It will be interesting to see what the Administration and/or Congress does with this. I’m still on the fence with the administration but it looks positive. Congress is still Congress and hopefully that will improve some with the next election. That will depend on the voter and if they have really pulled their head out.
I fully support suppressors, and I hope for the day when we can own them without a tax stamp. I’m not pleased that Ms. Horwitz repeatedly refers to them as ‘silencers’ in the Washington Post article.
The firearms industry is the only venue that have to pay for a safety device. It’s to protect hearing plain and simple
A suppressor is nothing BUT a fancy lawnmower muffler and SHOULD cost less than $100, but for gvt rules making them waaaay more costly. They should be encouraged to cut down noise pollution and protect hearing. They are NOT silencers…I have owned one and fired thru several in my life…suppressors at best. The movies make them out to be QUIET…not in real life. My son shoots a suppressed Sig 9mm…it .sounds like a .22 short, but it is NOT silent! LOL quieter w sub-sonic ammo tho
Personally, I believe suppressors should be mandatory. If not all the time, then at least at the range. Many times has my local DNR owned range have complaints, and even got shut down for awhile, due to ‘noise’. Would make it easier to open new private ranges also. Every time one tries to open around here (NW Indiana), the major objection is ‘noise’.
So let the Feds remove the tax on them and allow the State, local municipality, and/or range mandate their use (if so inclined).
[quote=“Midniteoyl, post:6, topic:276”]Many times has my local DNR owned range have complaints, and even got shut down for awhile[/quote]And you think that’s an argument the gun grabbers will understand? (sarcasm)Silly gun nuts…closing down ranges because of noise is a feature, not a bug.(sarcasm/)
Not really, but it would be fun to watch them squirm after you take away the #1 reason for denial.