Showing posts with label Suppressors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Suppressors. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
Rachel Malone - Three Myths About Suppressors
Given President Trump's foolish remarks about suppressors, it is time again to take apart the myths about suppressors. My friend and fellow co-host of the Polite Society Podcast Rachel Malone does just that in the video below. Rachel, by the way, it the GOA Director for Texas and fights for gun rights on a daily basis. She is a trainer and musician.
Northam Doesn't Want To Let A Crisis Go To Waste
When Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) isn't trying to figure out if it was actually him in the picture wearing the Klan hood, he is pushing gun control. Now he is taking a page from the Rahm Emanuel playbook and calling a special legislative session of the Virginia General Assembly to push for more gun control after the murders in Virginia Beach.
From the Roanoke Times:
Northam was joined by Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and Attorney General Mark Herring, all Democrats, at a news conference with other Democratic leaders to challenge the Republicans who control the General Assembly and have repeatedly stifled efforts to consider any form of gun control.Gun control activists are also calling for a ban on "high capacity magazines" (sic). Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment (R-James City County) said in an interview that "none of the failed legislation met standards for merits, practical application, and efficacy." That said, Norment might be open to restricting magazines to 10 rounds.
"It's time for decisive action," Northam said. "Let Virginia show the nation that we can respond to tragedy with decisive action."
Most gun-control bills have failed in previous sessions of the legislature, including those that would broaden the ability of local governments to limit firearms in public buildings, mandate universal background checks, limit purchases to one handgun per month and allow authorities to seize the weapons of a person found to be a threat to themselves or others. The bills have usually been killed in committee and not progressed to the full legislature for a vote.
Northam said he wants the General Assembly to debate and vote on the bills.
"These are common sense pieces of legislation we have introduced them year after year," he said. "They have never received a fair hearing. … I want these pieces of common sense gun safety legislation to get to the floor and let these individuals elected by you, the people, to come to the floor and cast their vote."
Specifically, Norment said he expects the General Assembly to tackle large-capacity or extended magazines.Norment did vote against a similar ban earlier this year in committee. Those pushing for a mag ban ought to view Joe Huffman's video on reload times made after Gabby Giffords was shot in Tucson.
“An extended magazine is optical, but does it change the outcome, I’m not sure, but it’s something the citizens like this would say at least it’s an incremental effort to do something,” Norment said. “At least that is an issue that it’s very easy to resolve.”
As to Northam's proposals, let's examine whether they would have done anything to have stopped the murders in Virginia Beach.
Limiting firearms in municipal buildings? The killer was a municipal employee of Virginia Beach and had access to secured sections of the municipal building. He would have also known how to avoid any metal detection devices.
Universal background checks? The guy passed background checks on both of his firearms.
Limit purchases to one handgun per month? He bought one handgun in 2016 and the other in 2018.
Red flag law? The killer had no history of violent actions, interacted normally with another employee in a bathroom before starting his killing spree, had no disciplinary problems at work, and had received a satisfactory evaluation on his last performance evaluation at work.
Finally, with regard to President Trump and his "I don't like them" attitude towards suppressors, the killer purchased his suppressor legally. That means he bought a highly regulated product, paid a $200 tax, had to submit fingerprints and pictures, and go through a BATFE background check while waiting probably 6-9 months before taking possession of his suppressor.
Virginia gun owners have a fight on their hands if they don't want to become the New Jersey of the South. When the Republican Majority Leader is waffling on standard capacity magazines, it is time to start to put the pressure on.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
For My Massachusetts Readers - Hearing On Suppressors Today
I should have gotten this out yesterday but better late than never. The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will be holding hearings on two bills that would seek to legalize suppressor ownership there.
From the American Suppressor Association who will be testifying at the hearings:
On Thursday, November 16th at 11:00 AM in Room A-1, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will hear two bills which seek to legalize suppressor ownership in Massachusetts. S. 1317, and, S. 1340, would replace the current law that prohibits the possession of suppressors by non-manufacturers with language that allows private individuals to own and possess suppressors so long as they are not (1) prohibited persons; (2) committing a violent felony; (3) committing a crime of violence against a family member; or (4) possessing or selling controlled substances.The American Suppressor Association will be on hand to testify in support of these bills, but we need your help! If you are a Massachusetts resident, please attend the hearing to show your support. Also, using the contact form below, please contact members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and politely urge them to vote in support of S. 1317 and S. 1340. Do this, even if you plan to attend the hearing in person.
View our entire blog post HERE and our testimony submitted to the committee HERE.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Outside His Area Of Expertise
Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker was interviewed on CNBC on Monday regarding the mass casualty event in Las Vegas. Swecker was the former number three person in the FBI and was probably called upon by CNBC's John Harwood because of that.
Listen to what he has to say about suppressors and semiautomatic rifles with ugly cosmetics.
Swecker said that civilians - that's you and me in his LEO-speak - have no need to own suppressors. He also said fully automatic weapons are illegal and that AR-15s are way too easy to convert to full auto. He wondered "what rational purpose is there for 10 different 'assault weapons' (sic) in the hands of one person."
One must wonder how someone with this level of ignorance rises to the level he did at the FBI. Fully automatic weapons are legal if made before the May 19, 1986 (Hughes Amendment) so long as they are registered under the NFA and the owner paid the tax and underwent the requisite background checks. Furthermore, ARs are not easy to convert to full auto unless you have a machine shop and the proper parts. Bumpfire is still not full auto no matter how fast you can dump a mag.
You also have to wonder where his law enforcement expertise lies. Was he a street guy infiltrating motorcycle gangs and fighting violent crime on the streets?
If his LinkedIn page is any indication, his law enforcement expertise lay in white collar crimes and especially financial and cyber crime. From his LinkedIn page where he lays out his expertise both in the FBI and in his subsequent career.
Experience
In my field it is unethical to practice outside the area of your competence. Given his entire career is and was devoted to white collar crime, financial irregularities, fraud, and the like, Swecker is outside the area of his competence when talking about firearms and violent crime. If he dealt with terrorism, it was regarding the funding of terrorism and not how to rescue someone being held hostage.
If I were to guess why CNBC called upon Chris Swecker to talk about the events in Las Vegas, it is because they knew of him from his role in investigating and prosecuting financial irregularities and thought they could parlay his old position as No. 3 at the FBI into something newsworthy. In my opinion, they failed.
Can You Still Hear A Suppressed Rifle From 500 Yards Away?
The answer to the title question is yes.
Rebel Silencers made an ad hoc video on the level of sound suppression on a suppressed rifle. It was done quickly and the production values are not pristine. The microphone picks up wind like nobody's business. That said, it does a good job of illustrating that a suppressor only lowers the db level and doesn't eliminate it.
Here was their setup. One guy shot an AR, both unsuppressed and suppressed, from a ridge about 500 yards away from the person listening. The guy listening was a shop machinist who probably didn't have the world's best hearing. He stood in the bed of a pickup, closed his eyes, and turned around many times so he didn't know if was facing or not facing the shooter. He was asked to in the direction of the heard shot. He did it both times with reasonable accuracy.
Is this a perfect test under controlled laboratory conditions? Absolutely not. Does it illustrate that you can both detect the sound and the direction of the suppressed gunfire? Absolutely yes.
Those who have an axe to grind against guns and/or the Hearing Protection Act will say this video proves nothing. I would disagree and say that it shows that the average untrained person can indeed detect suppressed gunfire and that any "shot detectors" would also be able to detect the direction of the gunfire.
You know your member of Congress is under pressure from the anti-gun, anti-suppressor forces to kill the SHARE Act in the wake the mass casualty event in Las Vegas. Now is the time to make your voice heard again and again in favor of passage of these bills.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Finally Confirmed - S&W Buys Suppressor Maker Gemtech (Updated)
In what has to be considered the worst kept secret on the Interwebs, it was finally confirmed today that Smith & Wesson division of American Outdoor Brands Corp. is buying suppressor maker Gemtech (Gemini Technologies). The Firearm Blog announced it as breaking news on Sunday, July 2nd, and many people posted this to Facebook including myself.
Given that AOBC is a public company, SEC Regulation FD requires "companies to distribute material information in a manner reasonably designed to get that information out to the general public broadly and non-exclusively." A purchase of this magnitude would certainly have been "material". I kept looking for a news release on AOBC's investor relations website as well as for a 8-K filing on the SEC's website regarding this purchase. 8-K filings usually are simultaneous with new releases though a company has up to four business days to make the filing. I could not find anything official on the purchase of Gemtech.
While I assumed that there was indeed a transaction that was going to take place, not having official confirmation told me one of two things. First, that the transaction wasn't a done deal yet and maybe there was a snag in the negotiations. Second, it could have meant - and I think this is what happened here - that someone, somewhere jumped the gun on the announcement and violated a non-disclosure agreement.
I think the timing is right for both companies involved. S&W competitors Ruger and SIG both now produce their own suppressor lines. So, too, does Remington with their AAC division. The purchase of Gemtech now allows S&W into the game at a significant level without having to start from scratch. It may also signify a vote of confidence on the part of AOBC and S&W that the Hearing Protection Act will pass as either a stand alone bill or as part of the SHARE Act.
According to Gemtech's website, they have been in the suppressor business since 1976. While I don't know how the ownership of Gemtech is structured, I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is a situation similar to that of Crimson Trace. The founder(s) have reached a point where they want to relax a bit and this gives them the opportunity to cash out while still maintaining a presence. Thus, the purchase of Gemtech by S&W becomes a win-win situation for all involved.
The official release is below and notes that the current CEO of Gemtech, Ron Martinez, will stay on as General Manager.
SPRINGFIELD, Mass., July 5, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- American Outdoor Brands Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: AOBC), a leading manufacturer of firearms and a provider of quality accessory products for the shooting, hunting, and rugged outdoor enthusiast, today announced that its firearms business, Smith & Wesson Corp., has agreed to acquire substantially all of the assets of Gemini Technologies, Incorporated ("Gemtech"), a provider of high quality suppressors and accessories for the consumer, law enforcement, and military markets.
James Debney, President and CEO of American Outdoor Brands, said, "Gemtech is widely recognized for producing some of the finest rifle and pistol suppressors in the market. Gemtech's strong product development capabilities, combined with our experience in brand management and our manufacturing expertise, will help us to efficiently develop both firearms and suppressors, minimizing our time to market for both product categories. We view this acquisition as opportunistic, allowing us to enter the suppressor category, which resonates strongly with our core firearm consumer, at a time when the market is particularly soft. These elements combine to make Gemtech an excellent fit with our long term strategy."
The company intends to complete the acquisition of Gemtech utilizing cash on hand and expects the transaction to close this summer. Ron Martinez, President of Gemtech, will continue in his leadership role as General Manager, heading up the company's strong team located in Eagle, Idaho.
UPDATE: On Monday I had written Liz Sharp, VP for Investor Relations at AOBC, inquiring why there was no release on the purchase of Gemtech and asked if the info had leaked prior to the official release. I got a response back last night after I had written this post. It seems that since AOBC didn't buy Gemtech but just their assets it was not considered "material".
Hello, John, and thank you for the inquiry. Yes, Smith & Wesson will purchase the assets of Gemtech in a transaction that we plan to close this summer. Since the transaction is an asset purchase and not deemed to be material, we announced the transaction internally to our employees prior to the holiday, and externally via a press release this morning. ... We believe this is a great fit with our strategy. Please let me know if I can help further, and thanks again for the inquiry.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Ideologues Versus Science
There is currently a battle going on between anti-science ideologues and those committed to a health-related change in the laws based upon science. You have doctors, public health advocates, and civil rights advocates on one side and you have the New York Times and anti-health prohibitionists on the other side. I am talking about the battle between those for and opposed to the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.
The New York Times weighed in the battle with an absurd editorial entitled "Echoes of Gunfire Hurt Tender N.R.A. Ears". As per their usual, they conflated the number of deaths attributed to the use of a firearm to include intentional deaths (suicides), they misrepresented the intent of Congress for adding suppressors to the National Firearms Act, and they created a strawman by insisting the public would be at risk because "ShotSpotters" would not be able to hear gunfire.
The annual tally of 30,000-plus gun deaths accounts for just a tiny fraction of the total shots fired, most of which miss their targets but terrorize neighborhoods. Amid the lethal cacophony, the police in more than 90 cities here and abroad seek to reach the scene of the latest gun troubles more quickly by using an audio detection system called ShotSpotter, which triangulates the sound of gunfire onto computer maps. Police officers in major cities hail these precise early alarms of where the latest shooting is.I guess reading the Washington Post is beneath the editorial board of the New York Times. The Post reported only four days earlier that the CEO of ShotSpotter said their devices had detected suppressed gunfire in the past and would be able to detect it in the future with some fine-tuning.
Yet despite these advances, the National Rifle Association argues, self-servingly, that noisy guns are a public health hazard. With the help of supporters like President Trump’s son Donald Jr., a gun hobbyist, it wants to roll back an 80-year-old federal law that tightly controls the sale of firearm silencers. Immune to irony, the N.R.A.’s congressional friends have introduced a measure called the Hearing Protection Act, which contends that the sound of gunfire is hard on the ears of gun owners.
“What about the rest of us?” the nation’s unarmed majority might well ask. When it comes to public health, the noisier a gun is, the better the chances for innocent bystanders to hit the ground and for police officers to apprehend the shooter.
Then there is Mark Kelly aka Mr. Gabby Giffords of Americans for Responsible Solutions (sic) who has been leading the charge against suppressors.
From a fundraising email:
One of those bills would lift restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers.Attractive accessories for criminals? Really? Actually, criminals want to scare the shit out of you with the noise of a firearm report because it tends to make victims more compliant.
Now, I don’t want to give the impression that firearm silencers work like you see them in the movies — where someone fires a gun and it wouldn’t wake a person sleeping in the same room.
But silencers do suppress sound and light when a weapon is discharged, and that makes them attractive accessories for criminals who want to conceal their crimes.
You would think someone who had been around jet engines like Kelly would have an appreciation for the damage that loud noises do to hearing. I know I do because every day for me is like a hot summer night in Mississippi where the crickets, cicadas, and tree frogs keep up an incessant noise. That is what tinnitus sounds like to sufferers like me.
On the rational, scientific side of this debate are groups like Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. They have just released a position paper in favor of suppressors to prevent hearing loss. The four primary authors of the paper are all board-certified physicians specializing in otolaryngology or ear, nose, and throat issues. The following is from their executive summary of the paper:
Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is a real public health problem:I would urge readers to study the position paper issued by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. It provides great graphics and is extensively sourced. Moreover, unlike most doctor's handwriting, it is both readable and understandable!
The causal relationship between loud noise exposure and irreversible hearing loss has long been recognized by medicine and the U.S. government.
NIHL is permanent and untreatable. Prevention is the only possible intervention.
Demonstrable need:
NIHL is the most prevalent service-connected disability among Veterans.
Per the CDC, 15% of adults aged 18 and over (or nearly 38 million American) have hearing problems.
Over 100 million Americans who own guns are at risk for gunshot-induced NIHL. Auditory injuries are sustained by bystanders the same as by shooters.
Nearly all gunshots exceed the noise threshold for instant damage to the hearing cells of the inner ear. And their explosive blast generates 1,000 times the force on the eardrum than the noise itself.
Benefit of suppressors:
Muzzle blast sound levels from most firearms range from 140 to over 170 decibels. 120 decibels is considered the maximum safe level for short exposures (the intensity of a car horn 3 feet away). Ear plugs and/or ear muffs only reduce noise by 20-30 decibels.
Evidence supporting the need for greater use of firearms suppressors comes from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, the Centers for Disease Control, as well as academic and military research.
Muzzle-mounted suppressors are vastly superior to ear protectors, providing 50% greater noise reduction. Only suppressors can make most modern firearms safe for hearing, as noise at gun ranges routinely reaches 160 decibels.
Our first suppressor arrived this week after a wait of over three-fourths of a year. As I said in that post, can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? It is time for Congress to act on the established science of hearing loss and pass the Hearing Protection Act.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
272 Days
It took the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives a total of 272 days to approve the Form 4 for our new suppressor. I say our because it is in the name of the trust that the Complementary Spouse and I set up for this purpose.
It took a total of 279 day or nine months, six days to be notified that we had been approved.
Regardless of whether it was 279 days or 272 days, it took over three-fourths of a year to be approved to take possession of a product that we had already for paid in full.
Think about that for a minute. Can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? I really can't.
For enquiring minds, it is a SilencerCo Omega in .30 caliber with a .22 muzzle
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Is This The Best They Can Do?
Now that the Hearing Protection Act has been introduced in both the House and the Senate the wailing and gnashing of teeth is beginning to be heard from the gun prohibitionists. Just today I received the following in my email from the Space Cowboy aka Mr. Gabby Giffords aka Mark Kelly of the Americans for Responsible Solutions.
John -With Donald Trump set to take office in just three days, the gun lobby and their allies in Congress have set their sights on a pair of bills that will make our communities far less safe from gun violence.One of those bills would lift restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers.Now, I don’t want to give the impression that firearm silencers work like you see them in the movies — where someone fires a gun and it wouldn’t wake a person sleeping in the same room.But silencers do suppress sound and light when a weapon is discharged, and that makes them attractive accessories for criminals who want to conceal their crimes.Before Trump takes office, it’s important we lay down a marker on this issue.The gun lobby will tell you that this legislation is designed to protect people’s hearing, but the truth is that it’s a massive financial giveaway to the corporations who manufacture and sell firearm silencers. The safety of our communities is more important than the manufacturers' bottom lines.Thank you for adding your name.Mark Kelly
Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC
You want to say, "Really, Mark? Is this the best you can come up with?" A suppressor suppresses sound and light and thus make them attractive accessories for criminals. Flash suppressors for rifles are legal in most states and do not require any license, permit, fee, or registration.
The same could be said for common items like bed pillows, oil filters, 2-liter Coke bottles, and potatoes. All of these common items could be used by thugs, murderers, and criminals to muffle the sound of the firearm and possibly reduce its flash.
Having reported on hundreds of defensive gun uses on the Polite Society Podcast I have yet to come across mention of a criminal having a suppressor in his or her possession while committing an assault, robbery, home invasion, or murder. Indeed, more often than not, these miscreants use the loud sound of a firearm discharge to attempt to cow their victims. They aren't worried about the police because most times they anticipate being gone by the time the police arrive.
What Kelly is not saying is that treating silencers and suppressors like ordinary firearms still requires a NICS check as they are going to be transferred by FFLs. You would still have to fill out a Form 4473 and felons, drug abusers, those convicted of domestic violence, etc. would still be prohibited from purchasing and possessing a suppressor. While I might want a suppressor to be sold like replacement mufflers for a lawnmower at Ace Hardware, these bills are a good first step in an effort to reduce noise pollution and protect the hearing of hunters and shooters.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
I'd Support This Bill - And So Does The NRA
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has introduced the Hearing Protection Act of 2015. The act would remove suppressors and silencers from the National Firearms Act. In other words, there would be no restrictions (other than state ones) and no $200 tax anymore. You'd only have to go through a NICS check.
As someone who has both tinnitus and moderate 4000 Hz notch hearing loss, I fully support this bill. My hearing impairment came as a result of shooting firearms at earlier period in my life without hearing protection. My audiologist told me last week when she checked my hearing that I would need hearing aids in the future.
The NRA supports this bill and released this statement today:
Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support today for the Hearing Protection Act. Sponsored by Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05), the legislation removes suppressors from regulations established under the National Firearms Act of 1934.The bill has not been assigned a number yet but I'll update this post when it does.
“Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill."
Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.
As a leading voice in the industry, the American Suppressor Association has provided valuable insight to the creation of the Hearing Protection Act.
“Suppressors benefit all involved in hunting and the shooting sports. It’s time to bring the law in line with modern technology,” said Cox.
It is currently legal to hunt with a suppressor in 37 states. 41 states allow private ownership of suppressors.
Michael Bane related a conversation he had with someone in the suppressor industry in his most recent podcast. The gist of it was that if suppressors had been invented now instead of the early 20th century, we would be required to have them and we'd be able to pick them up at a corner store.
I believe that is correct. I do know that I'll fight tooth and nail for this bill. I don't want today's younger shooters to have to deal with even moderate hearing loss.
UPDATE: The American Suppressor Association released a statement on the introduction of this bill. As you can imagine, they are very, very pleased with this bill.
It said, in part:
“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”UPDATE II: The number of the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 is HR 3799. You can quickly send a letter to Congress showing your support by using this PopVox link.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The "Big Money" Behind Silencers?
Chicago's ABC 7 I-Team is going to let us know tonight about the "big money" who is behind a move to legalize suppressors in the state of Illinois.
Big money? Bwa-hah-hah. The suppressor industry - with perhaps the exceptions of Remington Outdoors and SigSauer - is made up of a number of small businesses. Some are mom and pop operations while others may have 2-300 employees.
Silencers are a safety item. They do not totally cut out the sound; they merely muffle it to a safer decibel level. Anyone who says differently is just restating myth and legend.
I just had my annual hearing checkup on Monday. I shot some in my younger days without hearing protection, attended some auto and boat races with no hearing protection, and, of course, a few rock concerts. I now suffer constant tinnitis (ringing in the ears) and some hearing loss.
About the only "big money" who would benefit from keeping suppressors banned are the hearing aid manufacturers and I doubt even they would want to build business that way.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
How Do Silencers Work?
I am a sucker for a really good infographic and SilencerCo has put one out. They are the Utah-based manufacturer of silencers/suppressors for rifles, pistols, AND shotguns.
SilencerCo has always put a lot of effort into educating people on the legality, history, and usage of silencers. This infographic is their latest effort. Interestingly enough, it has caught the attention of the business press. BusinessInsider ran a story featuring the infographic below on Monday. Unlike most stuff you see in the media, it was accurate and non anti-silencer.
As someone who has a hearing related problem - tinnitus - due to shooting without hearing protection earlier in life, I really wish silencers and suppressors were not NFA items. At most, they should be listed as AOW or any other weapon and have a $5 transfer fee. The reality is that hearing loss is a public health issue and silencers, despite all the myth and legend about them coming out of Hollywood, are a hearing safety device.
Friday, March 14, 2014
And For Georgia Readers
Daniel Defense is supporting efforts to repeal the ban on suppressors for hunting in the state of Georgia. To this end, they have developed a pre-composed email that will be sent to your local Representative and Senator as well as members of the Game, Fish, and Parks Committee.
Georgia is currently the number two state in the number of suppressors registered under the National Firearms Act. If Senate Bill 93 is passed, Georgia will become the 32nd that allows suppressors for hunting.
The link to the email is here.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Suppressors Should Be Treated As An AOW
This promo video of a photo shoot for Gem-Tech suppressors at Nellis AFB in Nevada brought to mind the thought that suppressors should be treated as AOW or Any Other Weapon under the National Firearms Act - at the very least. While still requiring the background check, the tax is only $5 instead of the current $200. In many foreign countries, while it it difficult to get a firearm, getting a suppressor for that firearm is no big deal. Even better would be the removal of suppressors from the NFA altogether as they are NOT a weapon and because shooting suppressed reduces sound pollution and protects one's hearing.
If the Obama Administration wants to continue to emulate the European countries, this is one thing they could do that would get my agreement.
If the Obama Administration wants to continue to emulate the European countries, this is one thing they could do that would get my agreement.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Sounds Like A Suppressed Kriss
I just saw this video on Everyday No Days Off and it reminded me of stuff from this past weekend's LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot.
I swear the suppressed Kriss Vector sounded darned close to some of these cameras. Heck, that first camera sounded just like what I heard when I fired the Thompson M1 while wearing hearing protection. That metallic rattle is virtually identical. Just close y our eyes and listen.
I swear the suppressed Kriss Vector sounded darned close to some of these cameras. Heck, that first camera sounded just like what I heard when I fired the Thompson M1 while wearing hearing protection. That metallic rattle is virtually identical. Just close y our eyes and listen.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Suppressed KRISS Vector
Thanks to Sean Sorrentino for taking this video and for insisting that I *had* to shoot the Kriss. While the full auto version was down for cleaning, I did get a chance to shoot the suppressed semi-auto version. It was my first time shooting anything that was suppressed.
Suppressed firearms should be encouraged and not saddled with a six-month delay and a $200 tax stamp. I think the first step is to consider suppressors and silencers as AOW's or Any Other Weapons under the NFA is a good one. Even better would be to ditch the archaic attitudes towards sound suppression and remove them from the NFA list altogether.
Suppressed firearms should be encouraged and not saddled with a six-month delay and a $200 tax stamp. I think the first step is to consider suppressors and silencers as AOW's or Any Other Weapons under the NFA is a good one. Even better would be to ditch the archaic attitudes towards sound suppression and remove them from the NFA list altogether.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
New Zealand Is A Civilized Country
In the United States if you want to own a sound suppressor (or silencer) for your .22 rifle or pistol, you must fill out an ATF Form 4, pay a $200 tax, submit both a picture and fingerprints, get the signature of the chief law enforcement official in the jurisdiction of your place of residence, undergo a background investigation, and then wait. This is in addition to the cost of the suppressor which, I understand, begins in the $200 range.
In New Zealand, you drive on down to Gun City in Christchurch, pay NZ$39.99 or about $29.91 in U.S. dollars, and walk out with your suppressor. As their ad says, "There are no age or licence restrictions on silencer sales."
Of course, for the price you aren't getting the top of the line suppressor. However, if you want a suppressor for plinking on your .22 rifle or pistol, it will work just fine.
And your hearing is protected.
It is utterly ridiculous that at a time when so-called environmental groups are suing the EPA over lead ammunition to "protect hunters" from airborne lead exposure among other things that a reasonable method of reducing "noise pollution" and protecting the hearing of shooters still requires a $200 tax stamp.
H/T Oleg Volk
In New Zealand, you drive on down to Gun City in Christchurch, pay NZ$39.99 or about $29.91 in U.S. dollars, and walk out with your suppressor. As their ad says, "There are no age or licence restrictions on silencer sales."
And your hearing is protected.
It is utterly ridiculous that at a time when so-called environmental groups are suing the EPA over lead ammunition to "protect hunters" from airborne lead exposure among other things that a reasonable method of reducing "noise pollution" and protecting the hearing of shooters still requires a $200 tax stamp.
H/T Oleg Volk
Monday, October 11, 2010
Glock Tactical Suppressor
Grant Cunningham pointed out this video featuring Rob Pincus and a factory-made Glock Tactical Suppressor. Rob was in South Africa doing some training classes when he came across the suppressor. As Grant notes:
but why in 'repressed' South Africa are these things freely available, but here in the 'free' United States are they demonized and heavily regulated?Why indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
