British Welrod
British De Lisle
Let's get jiggy with it so the bad guys don't know what hit 'em.
Posted on 06/27/2023 4:55:03 AM PDT by marktwain
The number of legal suppressors or silencers in the United States shows they are in common use for lawful purposes. As of January of 2023, the ATF shows there were over 3.1 million silencers or suppressors legally owned in the United States for lawful purposes. In January of 2020, there were 1.8 million. Over the last three years, the number of legal suppressors has increased by an average of 450,000 suppressors per year. By the end of 2023, it is reasonably expected there will be over 3.6 million suppressors in the United States of America. To own these suppressors, the owners have gone through a complicated and lengthy process, often taking a year or more to process their applications for tax stamps. The federal government requires tax stamps to purchase a silencer legally.
The Heller decision was the first in a series of Supreme Court decisions restoring Second Amendment protections for the right to keep and bear arms. From Heller, the only weapons allowed to be banned must be both dangerous and unusual. Weapons that are in common use can not be considered unusual. Stephen Halbrook sums up the common use precedent from Heller:
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.
Silencers/Suppressors are in Common Use for Lawful Purposes
American society chooses what arms are in common use. The government does not make the choices.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I truly hope we see them allowed without permit. I’ve delayed getting one as I never go out shooting alone—I’d need 3-5 to allow everyone to have one in use. Otherwise, even if my firearm is suppressed, I’d still be wearing hearing protection since my son’s firearm would not be.
“The extreme bureaucratic restrictions on them are unconstitutional.”
You got that right. Talked to a guy at the range about a year ago that was running one on a rifle. The paperwork and hoop jumping is extensive to say the least.....not to mention expensive.
“...not to mention expensive..”
It’s just another money-making tax scheme...legalized theft.
“I’d still be wearing hearing protection “
you will still be wearing hearing protection anyway.
The only thing I have found to be comfortable to shoot is a 22 with subsonic ammo.
223, 300 blackout ..still to loud , even out of a bolt gun.
They are cheap and easy to buy in Europe. They are mandatory at many ranges to keep sound down.
Yes, figure as much. Indoors, I double-up on hearing protection. A supressor my allow single layor. Outside, maybe foam inserts instead of over-the-ear. I have tinnitus so take extra care anyway.
“223, 300 blackout “
Both usually are in the 106db range even with a suppressor. That’s loud enough to cause hearing loss.
The one thing I don't like about this "in common use" test is that it is too easy to infringe on what would otherwise be fully protected arms but for prior legislation.
To wit: Silencers would be in much larger common use were there not a $200 tax imposed. Given the popularity and uproar over the newly enacted braced pistol rule, short barreled rifles would be in more common use were it not for the $200 tax. Machine guns would be in much more popular use were it not for both the $200 tax and especially the Hughes Amendment closing the registry to new firearms.
The authors of the 1934 National Firearms Act understood the Constitution and the meaning of the Second Amendment, which is why when they wished to effectively ban machine guns, silencers, handguns, and short barreled rifles and shotguns (handguns were later removed) they knew they couldn't just ban them outright, so they instead instituted a tax.
The ultimate question is: Does a tax on a firearm constitute "infringement" as defined by the Second Amendment?
If not, an anti-gun Congress could simply place a $1 million tax on all semi-automatic firearms, automatically adjusted annually pegged to Social Security adjustments, and effectively have their ban without infringing on the Second Amendment.
A suppressor will cut the shot noise of a 223 by a bunch. You still get the crack if the round is supersonic but it’s tolerable and not nearly as bad as with just a muzzle break. Run subsonic rounds and it’s a whisper.
I subscribe to a dozen or so gun forums, and some weapons, (the AR15 for example), is loud enough that some owners still wear hearing protection.
I dispute the premesis of the argument...
A silencer is NOT an “arm”. It is NOT a weapon. It should NOT be regulated as one.
A suppressor is essentially a safety device. A hearing protection device.
I am convinved a lot of the resistance to legalizing these is to make shooting ranges as loud as possible, to allow neighbors to complain about noise and have them shut down.
I wouldn’t think of taking my AR to the range without hearing protection.....I haven’t invested in highend ear protection so most times I wear double.
Couple thoughts -
My suppressed .223 can be fired with the suppressor mounted and the sound without hearing protection is on par with a Remington .22 LR Yellow Jacket cartridge. Sharp crack but tolerable. **IF** one ever had to ‘suddenly’ use one’s .223 for self or home defense, and there was no time to don ear hearing protection, you would still have your hearing after the action clicked open.
My suppressor mounted on my .308 is still QUITE loud, and ya need hearing protection. BUT, I actually only suppress the .308 for nighttime hog hunts as it is a great flash suppressor.
If these numbers are correct, there is NO WAY they’ll back off the hefty fee to license these.
I agree. When at the range I am happy to wear hearing protection, and the RSO will enforce that anyways.
Even with good ‘ears’ on, it’s still startling when the person 3 lanes down lights up their AK-47 copy.
How the jihadis can hear ANYTHING after using an AK is beyond me.
British Welrod
British De Lisle
Let's get jiggy with it so the bad guys don't know what hit 'em.
If it is an “arm,” it is in common use and cannot be banned or restrictively regulated. Same if not an arm. The point of this article is that the first argument is now a reality, which wasn’t the case until last year’s Bruen decision.
Be very careful in what you wish for. if a silencer is not an "arm," then it is not protected under the Second Amendment.
If it is just an object, then there are no restrictions on Congress' ability to ban them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.