Not that I want to follow Norway with most things, but they have the most free laws on suppressors of about any country.

They are no more regulated than buying a hammer at the hardware store, the Bond movies aside.

As I mentioned before, one with criminal intent has illegal ‘can’ options available. May not be practical besides a one time use. With most guns, full power ammo, there’s still a fair amount of decibels with the shot, suppressed.

Lastly, one has various low power, ‘quiet’ ammo available off the shelf, mostly 22.

For the owners & shooters, relaxing suppressor regulations long term would be a great ‘win’.

I bought 2 this week at one of my local shops. They only wanted my GOA member # NICS check and I walked out with the can. Sales Tax free in FL till end of year and no tax stamp of course.

I bought one from Silencer Shop (Silencerco 46M) that will be delivered to a local FFL that will transfer on a 4473. The ATF is still silent on any guidance on this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mrvmax,

"As of right now, ATF is not..."

Yeah, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

Well, the ATF director has given permission……..I’d like to see that used in court. Still no written guidance and I am still waiting for the ATF to put something out.
If the director really wanted to do something he would have his people kick something official out.

https://tacticalshit.com/atf-t...ce-is-still-missing/

From the TaticalShit article:

quote:

He said the point of the guidance is to cover as many people as the injunction allows, and to lock that protection in so a later administration cannot casually walk it back. He also said ATF is NOT going to turn the Texas order into a nationwide, everyone-everywhere rule on its own.

And this nugget:

quote:

On forced-reset triggers, Cekada said some products on the market are FRTs and some meet the statutory machine-gun definition. He would not name brands.

Does the ATF have the manpower to retroactively go after people for not following whatever future rules they make up?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Does the ATF have the manpower to retroactively go after people for not following whatever future rules they make up?

It will take a while, but all FFLs get compliance inspections and that's where they'll get us. They won't bother with the consumers at public ranges. They'll go after the FFLs at inspection time when a more gun rights-hostile regime is in power.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
From the TaticalShit article:

quote:

He said the point of the guidance is to cover as many people as the injunction allows, and to lock that protection in so a later administration cannot casually walk it back. He also said ATF is NOT going to turn the Texas order into a nationwide, everyone-everywhere rule on its own.

And this nugget:

quote:

On forced-reset triggers, Cekada said some products on the market are FRTs and some meet the statutory machine-gun definition. He would not name brands.

The FRT is another one I was wondering about. Only the Rare Breed was named in the lawsuit and you can find hundreds of videos on YT (and probably hundreds of thousands more on all the pithy social media platforms) with people using FRT’s that are no Rare Breed. When a Dem gets elected I think a lot of YT evidence will result in visits from the ATF. I see a lot of felons in the future over this.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One more attempt:
Driving is not a crime.

In Colorado being in possession of a firearms sound suppressor, a.k.a., a silencer, is.

This sets up an interesting conflict. I followed everything you said and it makes. I also followed Jones’ comment about tax stamps being privileged tax information. So, one way to think about it is, your tax stamp is your privileged tax information and the Colorado law enforcement officers have no business under USC code asking to see it. At the same time, under Colorado law, the Colorado law enforcement officer can arrest you for possessing a suppressor unless you show your federally privileged tax information (tax stamp) to prove that you aren’t breaking Colorado law. Fun and games.

Still, it beats the states that just say, “Nope, you can’t have those.”

In general if someone has an affirmative defense to what is otherwise a crime, it’s up to him to raise it. If I shoot and kill someone, that is a homicide and most homicides are crimes of one sort or another. If I get arrested and charged with one of those crimes despite my belief that it was justified self-defense, it will be up to me to make that claim in court. It won’t be up to anyone else to assume that it was self-defense without my raising the claim.

Colorado law says that silencers are “dangerous weapons” whose possession is a serious crime. If I want to claim that I have a defense to the crime because the device is registered with the ATF, who has the obligation to raise it?

“Yes, officer, it is registered, and here is the Form 4 showing that.”
“Okay, thanks. I had to ask because we’re recovering unregistered 3D-printed suppressors, and I appreciate your time and trouble. Have a nice day.”

Or:
“Screw you, cop. My form has a tax stamp and you have no right to see it.”

Then:
“Screw you, judge; my form has a tax stamp and you have no right to see it. You must take my word that I have a right to possess this device without proving it to anyone other than an ATF agent.”

And of course, Form 4s now are no longer tax documents anyway, which is the fundamental ruling of the court about all this.

But yes, fun and games that have just started for some of us. And congratulations to anyone that doesn’t have to worry about any of this nonsense. Plus, to use the advice given in other threads: Just move. Norway is a great place to own a suppressor, or so I’m told, and I’m sure there are no disadvantages to such a move. I found the people there to be very friendly.

3D printed cans (assuming homemade by a non-FFL/SOT) would be on a Form 1, and having a stamp for such would, by definition, prove it was registered. I hate the gov't. too, but I'd rather avoid an arrest over such a thing and just flash my stamp and be on my way.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Does the ATF have the manpower to retroactively go after people for not following whatever future rules they make up?

No, but there are plenty of low probability things I wouldn't chance.

This is well on the way to becoming statute. Federal law must be uniform.

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/2105781222966464593

Let's hypothecate that someone has a bolt action integrally suppressed rifle built by John Tibbetts of John's Guns. Would this entire rifle be free of future tax stamps on the entire rifle? Barrel is still 16.5" ported inside an overall 20" surrounding suppressor length. From what I understand, this is truly a silent functioning rifle with subsonic ammo.

Where would this fall withinin the entire discussion?

BOOM!

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
BOOM!

You implying screw on / tri lug suppressors fall into a different category than integrated suppressors?

I was responding to Para’s post.

What the hell is the $0 NFA guidance? We’re interested in the guidance regarding the suppressor and the SBR being no longer NFA.