JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Can this pass the House? Yes. Can this pass the Senate? Yes. Will Obama sign it? Doubtful, but even he might throw us a small bone. Again, I don't think he will, but it wouldn't surprise me.

If this trundles along at the typical speed of bureaucracy, it will not see the light of day while his @ssholiness and that guffawing jester Joe Bidet are still in office. But that could be a good thing, yes? It'll stand a much better chance of passing once they're gone.

If it passes, I believe that removing the ATF stamp will cause both market influences to take effect:

1.) Making suppressors a dime a dozen might force some manufacturers to fold like cheap lawn chairs. Too bad if they lack the flexibility to adjust and thrive in a dynamic new marketplace.

2.) Nimble, forward-thinking makers who can adapt and surf the wave of opportunity will sell all of us a LOT of reasonably priced cans. Without a useless, self-serving Federal agency sucking up an extra $200 (and collateral time/expenses) with every transaction, I personally think that much more American currency will change hands once this ludicrous tax stamp BS is deleted.
 
Last Edited:
The free Mkt forces are like a Bell Curve with moderately priced goods taking-up 60% of the Mkt, really expensive stuff taking maybe 25% and super cheap 15%
The great thing is the economy of mass production, order 500 units and the price is high, order 5000 and the price drops, order 5 million and the price per unit really drops.
So in a free Mkt the moderate quality/priced goods really drop, the junk disappears and the high quality stuff stays expensiveo_O
AR and 22LR 'cans' might dominate the planet like VW Bugs once did:confused:
 
Last Edited:
Oddly enough ATF is completely in favor of removing cans from the NFA registry/process, or at least eliminating the long background processing. 3 or 4 years ago ATF reps held a meeting with any interested SOT dealers/manufacturers at the Small Arms Review show and at that time were fed up with the paperwork on cans taking up so much of their time. At that time they were trying to work with some legislators for a solution - one of their ideas at that time was to keep the tax stamp and $200 fee but not have it go through the longer process background check. They would have the dealer do a standard instant background and were thinking of having a special can stamp that would be on site at SOT shops so once the background cleared they would assign the tax stamp number to the can and send the forms to ATF for file purposes - basically a cash and carry item.
 
Curious how many suppressor mfgs will secretly oppose this idea?
Just why would they oppose it? The high cost of the suppressors are directly related to the high cost of the regulatory stamps / taxes. It's not all profit for them. The high cost is EXACTLY why I don't own one, and I would be willing to bet I'm not alone on that. I am not the kind of guy that will put an accessory on a firearm that ends up costing a lot more than the firearm. It might be argued that the current manufacturers might secretly oppose this legislation because they have the "market" cornered right now. Those folks already have a reputation and a customer base, (not to mention tooling and design) so they have a leg up in any perceived more competitive market. Getting suppressors off the NFA regulatory list would open up the market for them. I would bet that all the opposition will come from Democrat politicians.
 
Just why would they oppose it?
One example I can think of is related to the manufacture of AK rifles off kits whether purchased, or provided by the customer. A guy lovingly referred to as the g00ch used to charge $2000+ to build an AK with the customer supplied kit. He built nice stuff, but after folks wised up and go into the game by selling AK builder tools, discussing the art of assembly, riveting, alignment, and finishing details, the g00ch melted down and many, many people go into the game and assembled their rifles with the equivalent quality at a greatly reduced price.

Consider the "Solvent Trap"...guaranteed products like this will become available for home assembly. Why should I spend $900-$1000 on a "special" suppressor brand when I can assemble my own for a fraction of the price. We all know these are mufflers, and Americans as we are will become creative, supply will outweigh or meet demand and price will plummet which means the guys charging $900-$1000 for they cans "because they can" will no longer be able to do so.
 
One example I can think of is related to the manufacture of AK rifles off kits whether purchased, or provided by the customer. A guy lovingly referred to as the g00ch used to charge $2000+ to build an AK with the customer supplied kit. He built nice stuff, but after folks wised up and go into the game by selling AK builder tools, discussing the art of assembly, riveting, alignment, and finishing details, the g00ch melted down and many, many people go into the game and assembled their rifles with the equivalent quality at a greatly reduced price.

Consider the "Solvent Trap"...guaranteed products like this will become available for home assembly. Why should I spend $900-$1000 on a "special" suppressor brand when I can assemble my own for a fraction of the price. We all know these are mufflers, and Americans as we are will become creative, supply will outweigh or meet demand and price will plummet which means the guys charging $900-$1000 for they cans "because they can" will no longer be able to do so.
Exactly my point. Some may oppose loosening regs because of their "monopoly", but by and large, they will embrace it because of competition, and they already have a headstart on it. Over the last ten years since I have moved out here from Montana, I have lost count of just how many gun dealers have started up and gone out of business in this region, all of them in one way or another trying to capitalize on the AR/AK craze.
Right now those manufacturers of suppressors are getting a lot of money from a few individuals. As I stated before, most of the end consumer costs are a direct result of taxes and regulatory BS. How does that figure into their profit margin?? It doesn't.
 
I had a FA MAC10/45 with a suppressor and while it was quiet, it was no where near hollywood quiet.

Agreed. Nothing is Hollywood quiet (except maybe OJ's progress report on finding the "real" killer).

While I unashamedly covet my buddy's grease gun, I'll have to settle for a Mac 10/45 with a red dot. Hoping to get a can for it soon. I really enjoy full auto without earplugs.

 
Last Edited:
Ive owned a Full Auto Mac 10 in 45. It was pretty damned quiet with a silencer. Ive also owned a closed bolt semi in 45. It was freakin loud with a silencer.
 
Is it safe to say this bill is unfortunately dead in the water? I was really looking forward this possibly passing since I'm already deaf in 1 ear and definitely am worried about my last remaining one lol
 
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 2236, Hearing Protection Act of 2015 , which is currently pending in the United States Senate. I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.


In the Senate, this legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. While I am not a member of that Committee, I want to assure you that I will be following the progress of this bill and will keep your views in mind if this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.


Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep in touch.


Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
 
Eliminate the NFA.

Problem solved.
Problem is, lots of states have state-level prohibitions with an "except if Federally registered under NFA" Affirmative Defense. So they can still book you and take you for the ride, separate you from your favorite iron, and bugger it up in the evidence locker and you in the clink while waiting for your day in court where you can show your Form 4 and tax-stamp and say "it's legal, now hand it over motherf---ers before I bring action in Federal court" and full NFA repeal removes even that defense.
 
With the number of states already having reciprocity agreements, I see very little benefit in this. IMO there are a lot more people that would benefit from removing suppressors from the NFA.

I'm honestly not sure which would truly benefit more people. Maybe suppressors might... I think the number of people that have them now, is probably much smaller than the number of CC permit holders, and permit holders like me end up having at least 2 permits (OR and UT), to be able to have reciprocity in a little over half of the states. It would be nice to just have one permit (and only one to pay for every 4 or 5 years, since they're on a different cadence), and know I could travel to ANY state, as long as I know how to follow their laws (which, BTW, the Android App "Legal Heat" is most helpful for). There's probably more people currently that would be helped by that change in law, but maybe tons more people would get suppressors (or more suppressors) if they didn't require a tax stamp (I know I've kind of not gotten around to getting one due to the extra hassle and wait of getting a tax stamp), so maybe that would help more people... That said, I think the best option would be "push for all of it, while we have a chance, so, at a minimum, we can get the stuff we want that can be grandfathered in when some future government tries to take it away again." ;-)
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top