Gun Muffler (Silencer/Suppressor) Status Map of the United States

Gun Watch ^ | 13 June, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Map at American Suppressor Association

Many American gun owners and shooters do not know that it is legal to own and use silencers, suppressors, or perhaps the most descriptive term gun mufflers, in the United States.  There are only a handful of states that cling to the antiquated notion the suppressors should be banned because ... guns....  There is no logical or rational argument to be made for that position, but it persists.

The states where suppressors are banned are the same tiny minority that persist with unreasonable and likely unconstitutional restrictions on the ownership and carry of firearms for personal protection.  Silencers are more suited to hunting and target practice.  The map shows that irrational hatred of firearms is what is driving the legislation. 

The eight states that still ban gun mufflers for non-government agents are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhoad Island.  All but one, Illinois, have highly restrictive "may issue" concealed carry regulations, and Illinois only adopted a "shall issue" law after loosing a legal fight in the federal circuit court.

While the map does not show it, New Hampshire recently changed their law to restore the right to hunt with suppressors, making 40 states where hunting with suppressors is legal.

The reasons for legal gun muffler ownership are so obvious, that passing legislation is mostly a task of educating the legislators.  This is not always and easy task, but it is straight forward.  In the recent bill in New Hampshire, the legislature listed these findings of fact. From bill HB 500:

2 Findings. The legislature finds that:

I. Firearm suppressors lessen the report of a firearm by approximately 30 decibels, thereby allowing hunters to more fully enjoy and participate in the sport.

II. Hunting with sound suppressors will help to lessen the hearing damage many hunters suffer from.

III. Hunting with a sound suppressor allows new, inexperienced hunters to hunt without ear plugs or ear muffs enabling them to hear important instructions from their mentors (parents, grandparents, or other responsible adults) who are hunting with them.

IV. Suppressors decrease the chance of asymmetrical hearing loss or shooters ear.

V. Hunting with suppressors lessens the ambient noise heard by neighbors who may be on adjoining property where hunting is taking place. While it does reduce the noise level of a firearm, the firearm is still loud enough so that a neighbor will know someone is shooting.

VI. In the 34 states that allow some form of hunting with suppressors not a single state has moved to repeal this practice. It makes for safer shooting and better neighbors.

VII. Firearm suppressors are heavily regulated by the federal government, which requires a $200 tax be paid, a background check conducted, fingerprints be given, sign off by a local chief law enforcement officer, and approximately a 9-month wait to get the paperwork completed before taking possession of a suppressor. This virtually guarantees that abuses with legally owned suppressors are extremely rare.

 Once legislators are made aware of these facts, legislation removing burdensome bans on silencers and hunting with silencers often passes both houses with bipartisan support at 90%.  It is hard to get 90% support for anything. 

Illinois appears the next state that is likely to remove its antiquated ban on gun mufflers.  The House passed the bill, but the legislature adjourned before the Senate voted on it.  There is still a chance for the Senate to vote, as the legislature will need to reconvene for a summer Session.  The NRA-ILA has a handy system to take action if you are so inclined.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

[Windflier]

Never heard them called mufflers before. The term, suppresspors, is more common.

[marktwain]

The inventor, Hiram Maxim, called them silencers. He invented and patented automotive mufflers at the same time.

Essentially they are a muffler for guns.

[NorthMountain]

Your original comment:

"If Donald Trump wins the White House, there is a good chance that gun mufflers will be removed from the NFA, and placed in the same legal category as rifles and shotguns. "

What reason do you have to believe that Trump will ever see such a bill on his desk?

[556x45]

I think we’re beginning of a new era (since the 30s) for suppressors. That is, seeing a large increase of general ownership (non-governmental) , usage and relaxing of the overly strict laws that govern them. It looks much like the early days of the concealed carry movement.

[marktwain]

Because in the interview with Josh Waldron, he explains that when reform legislation is explained to legislators, even Democrats usually end up supporting it. It usually passes with 90% margins.

Republicans already control both houses. It is very hard for Democrats to argue against this reform. This is the culmination of several years of lobbying by the American Suppressor Association and the NRA. In the interview, Waldron, who is a member of the NRA committee on legislative strategy, says the NRA is fully on board.

Those are good reasons to believe the legislation would end up on a President Trump’s desk.

It is simply very hard to build any logical case for the current legislative scheme.

This is a relatively small bite of the apple, a small increment that the Congress can easily swallow.

I talked to a low level bureaucrat from the ATF not too long ago. True, he does not make policy. But he had no problem with the reform. He actually thought it was a good idea, and he was not a “gun guy”. He simply thought it made sense. He thought it would remove a bunch of headaches from the BATF platter.

It is a small datum, but it adds an interesting perspective.

The BATF simply cannot show any problems with criminal use of silencers, and they have numerous countries around the world that likewise show no problems with cheap and unregulated silencers.

[Yo-Yo]

I’d love to have an integrally suppressed 10/22 and/or 22/45 pistol.

[sockmonkey]

*** I suppose they are legal, but I believe (in my jurisdiction) I have to get the sheriff’s permission to buy one. ***

Ditto for my County (Kerr) in TX. Even though TX Parks and Wildlife recommends them to prevent hearing loss, he has stated publicly he will not sign off on one.

[lacrew]

I believe it is that paperwork which requires an approval from my jurisdiction’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’.

I’m glad they’re legal...but they’re not exactly readily available. I have a pistol that is ready to take one, and I’d love to give it a try - but not if I have to shell out $$ and self report myself to a database. I have no idea why the ATF treats these like machine guns.

[DCBryan1]

Federal law requires FBI approval and an NFA stamp costing $200 and is non transferable.

Wrong:

1) BATFE approval, not FBI.
2) Always transferable to another with submittal of Form 4 and tax stamp.

[wastoute]

The FBI approval is required before BATF will issue the Stamp.

[DCBryan1]

I believe it is that paperwork which requires an approval from my jurisdiction’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’.

...if you don't want LEO sign off, form an LLC or Gun Trust. No photo, no fingerprints, no LEO sign off......and is a great estate planning tool if you die and want to keep them in the family. Added benefit of having a Trust/LLC "own" your guns is that you can ethically and legally say "NO" to the question: Do you own any firearms? (because the Trust/LLC does!)

[marktwain]

“It looks much like the early days of the concealed carry movement.”

Yes. The biggest difference is it is moving faster, much faster, and accelerating.

The restoring of the ability to buy suppressors, and the education of the usefulness of suppressors, is much like the dropping of a crystal into a supersaturated solution. They demand has built up and been “suppressed” for decades.

Now that the NFA law is being shown for the farce that it is, the reform is proceeding very, very rapidly.

It took 30 years for concealed carry reform to reach all 50 states. It took 8 years for suppressor reform to hit 42; I believe that national reciprocity for carry permits and the reform of the NFA for suppressors will take place about the same time.

[NorthMountain]

I HOPE (there's that "h" word again") you're right.

Hope isn't a plan. I have heard too much bullshit from politicians and lobbyists to trust anything from them. Sometimes they surprise me. WV now has constitutional carry. I was shocked that they were able to carry out a veto override for that.

[Delta 21]

Correct pipe fittings available at the hardware store or even E-bay for under $10.

Fram oil filters are under $10.

The local Sheriff up to the Supreme Court can kiss my ass.

[marktwain]

“I have no idea why the ATF treats these like machine guns.”

The is the best academic study on the topic.

Short answer: No one knows why. No reason was ever given.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/05/review-criminal-use-of-firearm-silencers.html

My guess is that Franklin Roosevelt was simply trying to grab and centralize as much power over guns as he could. Suppressors were fairly new in 1932 (invented in 1908), so it was partly the “ban new gun technology!” idea.

[marktwain]

“I have heard too much bullshit from politicians and lobbyists to trust anything from them.”

You have lots of good reasons to be skeptical. We all need to be skeptical. You have noted that I said a “good chance” of passage. I consider that better than 50%.

The key, of course, is that the media cartel is losing its stranglehold on the flow of information. It is the same thing that is driving the Trump candidacy, IMHO.

Trump has sufficient media of his own (on social media) that he does not have to accept the old media cartel’s terms of debate and preferences for the agenda.

We live in “interesting times”, to be sure.

[Windflier]

“Essentially they are a muffler for guns.”

Yes, I know. I’m merely commenting on the terminology.

[TheBigJ]

Trump stated for 2nd Amendment policy: “The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.” Short barreled shotguns and rifles should be included with the sound suppressors, gov’t has no business regulating these. Defund or disband the ATF.

[marktwain]

One bite at a time.

The stupid legal distinctiontion between short barrelled rifles and shotguns and ordinary pistols is as idiotic as the insane regulation of suppressors.

The corollary reform would be to place SBS and SBR’s in the same legal category as pistols.

It think it can be achieved, but maybe not all at once.

If it could be included without compromising the suppressor reform, I would be all for it.

But, I would rather get a solid small bite instead of a failing to get a dubious mouthful.

[SgtHooper]

Certainly, transferrable.