Suppressors Could the Government Successfully Ban Suppressors

[Longshot231]

We all know that there has been some bad news for owners of suppressors or those considering the purchase of one.

Trump answered a question, off the cuff like he usually does, that he'd be in favor of banning suppressors.

Some background is in order before I ask the question.

In states that have banned standard capacity magazines, empirical information suggests that there has been massive noncompliance with turning them in or destroying them.

In states that have banned soc-called "assault" weapons, empirical information suggests that there has been massive noncompliance with these laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Canadian government has had problems with people not registering their firearms to the point that the rules had to be relaxed.

The ATF said in 2017 that there are 1.3 million registered suppressors in the US.

Now let's say that in the end these devices are banned just like the bumpstocks, which were not registered. We know that there are a lot of bumpstock owners that have refused to comply with destroying these devices.

The banning of suppressors would be a little different because the devices are registered. The ATF knows who purchased them.

With that said, there would probably be a public proclamation that all suppressor owners must turn their suppressors into the ATF or local law enforcement agency. Don't forget that at one time the CLEO had to sign off on the purchase. Now, the CLEO is notified of the purchase. So even the CLEO knows you have suppressors.

So the fact that someone in government knows that you have a suppressor(s) makes it a little easier to determine whether or not you have turned it in or will turn it in.

With that said, just how many of the 1.3 million suppressors owners does everyone think will comply with confiscation of these devices?

 

[pmclaine]

If the US mil adopts suppressors as standard issue....as the USMC appears to be doing.....wouldnt the standard of "in common use" be met.

I believe Miller set the precedent that if its endemic to an Infantry platoon it is what the Founding Fathers intended.

despite that I think the uneducated public and the pols that want to control us will likely allow them to be banned.

1.3 million suppressor owners thats a pretty big voting block if they got their shit together and had support of other 2A fans.

 

[Longshot231]

1.3 million suppressor owners thats a pretty big voting block if they got their shit together and had support of other 2A fans.

We can only hope!

 

[Hound Dog]

The ATF said in 2017 that there are 1.3 million registered suppressors in the US.

With that said, just how many of the 1.3 million suppressors owners does everyone think will comply with confiscation of these devices?

Are there 1.3 million suppressors, or 1.3 million owners? Most people own more than one, some even have many. 1.3 million total suppressors probably translates into closer to 300,000 to 400,000 owners. Either way this is heat we did not need. We need to educate others about the benefits of suppressors, and be very vocal about it.

 

[Geno C.]

If it comes down to confiscation. I’m with @ArmyJerry , Molon Labe!???

 

[Fig]

If the US mil adopts suppressors as standard issue....as the USMC appears to be doing.....wouldnt the standard of "in common use" be met.

I believe Miller set the precedent that if its endemic to an Infantry platoon it is what the Founding Fathers intended.

despite that I think the uneducated public and the pols that want to control us will likely allow them to be banned.

1.3 million suppressor owners thats a pretty big voting block if they got their shit together and had support of other 2A fans.

Yea, and if every gun had a vote we’d run all this shit.

 

[OzzyO20]

We can only hope!

It's 1.3 million suppressors, not individual suppressor owners. Likely that most people own multiple.

Also, Trump did a lot more than make an 'off the cuff comment.' He had a brief sent to SCOTUS urging them to refuse to hear the Cox case, which had an opportunity to advance suppressor rights. 7 states even signed on in support of Cox. Trump's brief outlined the appeals courts decision that suppressors aren't 'bearable' arms, and are not necessary for the function of a firearm, therefore they are not protected under the 2A.

Some misreporting made it sound a little worse yesterday, but after reading the brief I'm still not to keen on the direction they're going on this.

To my knowledge, this is only the 2nd or 3rd time an NFA item has been used in a crime, and only the 2nd for a suppressor. The previous use was by a LEO who snapped. So what we have is the second major overreaction by the Trump administration. First time a bump stock was used in a mass shooting? Ban them. Second time a silencer was used? Better ban them too.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

I think the direction the Guberment is going to go in regards to "banning" suppressors is not the same direction as bump stocks but more direction of full autos....
We will have transferable vs nontransferable suppressors based on a manufactured date.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[The Durk]

There's also the issue of how the ATF wrote the laws, a suppressor is a firearm. That means it has to be voted upon, unlike the bump fire stock. And like other posters have said, some of us are "super owners" and have 5+ cans. I only have the one for now, but that's changing asap.

However, I have a distinct line in the sand that is drawn. You will not, and can not take any possessions away from me, that I own. Period. My great grandparents were snuffed out in Germany, my grandmother barely escaping with her life and my best friends grandfather was killed in Russia for having difference of opinion with the Soviets.

The only way they could get any votes, because of a lot of people like me, is to vote for a Hughes style amendment. That would require everyone who already has one, can keep them. I sure as hell know my two reps would vote against me in a heart beat.

 

[Longshot231]

I stand corrected. 1.3 million suppressors instead of owners.

 

[OzzyO20]

I just read the Cox brief, and noticed an absurdly ridiculous 'standard' the court is using in all the determinations surrounding the Second Amendment protections for 'NFA' items. Time and time again they say SBR's, SBS's, AOW's, and silencers are not protected under the Second Amendment because they aren't being 'commonly used by law-abiding citizens for self defense.' Boy if that ain't a big no-shitter. When you restrict them by law for nearly 100 years, law-abiding citizens wont readily be using them.

Someone with more time and savvy than myself needs to dig up an instance where the government prohibited something due to lack of 'common use' because the government them selves had banned it, that was ultimately overturned. I'm thinking this case law may exist in the realm of civil rights/liberties.

Arguably the most important take away from the Cox brief is on page 18 "This Court, however, reviews judgments, not statements in opinions." The deck is stacked heavily against the NFA in this regard, and someone needs to get creative and articulate some past judgments that contradict the logic of 'they aren't common because we made them illegal to be common.'

Outside of that, it becomes a weird case where the NFA may actually save rights despite heavily restricting them.

Edit: Here is the link to the brief - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-7451/98234/20190501162918266_18-7451 Cox - FINAL.pdf

 

[DangerRanger]

Watching this, I need a 22 can and can’t tell if I should jump in right now with a form 4, or wait and watch for a minute. Or eform a form 1 can since maybe it will be faster.

HPA seems to be really doing well these days

 

[Chesapeake]

I just read the Cox brief, and noticed an absurdly ridiculous 'standard' the court is using in all the determinations surrounding the Second Amendment protections for 'NFA' items. Time and time again they say SBR's, SBS's, AOW's, and silencers are not protected under the Second Amendment because they aren't being 'commonly used by law-abiding citizens for self defense.' Boy if that ain't a big no-shitter. When you restrict them by law for nearly 100 years, law-abiding citizens wont readily be using them.

Someone with more time and savvy than myself needs to dig up an instance where the government prohibited something due to lack of 'common use' because the government them selves had banned it, that was ultimately overturned. I'm thinking this case law may exist in the realm of civil rights/liberties.

Arguably the most important take away from the Cox brief is on page 18 "This Court, however, reviews judgments, not statements in opinions." The deck is stacked heavily against the NFA in this regard, and someone needs to get creative and articulate some past judgments that contradict the logic of 'they aren't common because we made them illegal to be common.'

Outside of that, it becomes a weird case where the NFA may actually save rights despite heavily restricting them.

Edit: Here is the link to the brief - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-7451/98234/20190501162918266_18-7451 Cox - FINAL.pdf

I agree. The restriction of these items and the high barrier to entry into ownership also disencentivises firms from getting into the marketplace. With less competition, prices can remain high - pricing out the average gun owner and 2A supporter who would otherwise love to own a suppressor.
Does anybody know of any cases that were ruled on by the Supreme Court regarding regulated industries that might apply?

It is human nature for a lot of people to immediately look to compromise, which is why I think some gun owners have acquiesced on the debates re bump stocks, suppressors etc. This is a no compromise scenario. If we give an inch we can expect to forfeit a mile.

Furthermore I think it’s vitally important that each one of us takes it upon ourselves to spend some time at a local public range and be willing to let others try out and see the truth about how a suppressor works firsthand.

 

[diverdon]

The issue is (when comparing a theoretical suppressor ban to actual Magazine bans) is that the feds have a list of who owns suppressors.

 

[OzzyO20]

@Chesapeake that's another good avenue to peruse for pertinent case law. If the case was heard today, we'd be screwed over in the quickest hearing in history I'm afraid. Also, great point on educating people about the reality of suppressors. Anytime I take someone who's unfamiliar to the range and let them shoot my 10.3" 5.56 rifle with a can, they always look like deer in headlights when I give them ear pro. After the first shot, they understand quickly. As much as I love the 007 films, Hollywood has done us zero favors as far as peoples perceptions of suppressors. The other perpetual myth is the misconception about who can own them.

While writing this, I had another thought. It's thin, but I wonder if there is data on hearing loss/damage resulting in the use of a firearm in self defense? Aforementioned 10.3" 5.56 gun without can would do irreversible hearing damage inside a home/building. While it doesn't defeat the 'bearable' standard they've outlined, it drives the conversation towards public health and gets back to the roots of the HPA.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

People pushed back so hard over the Volstead act, what happened to it?

 

[Gtscotty]

From the Cox brief, it would appear that the administration believes that SBRs are "dangerous or unusual" weapons and thus are not protected by the 2A. I'd assume that my AR pistol, being a pistol, is protected by the 2A, and not having been heavily regulated by the NFA, is probably also not what could be termed "unusual" anymore. I wonder if the emergence and popularity of AR pistols, along with their similarity to SBR'd ARs could be used to drive a successful suit arguing that SBRs and SBR-like weapons are no longer unusual, and by the numbers aren't unusually dangerous, and therefore should be covered by the 2A.

 

[EXTREMEPREJUDICE]

I'm disappointed the President/administration would stipulate to such a position suggesting banning a device based upon emotion and ignorance. It is a knee jerk reaction to a problem government cannot solve, that there is evil in the world.

 

[pmclaine]

What are his dopey sons saying?

Pretty sure they own cans.

Are they not caring because they are beautiful people?

 

[DangerRanger]

From the Cox brief, it would appear that the administration believes that SBRs are "dangerous or unusual" weapons and thus are not protected by the 2A. I'd assume that my AR pistol, being a pistol, is protected by the 2A, and not having been heavily regulated by the NFA, is probably also not what could be termed "unusual" anymore. I wonder if the emergence and popularity of AR pistols, along with their similarity to SBR'd ARs could be used to drive a successful suit arguing that SBRs and SBR-like weapons are no longer unusual, and by the numbers aren't unusually dangerous, and therefore should be covered by the 2A.

I think you will be sorely disappointed and the opposite will happen. If someone commits a crime with an AR pistol big T will slam braces into the NFA as pretty much an SBR just like bumpy boys. The only thing braces have is a letter saying they are ok, just like the last accessory. That surely didn’t even provide a road block for T and the NRA

 

[ArmyJerry]

I've lived a good life.

Is all i got to say

 

[Gtscotty]

I think you will be sorely disappointed and the opposite will happen. If someone commits a crime with an AR pistol big T will slam braces into the NFA as pretty much an SBR just like bumpy boys. The only thing braces have is a letter saying they are ok, just like the last accessory. That surely didn’t even provide a road block for T and the NRA

I'm sure he could have the ATF reinterpret braces as SBRs, the wording of the actual law is apparently no obstacle for the Ban-er In Chief. Until then though, it seems like the millions of AR pistols out in circulation would lend credence to the position that a firearm isn't "dangerous and unusual" and therefore exempted from 2A protections, just because it has a barrel shorter than 16".

 

[W54/XM-388]

Suppressors the problem is the registration. And why we must fight registration or (universal background checks) at every level.

With suppressors, they know you have them, know you cannot legally have given them to someone else without paperwork.
So they just send out letters demanding xxxxx and put in their database who complies and not, and then get around to dealing with those that don't as they wish, probably sending the jack booted thugs to those they want to make an example of.

 

[Lmatt]

I’m so depressed after reading this.

 

[RTH1800]

Many of us are worried about the government taking our guns or suppressors or what have you, but the question is who in the government would or could take our guns? Almost all the men and women in law enforcement support the 2nd amendment, and I have asked many what they would do if that day ever came and the answer is always turn in my badge. This is already happening in Washington State where police departments are refusing to enforce gun restriction laws. So that would leave the military which is against the constitution and I can tell you now it would never happen. You have people that want to take away guns with no guns vs. people that want to keep their guns with ALOT of guns.

I simply have a different opinion of LE than you do. The dozens of LEO’s I have experience with will do whatever they are told to do and simply enjoy screwing with people. They like those nightsticks and bullet proof vest.

When the injustice of what they are doing is pointed out to them they are “just enforcing the law” they “cannot comment on that” when you tell them how an issue got to this point. For example someone was caught stealing from you for the 5Th time without being prosecuted and was injured on the 6th time and you are getting charged for it. (Just an example)

You are going to be disappointed if you think they are on your side.

 

[THEIS]

The problem is not that somebody is going to come and take suppressors away, it's people that will give them up freely.

Hi,

Sorta like nobody is enforcing Red Flag laws right??

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[diverdon]

Many of us are worried about the government taking our guns or suppressors or what have you, but the question is who in the government would or could take our guns? Almost all the men and women in law enforcement support the 2nd amendment, and I have asked many what they would do if that day ever came and the answer is always turn in my badge. This is already happening in Washington State where police departments are refusing to enforce gun restriction laws. So that would leave the military which is against the constitution and I can tell you now it would never happen. You have people that want to take away guns with no guns vs. people that want to keep their guns with ALOT of guns.

I'm sad to point out what happened at Tienanmen Square is applicable here. When the first general did not follow orders, he was stood down and they brought in another who did what he was told. I greatly fear that the wrong leaders could easily find a lot of LE who will do what they are told.

 

[Killswitch Engage]

I'm sad to point out what happened at Tienanmen Square is applicable here. When the first general did not follow orders, he was stood down and they brought in another who did what he was told. I greatly fear that the wrong leaders could easily find a lot of LE who will do what they are told.

then its probably time ....

 

[diverdon]

then its probably time ....

This is not going to happen while President Trump is in charge. Yet I can see some seeking power who can not be trusted with it. Far better to insure that we continue to win at the ballot box, than any other alternative I know of.

 

[OzzyO20]

I have friends I shoot with often in Federal law enforcement, and we've talked about this before. In their relatively small circle it took them less than 2 minutes to come up with a list of guys who they absolutely 100% agreed would volunteer to go around and do confiscations. Not 'do as they are told' but actually willingly volunteer for this job. Don't kid yourself that everyone would just choose to not enforce this kind of order. Something about a few bad apples running the whole barrel.....

 

[Jefe's Dope]

Fuck, we look to Europe for EVERYTHING gun related to restrictions. I say we follow Europes lead on this one. ?

 

[The Durk]

We have people running for the Presidency who have openly warned that they want to ban semi autos, threatened the use of nukes. That's something that should never be joked about. Ever.

 

[2ndamendfan]

This is not going to happen while President Trump is in charge. Yet I can see some seeking power who can not be trusted with it. Far better to insure that we continue to win at the ballot box, than any other alternative I know of.

You do realize that Trump has already done more anti-gun bullshit than Obama did in 2 terms as president.

 

[2ndamendfan]

I have friends I shoot with often in Federal law enforcement, and we've talked about this before. In their relatively small circle it took them less than 2 minutes to come up with a list of guys who they absolutely 100% agreed would volunteer to go around and do confiscations. Not 'do as they are told' but actually willingly volunteer for this job. Don't kid yourself that everyone would just choose to not enforce this kind of order. Something about a few bad apples running the whole barrel.....

It wouldn't be the first time our military has been called out against it's own citizens.

Would the American military fire on its own citizens if ordered to?

Answer (1 of 68): The truth is given the right circumstances they almost assuredly would fire on civilians. What’s missing from the question and a lot of the more popular answers is what those circumstances are or how unlikely they are to come to pass. Most of the examples being given are from a ...

www.quora.com

 

[cmdecker]

I just do not see this as a high priority item for Trump, or any other president unless there was a string of incidents involving suppressors. As it is, they are WAY more regulated than assault rifles, etc. Just doesn't seem like an issue that is worth their time.

 

[Renegade]

With that said, just how many of the 1.3 million suppressors owners does everyone think will comply with confiscation of these devices?

Well, divide that by 20 if the typical suppressor owner is like me.

 

[Longshot231]

Well, divide that by 20 if the typical suppressor owner is like me.

I did say, earlier, that I stand corrected. Yep you're probably not too far off. Does anyone think that an estimate of 500,000 to about 600,000 owners would be a good estimate?

If I'm close on that estimate, we are a political minority. Neither conservatives or liberals would give two shits about us.

Heck, I met other gun owners that think suppressors should be banned altogether.

 

[Longshot231]

You do realize that Trump has already done more anti-gun bullshit than Obama did in 2 terms as president.

It is not entirely Trump. I'm not defending him but the NRA has stabbed us in the back again.

They gave Trump the green light on the bump stock ban.

A few months ago, the NRA enclosed a letter in the magazine asking for money. I'll return my letter in their envelope, telling them to go pound sand. And until they learn that they cannot compromise anymore they will not get any money from me.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

A few months ago, the NRA enclosed a letter in the magazine asking for money. I'll return my letter in their envelope, telling them to go pound sand.

I've done that for years. Any P/P junk mail gets returned stuffed over the weight limit where they have to pay extra to get it back full of all kinds of junk mail I have saved. Make sure the return address is their only as well, that way the USPS has no choice but to charge an processes it. After three to four times I don't get their trash any more, strange, I know.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

Without reading the whole thread here; no, it would not be successful. Using the above number they know the where abouts of 1.3 million registered suppressors. The Government cannot regulate the flow of drugs, ileagal immigrants, or any number of smuggled items, people, or products. Given those two facts and the ease of making said items it would work as well as Chicago's gun and drug bans.

 

[Longshot231]

Without reading the whole thread here; no, it would not be successful. Using the above number they know the where abouts of 1.3 million registered suppressors. The Government cannot regulate the flow of drugs, ileagal immigrants, or any number of smuggled items, people, or products. Given those two facts and the ease of making said items it would work as well as Chicago's gun and drug bans.

Good point but the ATF and the FBI like to make examples out out of some folks like Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians.

My theory is that they wouldn't go after a person with just one suppressor. They would go after the guy that has about a dozen or more.

If he or she didn't give up his suppressors they send in scum bags like Lon Horiuchi. They'll probably shoot him, his family and or torch his place. Then if any suppressors were discovered they would be held up like dirty socks lifted from a toilet bowl to show how evil the deceased was and that the ATF and/or FBI were merely doing their jobs to to protect the public.

In their minds, they would merely have to make examples out of a few people to scare the rest into compliance.

 

[ArmyJerry]

they will kick in your door kill your dog then kill you, and your family. Prepare for war and dont die in vane.

Many of us are worried about the government taking our guns or suppressors or what have you, but the question is who in the government would or could take our guns? Almost all the men and women in law enforcement support the 2nd amendment, and I have asked many what they would do if that day ever came and the answer is always turn in my badge. This is already happening in Washington State where police departments are refusing to enforce gun restriction laws. So that would leave the military which is against the constitution and I can tell you now it would never happen. You have people that want to take away guns with no guns vs. people that want to keep their guns with ALOT of guns.

 

[EchoDeltaSierra]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/08/daniel-zimmerman/nfa-firearms-forms-revenue-statistics/

I question the reported amount of _registered_ cans in the wild.

 

[Longshot231]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/08/daniel-zimmerman/nfa-firearms-forms-revenue-statistics/

I question the reported amount of _registered_ cans in the wild.

Do you think it is more or less?

Or something else to consider; there are probably more registered suppressors than the ATF discloses cause they may have lost a lot of other records of transfers since 1934.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Do you think it is more or less?

Or something else to consider; there are probably more registered suppressors than the ATF discloses cause they may have lost a lot of other records of transfers since 1934.

No one knows the true count, as the reg is so fucked up. I know of one guy they try to hose over a can in 2001. He was smart enough to hold his cards close until the trial then produced a legit Form 1 w/ stamp. Made fools of them all,.... his Lawyer had a field day, for some reason he quit work an retired, strange I tell ya,...

 

[Campguy308]

We are screwed.

 

[diverdon]

You do realize that Trump has already done more anti-gun bullshit than Obama did in 2 terms as president.

No I do not realize that, perhaps you could provide examples of anti gun laws he has signed. If not then perhaps you are falling for the media blitz to separate President Trump from his base.

 

[2ndamendfan]

No I do not realize that, perhaps you could provide examples of anti gun laws he has signed. If not then perhaps you are falling for the media blitz to separate President Trump from his base.

Op-Ed Argues Trump More Of A Gun Control President Than Obama

bearingarms.com

 

[acudaowner]

As i hope and pray it never happens , but yes they could and do do anything they want to they have the money power and means as a citizen I do not , my one life could get lucky and take out 2 of the 300 or so cops that could come to my door ending my fight in seconds . and still i would have saved nothing personally , id rather hand off my stuff to kin for safe keeping if it ever comes to that . but will never willingly hand over a dead skin flake to a government flunky . nor would I ever insult them while they were doing what they were ordered to do . tar n feather optional .

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Scoped rifles will be next, mark my words,... However never forget what made the Volstead act go away, an why it's such a cash cow to the gov now. Let alone all the money spent because of it that includes cradle to grave of all things that product influences/causes/employs because of.