SCOTUS upholds federal silencer law

[Osiris-ODS]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

 

[Osiris-ODS]

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

 

[Pete7469]

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

If the government would process the tax stamps in a timely manner, it wouldn't be an issue. They deliberately drag their feet on them.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

The suppressor law was passed to stop hunting on federal land. I figured the hearing protection act would play a role in taking suppressors off the tax stamp list, but I guess not if the OP is accurate. The decibel rating of firing subsonic ammo suppressed (particularly an integrally suppressed barrel) is about the same as the sound of the bolt hitting, which is not "Hollywood silent" by any means, but can be fired with minimal hearing protection. I hunt wild hog, and there is a very good reason to shoot suppressed if you're hoping to kill off a lot of these dangerous pests to the local community/economy.


My handguns for home protection, on the other hand, are not suppressed. I shoot hot ammo which makes a bang.

I've hunted hogs the F#%&ers run when they hear a twig snap 200 yds. away who you tryin to fool, and you're probably not killing one closer than that unless you sit a stand. Hogs are smart and they learn quick what danger (man)smells like. Shoot them from further away and don't worry about the sound. They'll come back to the feeder!

They're making most of the noise! We've taken out 5-6 in a group with suppressed .300 blackouts. They do not always return once they scatter, we've waited for hours or moved to other peanut farms, to no avail.

 

[Crixus]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

A legally purchased suppressor, or a home made one. The law failed either way. This is a hollow victory. Pretty much meaningless. This reminds me, I need to see where I stand with the powers that be on collecting the suppressor I am purchasing.

 

[Crixus]

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

If the government would process the tax stamps in a timely manner, it wouldn't be an issue. They deliberately drag their feet on them.

It takes forever.

 

[JWBooth]

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right keep and bear arms, not the right to be an assassin

Watching too many Bond movies, and believing them, leads to ignorant and uninformed points of view.

 

[task0778]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

 

[Vastator]

Teddy Roosevelt loved hunting with suppressed weapons.

 

[Crixus]

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right keep and bear arms, not the right to be an assassin

Watching too many Bond movies, and believing them, leads to ignorant and uninformed points of view.

Yeah, I have never shot a suppressed weapon that was whisper quiet. Matter of fact, I still use hearings protection when I shoot them.

 

[Crixus]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

Not just that. Say you have a suppressed rifle in your collection that’s all legal. If you pass away, any family member who possess it after is committing a felony. So you have to have a plan on how it works if the worst happens.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

No, what I'm telling you is you can't possess them until the tax stamp clears. The application is not sufficient for the seller to transfer custody of the suppressor, the stamp has to be approved before possession can change to the purchaser. I don't know the specifics of what happened there, I'm just talking suppressor law in general. If that's what happened, they broke the currently existing law. This obviously did not come up as a challenge under the hearing protection act, and I haven't read the decision yet, but I have no reason to doubt the fact summary you provided for that single proposition that the law as it exists today was broken.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld....

The USSC did not uphold the law.

...allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them.

Utter nonsense, mixed with a healthy serving of ignorance.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

I think they should be legal.
It's not like you cant hear the shot,it just brings the decibels down to a safe level.

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

I understand that.
The tax is unreasonable,it only dampens the sound and it's still pretty damn loud!
You could just shoot someone in the head with a .22 rather than say a 30-30.
Thats about the sound difference.

 

[Vastator]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

Not just that. Say you have a suppressed rifle in your collection that’s all legal. If you pass away, any family member who possess it after is committing a felony. So you have to have a plan on how it works if the worst happens.

A trust is the current best method of planning for the event of death. Most shops encourage this practice, and offer the how to of it.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

Not just that. Say you have a suppressed rifle in your collection that’s all legal. If you pass away, any family member who possess it after is committing a felony. So you have to have a plan on how it works if the worst happens.

Gun trust

 

[Crixus]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

Not just that. Say you have a suppressed rifle in your collection that’s all legal. If you pass away, any family member who possess it after is committing a felony. So you have to have a plan on how it works if the worst happens.

A trust is the current best method of planning for the event of death. Most shops encourage this practice, and offer the how to of it.

Yup. It’s a process. It wouldn’t be so bad if they could shave a few bucks off the cost and then stream line the processing of it all. It takes forever and is a pain in the ass if you don’t go to a guy who knows the process.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

There is no such thing as a silencer. You people get sucked right into the lefts intentional misinformation campaigns.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

I think they should be legal.
It's not like you cant hear the shot,it just brings the decibels down to a safe level.

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

It makes no sense to have to pay $200 bucks to make my .45 as quiet as my .22 you'll still hear both of em from a mile away.

 

[Pete7469]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

They followed state law.