New Regulations Regarding Suppressors

[siracusap]

I'm not sure if this has been posted but I read it in the Wall Street Journal this morning and wanted to pass along an excerpt. I would post the whole article but I'm not sure if there are copyright issues.

"But a recently proposed federal regulation that would close a loophole in current law could stifle sales of silencers—one of the fastest-growing segments of the gun industry—and, thereby, Mr. Matheny's business.

The loophole involves a legal construct known as a trust, which has allowed many gun buyers to sidestep a requirement of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that local sheriffs or chiefs of police approve purchases of silencers and highly regulated firearms, such as machine guns. The trusts used to purchase many of the silencers range in sophistication and scale, but generally they allow a group of people to purchase weapons or accessories and transfer them among themselves.

Under the new rule, proposed Sept. 9 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, people linked to the trusts also would have to obtain a sign-off from local law enforcement and undergo criminal background checks. The proposal is open to public comment until December.

The ATF's proposal says "responsible persons" of a trust seeking to purchase a silencer or other weapons covered by the National Firearms Act would have to submit fingerprints and a photo to the federal government, pass a criminal-background check and get local law-enforcement approval. Even absent background checks and the law-enforcement sign-off, dealers say it takes the ATF from two to nine months to process the paperwork.

Gun dealers said signatures are hard to get in many jurisdictions. The ATF acknowledged as much, disclosing in its proposal that several sheriffs and police chiefs had privately expressed their discomfort at signing off on applications for items regulated under the National Firearms Act. A spokeswoman for the ATF declined to comment.

"It's going to absolutely destroy this market," said Mr. Matheny, who employs eight people at his shop. "If sheriffs won't sign, they've essentially made them illegal."

 

[CatShooter]

I'm not sure if this has been posted but I read it in the Wall Street Journal this morning and wanted to pass along an excerpt. I would post the whole article but I'm not sure if there are copyright issues.

There are no copyright issues if it is single use and for educational purposes. That is part of the copyright law.

 

[siracusap]

If I post it then it wouldn't be for single use but here you go then. The admin can take it down if they have issues.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579111243276511128.html

Dave Matheny started selling gun silencers about three years ago as a hobby and took in about $19,000 in his first month. He now sells close to $1 million of the sound-suppressing devices each month from his Austin, Texas-based Silencer Shop.

But a recently proposed federal regulation that would close a loophole in current law could stifle sales of silencers—one of the fastest-growing segments of the gun industry—and, thereby, Mr. Matheny's business.

The loophole involves a legal construct known as a trust, which has allowed many gun buyers to sidestep a requirement of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that local sheriffs or chiefs of police approve purchases of silencers and highly regulated firearms, such as machine guns. The trusts used to purchase many of the silencers range in sophistication and scale, but generally they allow a group of people to purchase weapons or accessories and transfer them among themselves.


Under the new rule, proposed Sept. 9 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, people linked to the trusts also would have to obtain a sign-off from local law enforcement and undergo criminal background checks. The proposal is open to public comment until December.

The proposed rule is galvanizing gun-control supporters, who say silencers inherently make a weapon more dangerous, and gun-rights advocates, who say the popular portrayal of silencers as the tools of criminals is off base and that silencers protect owners' hearing.

Mr. Matheny, who said about 80% of his clients use gun trusts to buy their silencers, is worried that the sign-off requirement would crush sales of silencers, which range in price from about $200 to more than $2,000.

"It's going to absolutely destroy this market," said Mr. Matheny, who employs eight people at his shop. "If sheriffs won't sign, they've essentially made them illegal."

The number of such trusts jumped from 840 in 2000 to 40,700 in 2012, according to the ATF, as the trust loophole became more widely known and promoted. As of April 2013, there were 494,452 silencers in American homes, according to the ATF, a figure that is up 73% since 2011.

The ATF's move comes as part of President Barack Obama's push to expand federal gun regulations through legislative and executive means after 20 children and six adults were shot to death at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last year. The rule doesn't need congressional approval.

While federal law permits ownership of silencers, they are banned in 11 states, according to the American Silencer Association, a group of dealers and manufacturers that has focused its efforts in recent years on improving the device's image in popular culture. The group promotes silencers as a guard against hearing loss and an aid for young and inexperienced shooters who are jarred by the sound of gunfire.

The efforts of the ASA and the National Rifle Association, which endorsed the use of silencers to prevent hearing loss in 2011, have led to a number of state legislatures easing restrictions on the devices. For instance, North Carolina and North Dakota approved silencers for hunting this year. Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma passed silencer-related bills or regulations in 2012.

"Requiring background checks for corporations and trusts does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals," Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said of the proposed regulation. ASA President Knox Williams declined to comment.

Gun-control advocates say the proposed change would close a dangerous loophole that has been exploited thousands of times in recent years.

Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said guns' loud sound serves as a warning to stay away, a function undermined by silencers. "You want to alert someone to your presence when you are firing a weapon," he said.

The ATF's proposal says "responsible persons" of a trust seeking to purchase a silencer or other weapons covered by the National Firearms Act would have to submit fingerprints and a photo to the federal government, pass a criminal-background check and get local law-enforcement approval. Even absent background checks and the law-enforcement sign-off, dealers say it takes the ATF from two to nine months to process the paperwork.

Gun dealers said signatures are hard to get in many jurisdictions. The ATF acknowledged as much, disclosing in its proposal that several sheriffs and police chiefs had privately expressed their discomfort at signing off on applications for items regulated under the National Firearms Act. A spokeswoman for the ATF declined to comment.

Sheriff David B. Shoar in St. Johns County, Fla., said last year that he would no longer sign off on the paperwork for those seeking weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, including silencers. Commander Chuck Mulligan, a spokesman for the office, said the sheriff's decision was driven by a lack of resources to conduct the necessary checks.

Federal courts have upheld the sign-off requirement, most recently in 2002. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected complaints that the rule allowed law-enforcement officials in Virginia and Alaska to arbitrarily wall off access to weapons and accessories that are otherwise legal.

Mr. Matheny said silencers don't live up to their name or their portrayal in movies as reducing the noise of a gunshot to a deadly whisper. An AR-15, the most popular semiautomatic rifle by sales, fitted with a top-of-the-line silencer still registers 129 decibels when it is fired, he said. According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, that's about as loud as a jackhammer.

Attached to some smaller-bore weapons, however, a silencer comes closer to its stereotype. A silenced .22-caliber gun loaded with special ammunition makes a noise that is "quieter than an air gun," said Mark Attanasio, owner of Virginia-based gun store Immortal Arms.

Silencers are good for taking care of pests without scaring neighbors or livestock, or damaging hearing, he said. "If you get around a lot of old hunters, they are all deaf," said Mr. Attanasio.

 

[VaniB]

This Obama Executive Order is news from August 29th. Its been mentioned in the national news, currently posted on the NRA-ILA bulletin board, and is still widely discussed in just about every firearms websight where people share their interest in AR15 rifles.

Have you heard about the Government Shutdown?

 

[abishai]

shooting without a suppressor is just plain rude . The doofus jack wagons from the ATF are sure taking thier sweet time on background checks . 8 months . Thanks so much for sucking at your job !

 

[blairf]

The current time frame for review and approval is closer to 12 months rather than 8.

 

[Scott Harris]

I'd love to hear the rationale for putting further restrictions on getting a suppressor. Didn't the colonists originally flee to North America to escape the tyranny of kings? Now we've simply replaced them with the tyranny of elected officials who do as they please.

A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty.

 

[dickn52]

Think of all the Mafia and CIA hitmen that won't be able to obtain the tools of their trade now. Not that either one ever followed the law all that much I suppose. Personally, I can find no justification in not allowing them to be sold over the counter other than they generate a $200.00 tax stamp at ATF.

 

[4xforfun]

I'd love to hear the rationale for putting further restrictions on getting a suppressor. Didn't the colonists originally flee to North America to escape the tyranny of kings? Now we've simply replaced them with the tyranny of elected officials who do as they please.

A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty.

There aren't any "elected officials' at the ATF!!! But, there are a bunch of MORONS there abouts!!