There is No argument for any red flag laws. It is unconstitutional.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors Could the Government Successfully Ban Suppressors
- Thread starter Longshot231
- Start date
How do you think our industry will be portrayed in a cnn or msnbc expose. I’d say it’s pretty detrimental to us all. Tie this horseshit in with his good ol buddy don junior and we will all be selling our cans back to the government in no time.
He is a polarizing individual that’s for sure. I don’t know all of KB shenanigans nor do I know anyone that reads Tactical Life Magazine. But I do know that legislation for a suppressor ban takes congressional votes, not cnn or msnbc exposes. It is wise to engage with our elected officials and support the groups with talented lobbyist.
KB’s personality and personal issues aren’t even a blip on my radar. For every KB there is a Mike, Zack, Todd etc that rep the industry with the highest level of integrity and professionalism.
Last edited:
Thankfully there is only one of those and the industry is actually full of great people.
Sadly at this point no matter which way you look at it In the past 12 months more crimes have been committed by silencer company owners than silencer owners.
I’m suggesting that fact, and the continued blind eye turned to that behavior by the entire industry, could be a detriment to us all. I hope I’m proven wrong.
Sadly at this point no matter which way you look at it In the past 12 months more crimes have been committed by silencer company owners than silencer owners.
I’m suggesting that fact, and the continued blind eye turned to that behavior by the entire industry, could be a detriment to us all. I hope I’m proven wrong.
Well, you guys that plan on doing what it's told are good to go. Just sit tight.
Those of us not willing to hand over rights to a cabal of fucking crooks and pedophiles need to have a plan to get together if/when the need arises. Safety in numbers and all.
Those of us not willing to hand over rights to a cabal of fucking crooks and pedophiles need to have a plan to get together if/when the need arises. Safety in numbers and all.
The answer to justifying suppressors is hearing damage from not having one. You need a class action against the government or state that bans them for progressive hearing loss and tinitus caused in recreational shooters.
The UK has this debate years ago and whilst we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world we can get a suppressor for any rifle or shotgun just by writing “to protect hearing” on the form. No questions asked, no tax stamp and they are granted the next day.
The UK has this debate years ago and whilst we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world we can get a suppressor for any rifle or shotgun just by writing “to protect hearing” on the form. No questions asked, no tax stamp and they are granted the next day.
sort of funny thing about banning something yes they can do it they banned drugs and people who want them still get them , they ban automatics and yet you could find and buy them still not sure banning is or would work they way they want it to not when so many want them in an age where you could make your own like automatic 3d printed ar lowers where there is a will there is always a way . they banned you making a nuclear reactor in your back yard and still people try they may have died but they still did it .
In the past I use to put the reason for purchase on the Form 4 was for “investment and all lawful purposes.” I think I will add “hearing protection “ to that as well.
I agree with this, just as after the Parkland school shooting, these pompous Repubs pushed through and signed into law a red flag bill to make the snowflakes feel better. And there were alot of people very vocal about it trying to stop it from going through . And 2 if the pukes are still in the Senate, Rubio and Scott, trying to play it off using the Democrats line of doing it for the kids, makes me sick.
Not sure if I should start a separate thread but this video dovetails with the current discussion.
I have a lot of thoughts on what he says but it’s late and I’m tired. It’s a long video but well worth watching,
I have a lot of thoughts on what he says but it’s late and I’m tired. It’s a long video but well worth watching,
Text - H.R.3454 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): HEAR Act
Text for H.R.3454 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): HEAR Act
www.congress.gov
How many are actually going to comply? What are they going to do, send the ATF door to door? I doubt it.
Yes, cans are serialized, and know where you live, but the time and money to go after those who don't go hand in cans?
Going to take them an age to figure out a system to even do the buy back, let alone even figure out all those that even have cans. Or where to have people take the things for a turn in.
Even the document posted above reads...
(b) Requirement.—During the 90-day period described in section 6, the Attorney General shall establish and implement a buy-back program, to be carried out across the United States, to purchase firearm silencers and firearm mufflers (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code) from individuals seeking to comply with the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
Fuck you, your ass can come seek me out. I have better shit to do. Also, I have a suppressor, not a silencer or muffler. So go away.
How long did it take the ATF to find out if that can was legal in that shooting? Exactly.
Unlike mags and bump stocks, which there is massive noncompliance, I expect there to be more people scared of not turning them in.
Personally, I could give two shits, I don't shoot my rifles at local ranges or in public, so it matters to me none.
Odds are they aren't going to go look for you. They will wait for you to fuck up. Although, I'm not even sure a traffic stop would be big enough of a hit, I could be wrong.
Yes, cans are serialized, and know where you live, but the time and money to go after those who don't go hand in cans?
Going to take them an age to figure out a system to even do the buy back, let alone even figure out all those that even have cans. Or where to have people take the things for a turn in.
Even the document posted above reads...
(b) Requirement.—During the 90-day period described in section 6, the Attorney General shall establish and implement a buy-back program, to be carried out across the United States, to purchase firearm silencers and firearm mufflers (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code) from individuals seeking to comply with the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
Fuck you, your ass can come seek me out. I have better shit to do. Also, I have a suppressor, not a silencer or muffler. So go away.
How long did it take the ATF to find out if that can was legal in that shooting? Exactly.
Unlike mags and bump stocks, which there is massive noncompliance, I expect there to be more people scared of not turning them in.
Personally, I could give two shits, I don't shoot my rifles at local ranges or in public, so it matters to me none.
Odds are they aren't going to go look for you. They will wait for you to fuck up. Although, I'm not even sure a traffic stop would be big enough of a hit, I could be wrong.
The thing with bump stocks is there was one company that got a letter saying their product didn't really kind of sorta hopefully meet the requirements of a machine gun. Eventually there was a second out fit that started making them. I am sure both are out of business now. With suppressors there are probably 20 or more different manufactures. Everyone of them will be deeply affected by this, and probably the only ones to survive are the ones that the suppressor business is just a small part of their revenue. The company's that only make suppressors will be gone with the stroke of a pen. I can't believe they are not joining forces to fight this hand over fist. If these libitards are going to gracious enough to do a buy back, if they don't give us retail value we should file a class action lawsuit against the author of the bill for the difference and sue him personally. 1.3 million suppressors at an average of just 700 bucks each is 910,000,000 that's not not chump change. They gonna use my hard earned tax money to take my shit away, screw them. I will be fighting this with every thing I have.
This bill would face a lot of trouble. First off, it isn’t getting 60 votes in the senate right now. You would need 13 of the 53 Republicans to support it.
Secondly, there will be issues with the source of the funding for the buy back.
Lastly,I don’t think a law would be constitutional if it allowed a certain class of people (LE) to own something acting in a manner other than on duty.
If anything, this was a “come out swinging” approach and they know it couldn’t be passed.
Much more likely is silencers being treated like machine guns, and I am not sure that is even likely.
Secondly, there will be issues with the source of the funding for the buy back.
Lastly,I don’t think a law would be constitutional if it allowed a certain class of people (LE) to own something acting in a manner other than on duty.
If anything, this was a “come out swinging” approach and they know it couldn’t be passed.
Much more likely is silencers being treated like machine guns, and I am not sure that is even likely.
I understand where you are going with this but this logic hasn't held up in court here in Maryland. LEO are exempt from the magazine capacity limit and it says nothing about duty weapons. Our government constantly makes cops higher class citizens by making them exempt from laws, texting while driving, distracted driving, and the list goes on. I doubt that would be struck down as unconstitutional.
I think the Maryland laws address this. The section regarding detachable magazine does not state that possession is illegal, just purchase, sale, manufacture, etc. Therefore, they are not exempting law enforcement (not acting in an official capacity) from possessing something that non-LE cannot own.
Additionally, the section regarding assault weapons say that it only exempts LE if the weapon was acquired while the officer was acting in an official capacity or a gun owned by the department subsequently sold/given to the officer on retirement. It doesn’t allow any LE (current or former) to own any weapon that they want (when not acting in their official capacity) while non-LE do not have the same privilege. That exemption only applies to firearms acquired in connection with their official capacity as a LE officer. If a retired LE wanted to walk into a gun store and buy an “assault weapon” (Maryland’s term) they would be subject to the exact same rules as any non-LE individual.
While you can have laws the grant different exclusions to certain laws (for example an officer acting in their official capacity can run red lights under certain conditions), it is difficult for a law to allow possession of an item by one person (in something other than an official capacity) and not allow another person to possess the same thing. I am sure those laws were carefully drafted to walk this tightrope.
Additionally, the section regarding assault weapons say that it only exempts LE if the weapon was acquired while the officer was acting in an official capacity or a gun owned by the department subsequently sold/given to the officer on retirement. It doesn’t allow any LE (current or former) to own any weapon that they want (when not acting in their official capacity) while non-LE do not have the same privilege. That exemption only applies to firearms acquired in connection with their official capacity as a LE officer. If a retired LE wanted to walk into a gun store and buy an “assault weapon” (Maryland’s term) they would be subject to the exact same rules as any non-LE individual.
While you can have laws the grant different exclusions to certain laws (for example an officer acting in their official capacity can run red lights under certain conditions), it is difficult for a law to allow possession of an item by one person (in something other than an official capacity) and not allow another person to possess the same thing. I am sure those laws were carefully drafted to walk this tightrope.
Those of y’all in Maryland and other red flag states should be up in arms already. “Assault weapon” ban is not constitutional. Y’all think they won’t do this or that because of the constitution? They obviously don’t respect it and will do whatever they want until we stop them. They are dividing and conquering. They are killing us by a thousand cuts. I’m not ready yet.. but just like winter in Alaska.. you can spend all summer preparing and your still not ready, guess what though.. it comes anyways. Winter is coming again. Get ready...
They do not have to confiscate or have them turned in. A silencer or any other firearm is useless to me if all I can do is fondle it in my basement. If I cannot take it out and shoot it, sell, video it, etc., then they won. Thousands of dollars of investment, and enjoyment, reduced to nothing. YMMV.
Actually, I do. If that’s what it comes to, my family knows what I stand for. My neighbors might not be happy though.... our house are a little close
Does it say you actually have to put your name on the notification letter?
ATF Agent: WTF is this?
Other Agent: It says change of address notification on it, right there. (Points finger)
ATF Agent: They didn't put their name on it and there's no return address or name on the envelope.
What do we do?
Other Agent: (Shrugs shoulders)
The instructions to a form are not considered law and carry no weight. Instructions on a form are not the same as regulations or other official guidance (at least in the tax world), if you dont follow instructions on a Form there are no legal reprocussions, as long as you complied with Federal laws.
These anti gun bills all argue solely upon the premise of saving lives and that we don’t need them.
Try banning alcohol. That didn’t work out too well. How many people die from alcohol abuse?
It is not the alcohol - it is misuse and abuse.
This about is about power and control over “WE THE PEOPLE”
We must continue the fight for ourselves, our families and future generations.
Never, never give up.
Try banning alcohol. That didn’t work out too well. How many people die from alcohol abuse?
It is not the alcohol - it is misuse and abuse.
This about is about power and control over “WE THE PEOPLE”
We must continue the fight for ourselves, our families and future generations.
Never, never give up.
I'm not as sure as you are on that redheads statement.
Let me just say I have a lot of redheads in my family. The empirical evidence that I have firsthand says you're wrong. ?
