016, 4:47 pm

        His investment portfolio probably includes Enron stock.

    • Ed December 9, 2016, 8:56 pm

      oh you poor thing.

  • Tman72 December 9, 2016, 9:24 am

    Hopefully the people who purchased a silencer within the last year (or whenever the HPA was originally introduced) will get the $200 tax refunded.
    I heard this is in the bill.
    Silencer Shop invested a lot of $$$ in their new S.I.D system to make purchases easier. This will no longer be necessary.

    • Doug December 9, 2016, 11:33 am

      I purchased 5 this year, so would DEFINITELY love a refund to buy another can.

  • bruce December 9, 2016, 9:21 am

    making a suppresor is easy. making them legal without govt bs will make home made ones big . like making an AR-15 in your basement. americans can make just about anything, if the govt doesnt crush them for doing so. why saving ears has been illegal is beyond me

  • Rob in FL December 9, 2016, 9:08 am

    Time for a reality check. This is a great Fairy-Tale, but that’s all it is, the democrats will filibuster this bill along with the national concealed carry reciprocity bill. Republicans know this will go over in congress like Pork-Crucifix’s in the Middle-East. I would love nothing more than to see all gun restrictions repealed, but as long as we have democrats like Dingy Harry, Dick Turban, Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein, all backed by Michael “I’ve earned my way into heaven” Bloomberg these bills don’t stand a chance.

    Good Luck

    • SicSemperTyrannis December 9, 2016, 10:03 am

      I don’t disagree that this will not get through as a stand alone bill. What Republicans should do Is simply attach the HPA to a spending bill that has some red meat in it for the left. This would make it really hard for them to vote against it. This is the same damn thing the Leftist, Socialists, Libtards did with Obamacare and various other legislation they wanted to ram down our throats regardless of what we the people really wanted.
      Although, I don’t agree with this tactic I can’t say that I’d complain about the outcome. However, I’m not really sure what public opinion is on this topic. I’m sure the majority of gun owner would be in favor of it, but a lot of folks, even some gun owners who have never shot with a suppressor are bought into Hollywoods depiction of their use as the tool of assasins everywhere! We would also see the handful of democrat gun owners all over the 24 hr news cycle sucking up to the willing presstitute media who is all too desirous of propagating their leftist propaganda. These Libtards are who are experts in firearms the same way I am an expert in General Contracting. The press does not treat me as an expert in GC simply because I own a hammer, but they treat these liberal gun owners as experts on the subject matter simply because they own a damn tool. Mark my words, there will be wall to wall coverage of these socialists Libtards on the various networks sporting off something along the lines of, “I’m a gun owner and I don’t see any reason why anyone would ever need the tool of an asassain for hunting”! Then I’ll pull out my XDs and promptly silence my television as my head explodes from moronic overload.
      On a different issue, at the beginning of the article, the author says something along the lines of Suppressors, or more inaccurately called silencers…
      indeed the overwhelming majority of folks in the gun culture call silencers “suppressors”. The problem with his statement is that he is wrong and frankly the majority of people including myself almost always refer to silencers as suppressors. However, Hiram Maxim the inventor of such amazing pieces of military power like the maxim machin gun, also invented the suppressor. The problem is that he named his new invention a “silencer” in the patent of the first ever suppressor. Consequently, this same design was also used in auto “mufflers”. So, there you have it. I’ll still probably keep calling them suppressors so I don’t have to explain that they really are silencers every time, but now you’ll know too! 🙂

    • SicSemperTyrannis December 9, 2016, 10:04 am

      I don’t disagree that this will not get through as a stand alone bill. What Republicans should do Is simply attach the HPA to a spending bill that has some red meat in it for the left. This would make it really hard for them to vote against it. This is the same damn thing the Leftist, Socialists, Libtards did with Obamacare and various other legislation they wanted to ram down our throats regardless of what we the people really wanted.
      Although, I don’t agree with this tactic I can’t say that I’d complain about the outcome. However, I’m not really sure what public opinion is on this topic. I’m sure the majority of gun owner would be in favor of it, but a lot of folks, even some gun owners who have never shot with a suppressor are bought into Hollywoods depiction of their use as the tool of assasins everywhere! We would also see the handful of democrat gun owners all over the 24 hr news cycle sucking up to the willing presstitute media who is all too desirous of propagating their leftist propaganda. These Libtards are who are experts in firearms the same way I am an expert in General Contracting. The press does not treat me as an expert in GC simply because I own a hammer, but they treat these liberal gun owners as experts on the subject matter simply because they own a damn tool. Mark my words, there will be wall to wall coverage of these socialists Libtards on the various networks sporting off something along the lines of, “I’m a gun owner and I don’t see any reason why anyone would ever need the tool of an asassain for hunting”! Then I’ll pull out my XDs and promptly silence my television as my head explodes from moronic overload.
      On a different issue, at the beginning of the article, the author says something along the lines of Suppressors, or more inaccurately called silencers…
      indeed the overwhelming majority of folks in the gun culture call silencers “suppressors”. The problem with his statement is that he is wrong and frankly the majority of people including myself almost always refer to silencers as suppressors. However, Hiram Maxim the inventor of such amazing pieces of military power like the maxim machin gun, also invented the suppressor. The problem is that he named his new invention a “silencer” in the patent of the first ever suppressor. Consequently, this same design was also used in auto “mufflers”. So, there you have it. I’ll still probably keep calling them suppressors so I don’t have to explain that they really are silencers every time, but now you’ll know too! 🙂

      • Ed December 9, 2016, 9:00 pm

        Thanks for your great posting. My sentiments exactly.

    • Abnormal December 9, 2016, 10:14 am

      In a summary response of just two words: “nuclear option”

      • RetNavet December 9, 2016, 2:37 pm

        +1 for the “nuclear option” stupid Dimorats getting bitten in the ass by their own corrupt shenanigans

  • angus December 9, 2016, 9:04 am

    Don’t forget a myriad of state laws regulating suppressors, many of which depend on Federal law. Quite a few states could be a mess to sort out after this passes.

    • David December 9, 2016, 11:06 am

      Colorado law currently labels suppressors/silencers as dangerous weapons that are only allowed if a person or trust has a federal permit to own. Which the tax stamp is considered that permission. If the tax stamps go away the HPA might make suppressors illegal in CO as our dem controlled legislature and governor would never pass or sign a law to change it.

  • L. A. LeCroy December 9, 2016, 9:03 am

    The education of legistrators and the general public will be the single-most challenge of the suppressor/silencer industry. “Ignorance is bliss” is the catchphrase that must be overcome. Anti-gunners will never accept facts. “Home-made” silencers? Yeah, right. What kind of surge in injury and death will result from catastrophic failure of home-made silencers. Yep, I can see it now – Billy Bob’s own design base on a beer can and a lawn mower muffler.

  • bryant seymour December 9, 2016, 8:47 am

    A half ass article at best. starting out with the line More inaccurately silencer. Maybe this will explain it to the author . In 1909 Hiram Percy Maxim patented the ‘firearms silencer’ – that’s what he named it. Today, if you fill out a Form 4 [paperwork submitted to the ATF to purchase a silencer] in the block where it asks you what it is you write in ‘silencer. In the 80s some magazine writer said they are to be called suppressed not silenced do everyone jumped on that wagon. Even tho the Patten says silencer and ATF form 4 says….. silencer.

  • Billybob December 9, 2016, 8:44 am

    Tennessee: Man with AK-47-style pistol in park sues ranger
    February 10th, 2010 by Associated Press in Local – Breaking News Read Time: 2 mins.
    Associated Press Writer
    NASHVILLE – A man who was detained for three hours while carrying an AK-47-style semiautomatic pistol at Radnor Lake State Park is suing the ranger who stopped him.
    Leonard Embody filed a lawsuit in federal court in Nashville on Monday. He claims Park Manager Steve Ward violated his civil rights by detaining him without probable cause and for longer than was necessary to determine he was not committing a crime.
    Embody has a handgun carry permit, and a new state law allows permit holders to carry their weapons in state parks. However, State Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton has said Embody was detained because his weapon looked like a rifle and startled hikers had complained.
    Embody\’s attorney, Phillip Davidson, said the gun has the same \”center operating parts\” as an AK-47. It has a pistol grip and no shoulder stock.
    After Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives personnel were called, Embody was released without charges.
    He has been detained briefly in several similar incidents – at least three other times in state parks and once by police in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade.Calabrese-Benton said the gun he carried at Radnor Lake on Dec. 20, 2009, had no stock and the barrel was under 11 inches. However, state attorneys were investigating whether it\’s legal to carry the AK-47-style pistol with 30-round magazine as a handgun. For unexplained reasons, it had an orange tip, like a toy weapon, although it was real.The lawsuit claims Ward knew Embody had a handgun carry permit before detaining him because Embody had already shown the permit to another ranger. It says Ward pointed a shotgun at Embody, forced him to lie on the ground and handcuffed him. When Metro Nashville Police arrived they asked Ward to release Embody, but he did not do so immediately, the lawsuit states.Embody seeks a jury trial and asks to be awarded an unspecified amount of compensatory damages for his injuries. The lawsuit claims Embody was \”subjected to mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment\” because the incident was widely publicized in the local media.
    No answer to the claims had been filed in court by Wednesday. Calabrese-Benton said the state cannot comment on the lawsuit but is asking the Attorney General\’s office to represent Ward.
    Embody has been stopped at least four other times. Three times he was stopped while carrying a gun at Bicentennial Mall, a state park next to the Capitol in downtown Nashville, Calabrese-Benton said. He was released each time after a check of his handgun carry permit.
    Embody also was stopped on Jan. 23 by police in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade while walking down Belle Meade Boulevard with a .44 caliber black powder revolver in his hand, Belle Meade Police Chief Tim Eads said.
    He was detained for about 16 minutes while officers checked his permit and weapon.
    Eads said he is a supporter of Second Amendment rights but called Embody\’s actions \”reckless.\”
    Speaking of the lawsuit against Ward, Eads said, \”I\’m sure we\’ll be next.\”
    Embody\’s attorney, Davidson, said he had no comment on the other incidents. He said his client is not granting interviews.

    • M1A-Hole December 9, 2016, 10:54 am

      Billybob, perhaps you should think about not reading and commenting on gun websites and instead get some remedial training in English (you could even call it “tactical English”.) Your grasp of English is limited, and your use of alphanumerical entry systems seems to be quite hampered as well. By writing the way you do it makes your gibberish difficult to read or care about.
      Pew Pew Pew.

      • billybob December 9, 2016, 1:44 pm

        A hole too bad you are to dumb to even know how dumb you are ! To bad your semi doesn\’t have a push in and turn switch like mine ! Your pardoner loves your m1 A hole bet he puts his cartridge and loads it every night ! Bet when he shoot it off your eyes roll around !

      • Frances December 9, 2016, 10:10 pm

        m1 must have been the one walking around a public park carrying and scarring everyone with an AK

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude December 11, 2016, 9:48 am

      I’d love to be on that jury. After we granted 100 million in punitive damages, I’d talk the rest of the jurors into an additional jury nullification of as many gun laws we could relate to this incident.

  • Rick Chainey December 9, 2016, 8:32 am

    Unfortunately, the passing of this law may not override a state law that forbids the use of suppressors. New York expressly outlaws the use of suppressors (if only I could convince my wife to move) 🙁 ….

  • Mac December 9, 2016, 7:10 am

    There is a difference between the quality of a home built suppressor using metal that is easily machined, and those made by the industry. Quality built suppressor’s made using titanium and inconel steel are not all that cheap to build. If this bill should pass I suspect when some home builders get done with their first QUALITY suppressor build they will discover it would be just as cost effective and/or easier to purchase one from a manufacture.

    • Rich K. January 13, 2017, 11:27 am

      THing is, suppressors have been around for over 200 years and back then, there was no machining of titanium, and no such thing as inconel alloy. You don’t need high-tech materials to make a quality suppressor. Steel hydraulic tubing, which is designed to take high pressures, or good quality aluminum alloy, would work fine. The construction quality is just as important as the materials. Heck, a suppressor for a .22 rimfire could probably be made in a “disposable” grade, and sold for around $20, made of welded sheet metal (perhaps with a re-usable coupling adapter), since the pressures generated would not be significant. More expensive, light-weight suppressors could be made of titanium, but more budget-oriented ones that still function well could be made of heavier, low-tech materials, maybe made in such a way that they can’t be disassembled for repair/rebuild (welded and such rather than screw-together) to make low-cost mass production passible.

      • Rich K. January 13, 2017, 11:28 am

        Typo – I meant they have been around for over 100 years.

  • Mike the Limey December 9, 2016, 6:50 am

    I’ve always seen the US regulation of suppressors as an anomaly, due to them being easily available here in the UK.
    They’re a significant aid to preventing hearing loss & reducung noise pollution in the environment, so opposition to removing restrictions on their ownership should (but wont…) be welcomed on both sides of the political divide.
    Surely prices will fall significantly, as they are currently way higher than they are in the UK – a significantly smaller market.

    • Mike the Limey December 9, 2016, 6:55 am

      Remove the words ‘opposition to’ – keyboard/brain interface failure. 😉

    • DanGoodShot December 9, 2016, 8:00 am

      Hello my friend on the other end. Out of curiosity what is the average cost of a decent suppressor on your side of the pond?

    • billybob December 9, 2016, 9:18 am

      Now tell us how easy it is to get a gun in the UK ! What kind of guns can you buy ?
      Kind of like buying a muffler but can\’t buy a car !

      • M1A-Hole December 9, 2016, 10:58 am

        Billybob, please, at least proofread?!?

        • billybob December 9, 2016, 1:49 pm

          Why don\’t you go get your pardoner to plug your A hole or do you love eating fudge covered hot dogs !
          Bet you pardoner calls you rosebud !

        • John December 10, 2016, 7:40 am

          Stick that 1 in your A hole and ride it like a Po Go Stick ! This isn’t a Spelling Bee !

  • Tarheel Realist December 9, 2016, 6:31 am

    “The process of buying a gun muffler….is LONG, expensive, and complex.

    Understatement of the year. I submitted two Form 4(s) for a Mk11 Mod 0 suppressor and a 5.56 suppressor, the former took seven months and I’m still waiting for my second Tax Stamp…both Form 4(s) were submitted on January 6, 2016!

    • Cary Kieffer December 9, 2016, 8:31 am

      My first was 51 weeks. The next 4 were back in 5 or so months and an AOW shotgun I bought was back in 3.5. Now back on the long wait…. Seems to be no rhyme or reason. Semper fi Tar.

  • Rogertc1 December 9, 2016, 5:37 am

    Be nice it this happens however our new President has a lot to do. It would be up to us voters to make it happen. Be nice however the Fostech Echo trigger is making it out. So miracles do happen.

  • Ben Langlotz, Gun Patent Attorney December 6, 2016, 7:41 am

    If the tax, headaches and delay are removed, then we will have many options that are much cheaper. Gun makers will include them for “free” with guns, there will be a flood of $99 suppressors, and there will likely be even cheaper single-use suppressors. Innovation will flourish. And established suppressor makers who aren’t smart about marketing might fall by the wayside as the $500-1000 market declines. I wrote about this more than a year ago.

  • Josh December 5, 2016, 10:04 pm

    Your article has a typo. Silencer is actually the more accurate term. Suppressor is the politically correct term. The inventor of the first silencer first named it as such. Please correct the error.

    • Steve December 9, 2016, 7:37 am

      Your using Hollywood term “silencer” . Re-read the article it said you still have 130-140 dicebil range. You will not get total silence.

      • Robert December 9, 2016, 8:31 am

        Ummm silencer is actually the legal term used when filling out the form…so no you’re wrong.

      • Robert December 9, 2016, 8:35 am

        It’s not a “Hollywood term”, it’s what the inventor called it. He even named his manufacturing company the Maxim SILENCER Company. That the device does not render a firearm totally silent is irrelevant to what the inventor chose to call his invention. I am ever amazed and amused by the “gun experts” who have taken it upon themselves to rename someone else’s 100 year old invention. It’s analogous to insisting that cars be referred to as “semi-automobiles” because they don’t actually drive themselves.

      • Jim December 9, 2016, 8:42 am

        It’s not a “Hollywood” term. It’s the legal definition of the item in the National Firearms Act of 1934. In function only is it a “suppressor”, in all else that matters it is a “silencer”… particularly when dealing with BATFE.

    • angus December 9, 2016, 9:03 am

      Suppressor is the more scientific term; silencer is a marketing gimmick.

    • billybob December 9, 2016, 9:05 am

      Bet you hear from someone who has never filled out a Form 4 or owned a silencer ! Bet they are to dumb to even know ATF refers to cans – suppressors as silencers !Silencers were invented by Hiram Percy Maxim. His father invented the first working modern machine gun. H.P. Maxim received his first patent in late March 1909.
      H. P. MAXIM SILENCER FOR GUNS Filed Feb. 21, 1921 Patented Feb. 5, 1924.HIE/AM PERCY MAXIM, OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.SILENCER FOR GUNS.Application filed February 21, 1921. Serial No. 446,822.T 0 all whom it may concern:Be it known that I, HIRAM PERCY MAXIM, a citizen of the United States and a. resident of Hartford, county of Hartford, State of\” Connecticut, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in a Silencer for Guns,of which the following is a specification.The present invention relates to a device for silencing the noise of a gun report, and has as its object to provide a device of this sort which is of increased effectiveness in checking the powder gases and causing them to discharge gradually into the atmosphere *without noise, which is of simplified construction, and wherein the parts may be readily assembled and dissembled. A further object of-the invention is to provide an improved. tool and method for use. in assembling and dissembling the parts. In the drawings- Fig. 1 is a longitudinal sectional view through my improved silencer. IFig. 2 is an end view of one of the bafile members which form the gas retarding chambers.Fig. 3 is a sectional view taken \”on line 33 of Fig. 2. y Y Fig. 4 is a view illustrating the manner of assembling theparts, andFig. 5 is a similar view illustrating the manner of dissembling the parts.Referring to the drawings in detail, a is a tubular casing or shell which, as usual, may-have at its rear end an internally threaded boss I) for reception of the nipple I of a coupling member 0 adapted to be fitted on the muzzle of the gun barrel d. In the rear end of the casing is an unoccupied space 6 forwardly of which are a plurality of bafile members 7 which form successive gas retarding chambers g. I aThe baffle members are of novel and advantageous construction. Each consists of I a disk provided with a cylindrical skirt or flange 10 of such diameter as to fit closely within the bore of the casing a. Each disc is centrally apertured as at 11 to form a passage for the projectile, and the opposite edges of this aperture are offset as at 12 \”in opposite directions so that the plane of the aperture is inclined to the axis of the casing 0:. With this arrangement, upon firing the n to which the silencer is attached, the com ustion gases pass from one retarding chamber into the succeeding ones at an angle to the passage for the projectile and are thus slowed down and caused to issue gradually from the silencer without noise.Also in accordance with the present invention, the arrangement is such that the battle members may be easily and quickly inserted into and removed from the casing a, this being of advantage in that the silencer may be easily cleaned and repaired. For this purpose the outer end of the bore of the casing is of such diameter that the baflie members may pass therethrough. This end of the casing is internally threaded to receive a retaining member in the form of a nut 14, which is centrally apertured, as shown. Preferably the bore of the casing is of uniform diameter up to the internal shoulder 13,To facilitate assembling and dissembling of the baffle members within the casing, I provide an improved tool which comprises a pin 20 having adjacent to but spaced from, one end an abutment, in the present instance this abutment being in the form of an annular rib or collar 21 of greater diameter than that of the apertures in the baffle members but of less diameter than the internal diameterof the boss I). To insert the baffle members into the casing, they are first threaded onto the long end of the pin in the same relation to each other as they have when finally positioned within the casing and then this pin together with the baf= fie members thereon is inserted, into the casing as shown in Fig. 4; the pin is then withdrawn and the nut 14 is screwed into the end of the casing to hold the bafile members in position. To remove the battle members from the casing, the nut14: is unscrewed from place and the short end of the pin is inserted through the rear end of the casing to bring the abutment 21 into engagement with the centrally apertured washer 15 which is positioned between the foremost bafile member and the shoulder 13 of the casing. Then by pushing forwardl on the pin, the baffle members are forced rom the casin The washer 15 is of\’ advantage in that it prevents mutilation of the foremost baflie member by the removing tool. This provides a convenient and easy means of assembling and dissembling the baffle memhere within the casing, it being difficult to properly position the bafile members within the casing by dropping them one by one thereinto or removing them therefrom by jarring or shaking the casing.I claim as my invention:1. In a gun silencer, a tubular casin having a bore open at one end and provide with a shoulder spaced from its other end, an apertured washer against said shoulder, a plurality of battle members within said bore, the innermost member being in en gagement with said washer and all of said members and said Washer being removable through the open end of said casing, and an apertured nut threaded into the 0 en end of said bore for retaining said ba e members and washer therein.2. A baffle member for gun silencers comprising sheet metal disc provided with a cylindrical peripheral flange and centrally.apertured with the opposite edges of the aperture ofiset in opposite direction whereby the plane of the aperture is inclined to that of\’the disc.3. In combination, a gun silencer having a casing and a plurality of apertured bafile members removably positioned therein; and a tool comprising a pin on which said memhere may be threaded and having an abutment adjacent but spaced from one end larger\’in\’ diameter than the apertures in said bafile members both ends of said tool beingadapted to be inserted into the apertures of said members for the purposes described.\’ HIRAM PERCY MAXIM.

  • Jason December 5, 2016, 7:54 pm

    The wait time of NFA items is unacceptable. They need to amend this bill to transfer the background process of all other NFA items to the FBI NICS.

  • FrankInFL December 5, 2016, 6:26 pm

    I have seen suppressors for $40 — in Sweden!

  • Rusa December 5, 2016, 2:53 pm

    What about all the state laws that only make them legal when registered in NFA?

    • Will Drider December 6, 2016, 1:43 pm

      If the NFA requirement goes away, the State or local requirement to follow it will be moot and unenforceable. This however, would not stop anti gun States from writing their own restrictions and bans like CA, NY, NJ do to crimilize firearms that are lawful in the majrity of States.

  • Bryan Spiegel December 5, 2016, 2:16 pm

    The ability to easily sell a supressor, make your own suppressor, and not have the NFA part in the way will allow more manufacturers to make their own, and integrate them with their offerings. Expect package deals.

  • James M December 5, 2016, 3:40 am

    There is absolutely no reason why suppressors cost so much. Research, development, materials, design, come on. When they are no longer a nfa item, i will make my own. And so will alot of other people. Magpul will probably sell one that costs as much to produce as a pmag. I mean come on. Some things can only be attributed to greed. Now. Companies like silencerco who have fought and paid to help change the legislation will eventually be the ones hurt the most. They paid with blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are. And will watch the majority of the rewards go to those who sat and watched. Two sides. Both are the truth. BITTERSWEET.

  • Will Drider December 5, 2016, 1:23 am

    1. People will build their own suppressors. Its not hard and information is currently available. Results will vary. Lol
    2. There will be a greater demand for factory handguns with threaded barrels and high suppressor sights.
    3. There will be a higher demand for aftermarket drop in threaded barrels.
    4. Adjustable gas systems for rifles will be in demand.
    5. Demand for hearing protection devices other then suppressors, will remain remain at current levels.
    6. Highest demand will be for 22LR suppressors.
    7. Suppressor development will persue off center axis designs, shorter length and larger area below the bore.
    8. Integrally suppressed firearms designs of current top selling firearms will be prolific.

    • Ron December 5, 2016, 8:17 pm

      They should come down in price very quickly as any basic machine shop, or hobbyist with a few tools can turn them out. There will probably be kits available, and the existing manufacturers will ramp up production. The materials cost for a basic low tech suppressor is almost pocket change.

      • Mahatma Muhjesbude December 9, 2016, 2:50 pm

        Ron, there already are ‘kits’ out there. Quite good and well machined, actually, For less than a hundred bucks at the moment but will increase somewhat as the initial surge ‘demand’ right after the passage of the bill will cause the same problem they had with .22 long rifle ammo. But then the prices would come down accordingly since like someone else observed here, the materials are dirt cheap unless you go exotic magnesium allows or something, and any basic CNC or
        tool and die machine shop could cut and tap one out in minutes.

        These kits already available are called Solvent traps for rifle cleaning. They’re all over the internet and are BATF legal. That is until you drill the baffle and end cap holes. (15 minutes). Then they become as good-a couple even better- than so-called factory suppressors going for over a grand. A couple companies even supply the ATF form, then to make them legal. I think that might be away to also avoid the wait. Which is why they’re pretty popular.

        So I’m just wondering how they’ll deal with that? If the ‘law’ still would require a background check??? From someone who makes one from a kit? Or simply constructs their own from You tube tutorials?

        Wouldn’t it just be like a ghost gun, then? Or a private transfer of a firearm? No need for background checks there?

        But there’s one tiny but significant difference here. Silencers ARE NOT FUCKING GUNS! They are just a simple accessory, sans the Un-Constitutional regulations. Like a Flash Suppressor or Muzzle brake.

        Therefore there really CAN’T be a clause in the ‘Hearing Protection Act’ requiring a stupid fucking intelligence insulting ‘background check’! What nit-fucking-with republican legislator was trading Democrat Blow Jobs to let background checks be in the Bill?


        ARE WE STILL ALL STUCK SO DEEP IN THE MORASS OF TYRANNY INDUCED COGNITIVE DETERIORATION THAT WE CAN’T EVEN ELIMINATE ABJECT ABSURDITY IN A FUCKING PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WE ALL SHOULD DIRECT AND CONTROL???!!!! Even though we have a once in a lifetime chance now to get these politicians to turn back the TYRANNY once and for all on ALL gun legislation? Before the new Totalitarian Billionaire Party takes it all back again and takes no prisoners this time?

        Don’t answer that.. until Y’all dig yore brains out your assholes and stuff them back in your EARS!

    • Cary Kieffer December 9, 2016, 6:52 am

      “Results will vary” lmao….that was funny! I almost choked on my coffee.

    • Don Jackson February 8, 2017, 9:21 pm

      “4. Adjustable gas systems for rifles will be in demand.”

      I can absolutely vouch for that. I love my Saker 7.62, but the BCM Gas Buster Charging Handle did nothing to reduce a face full of gas until I had the gas system adjusted.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend