quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
At tax stamp means suppressors stay NFA, which means they get to keep their business model. That's the whole problem here. I don't get what you're missing.

For me I'm missing the actual evidence that would accompany that speculative motive.

Their latest statement says they "support any viable legislation". Seems like they are hedging their statements.

To me they have not yet made a categorical denial of the report. They need to state that they support all legislation to remove all restrictions on purchasing, owning, or possessing suppressors.

quote:

To me they have not yet made a categorical denial of the report. They need to state that they support all legislation to remove all restrictions on purchasing, owning, or possessing suppressors.

With the way our legislative process works, and how Congress critters pack a bill with all sorts of pork and other unsavory stuff, then market it with one appealing thing, I would never make a blanket statement that I'd support all legislation related to a specific topic. I'd like to see suppressors off the NFA as much as the next guy, but there are a lot of other areas that I wouldn't be willing to compromise to do it.

Sounds like it has an odor of past offenders. Bill Ruger’s mag scandal comes to mind. As does SA’s sponsoring of legislation that would have kept them in business while screwing scores of others.
Greed has a specific odor no matter what color the wrapping paper and bow.

I don't believe a word of anything Silencer Central has to say. Their true colors are out in the open.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

quote:

To me they have not yet made a categorical denial of the report. They need to state that they support all legislation to remove all restrictions on purchasing, owning, or possessing suppressors.

With the way our legislative process works, and how Congress critters pack a bill with all sorts of pork and other unsavory stuff, then market it with one appealing thing, I would never make a blanket statement that I'd support all legislation related to a specific topic. I'd like to see suppressors off the NFA as much as the next guy, but there are a lot of other areas that I wouldn't be willing to compromise to do it.

Then they could say they support changing the law so as to remove all restrictions. They could say that they have never, and will never, support any restrictions. They could say that as an accessory, they believe suppressors should neither be an NFA item nor regulated under the GCA, and should be treated as other accessories such as sights.

The allegation is they have lobbied against removing suppressors from the NFA. They have not made a clear categorical denial of that.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I'd like to see suppressors off the NFA as much as the next guy, but there are a lot of other areas that I wouldn't be willing to compromise to do it.

*Edit - I haven't had my coffee yet and misread you as saying "would" and that changed the whole context, but I'm going to leave what I wrote below intact anyways, because it's on topic, just not necessarily germane to what you're saying.

The potential problem with the way they're trying to go about it is if we show the Democrats that we can change the price of a tax stamp to buy a suppressor to $0, then the next time they're in power, there isn't much to stop them from raising that price to say, $5,000, which is roughly what that $200 in 1934 amounts to today.

Suppressors need to be removed from the NFA, period. I'm tired of the mentality that we need to compromise by all these degrees for nearly a century to get back the rights they took from us with one piece of misinformed, arbitrary legislation that is a fucking affront to the second amendment. That's kind of the heart of the issue with this $0 for a tax stamp approach - guys doing NFA stuff have said for years that the process is the punishment, not the tax, and this keeps the process intact. No suppressors on the NFA, no short barrels on the NFA. Hell, it was the same barrel length for rifles and shotguns originally, and they had to drop the restriction on rifles to 16" when they realized they sold off a bunch of surplus M1 carbines through the CMP, violating their own federal regulations. It's stupid and it needs to go. If they want to regulate machine guns through the NFA, I think that realistically ought to go away also, but it's beyond unlikely to happen. Short barrels need to become treated like any other firearm and suppressors need to be treated like an accessory.

I’m not sure if I missed it, but my question about all this is in reference to the “business model” of companies that currently sell suppressors.

The two ends of the spectrum of making money selling things are sell a few expensive things and sell a lot of inexpensive things. Right now the suppressor market is pretty much the first: sell a few items that cost a lot. If, however, suppressors suddenly became unregulated, or even were simply treated as a firearm that any dealer could sell after a background check and recording in its files, it seems to me that sales would explode. Right now I’m satisfied with the one can I own, but if I could order them through Amazon I’d probably have two or three more.

Even just as people who already own X number of guns don’t stop buying them, if anything someone who already owns a suppressor (or six) would probably be among the first to buy more. The whole thing would probably be encouraged if all the various “influencers” started saying, “Be a good neighbor; buy a silencer.”

I can also see, though, why a vendor that has a large stock on hand would dread suddenly having it all become worth much less than they paid for it (just like the issue of prices before, during, and after high tariffs). And of course Whom are we going to buy from? Currently there are a limited number of dealers who go to the trouble of selling NFA items, but how much competition would they face if they were unregulated?

And one possible unintended consequence if they were deregulated at the Federal level would be that state and local jurisdictions would institute their own bans to pander to their leftist constituents. Right now I’ve seen no indication that Colorado wants to ban suppressors here, but one bit of proposed legislation would have designated any gun with a threaded barrel as a prohibited “assault weapon”: It’s not necessary to ban the device if it can’t be used with any legal gun.

Finally, however, is it likely we will see suppressors become unregulated? Hardly. Even 45 said he didn’t like “silencers.”

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’m not sure if I missed it, but my question about all this is in reference to the “business model” of companies that currently sell suppressors.

You did. It isn't about companies that sell suppressors, lots of them do, and some of them including Silencer Shop are saying they want suppressors dropped from NFA. The business model commentary is about companies that hold your hand through the process or do most of it for you and charge a service fee. If the process goes away, the service doesn't need to exist. How much do they make off it? Don't know, but if what's being alleged is true, it's enough that Silencer Central didn't feel like it was a waste of fifty grand to help ensure that income stream doesn't go away.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Finally, however, is it likely we will see suppressors become unregulated? Hardly. Even 45 said he didn’t like “silencers.”

Maybe, but we have 47 now, and he is a different creature than 45. His son is a very vocal proponent of NFA ownership. Barron had his ear and led the charge on social media and podcast stuff during the campaign, Don Jr. may very well have his ear about the 2A stuff. The one thing I keep hearing from our crowd as a dig at Trump is the "take the guns first and due process" second quip. I'm fairly convinced nothing else hurt him as badly with the most single-issue voters amongst us, and while he doesn't have to win another election, he promised expanding 2A rights if we put him back in office. I'm cautiously optimistic.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
The business model commentary is about companies that hold your hand through the process or do most of it for you and charge a service fee.

Okay, thanks; clear now.

And although I mentioned 45 as an example of attitudes, I, too, would be cautiously optimistic about 47, but unfortunately he is not the one who could make it happen even if he has changed his mind.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’m not sure if I missed it, but my question about all this is in reference to the “business model” of companies that currently sell suppressors.

You did. It isn't about companies that sell suppressors, lots of them do, and some of them including Silencer Shop are saying they want suppressors dropped from NFA. The business model commentary is about companies that hold your hand through the process or do most of it for you and charge a service fee. If the process goes away, the service doesn't need to exist. How much do they make off it? Don't know, but if what's being alleged is true, it's enough that Silencer Central didn't feel like it was a waste of fifty grand to help ensure that income stream doesn't go away.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Finally, however, is it likely we will see suppressors become unregulated? Hardly. Even 45 said he didn’t like “silencers.”

It's not just 50G it's 10G to 50G per quarter.

Were suppressors moved off of NFA, and even better totally unregulated, it would open new business opportunities even though previous ways to make money would disappear.

e.g. Many people would have a need for a threaded barrel in their existing firearms. Either new barrels or having their existing barrel threaded. I, for one, would mail my barrel to a reputable company to have them thread it to fit one of their suppressors.

Businesses using government to protect their profits is a time proven strategy, and this appears to be the situation here.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Many people would have a need for a threaded barrel in their existing firearms.

That too.

I don't feel this is akin to Bud Light, but more so to Springfield Armory, Bill Ruger, or Benchmade.

Actions that are directly intended to bolster themselves at the actual cost of their current customers.

As noted previously though, there is no direct proof of their support for the NFA. Speculation and anonymous sources are the death of factual reporting.

quote:

Originally posted by Gibb:
Speculation and anonymous sources are the death of factual reporting.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Were suppressors moved off of NFA, and even better totally unregulated, it would open new business opportunities even though previous ways to make money would disappear.

e.g. Many people would have a need for a threaded barrel in their existing firearms. Either new barrels or having their existing barrel threaded. I, for one, would mail my barrel to a reputable company to have them thread it to fit one of their suppressors....

You can say that again. The sale of suppressors would explode ten-fold or more. I have no doubt a lot of gun owners want to own suppressors, but they don't want to have to go through the bullshit NFA route. The less dealing with the government, the better.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Were suppressors moved off of NFA, and even better totally unregulated, it would open new business opportunities even though previous ways to make money would disappear.

e.g. Many people would have a need for a threaded barrel in their existing firearms. Either new barrels or having their existing barrel threaded. I, for one, would mail my barrel to a reputable company to have them thread it to fit one of their suppressors....

You can say that again. The sale of suppressors would explode ten-fold or more. I have no doubt a lot of gun owners want to own suppressors, but they don't want to have to go through the bullshit NFA route. The less dealing with the government, the better.

^^^
This!

I saw that Tom Gresham at Gun Talk has taped an interview w/SC to be broadcast Sunday. Available on Podcast too.

He interviewed them a few weeks ago as did many other outlets. Explaining the backstory and the system they developed. I’m inclined towards liking the guy after listening to the story.

If the lobbying story is as bad as it sounds, I’ll continue to suppress without their service, f’em and feed them fish.

I don't own any Banish suppressors, but I have bought a few threaded barrels from Silencer Central.

I highly recommend everybody listen to Brandon Madddox's interview on the first hour of Sunday's Gun Talk podcast. I think you can also find it on the Gun Talk website. All for free. Tom Gresham also posted another author's article on his @GunTalk feed on Twitter/X feed that describes what occurred.

And the simmer down a little.

Silencer Central's owner, Brandon Maddox, also owns the company that makes the Banish line of suppressors.

In 2018, Silencer Central paid a lobbyist to support legislation so that all funds the ATF receives from tax stamps be sent to the fund (I forget the name) for conservation that does things like managing conservation efforts for hunters, etc., and does things like building shooting ranges across the country. That's it.

Maddox has done more for people who want to buy suppressors than most in the industry. He regularly talks to legislators. He has built one business (Silencer Central) that greatly streamlines the process of buying suppressors. Maddox also was instrumental in speeding up the ATF system to process Form 1s and Form 4s faster. And aren't we all grateful for that?

If suppressors and SBRs, etc., are removed from the NFA, Silencer Central will still make a boatload of cash, because demand for suppressors will skyrocket. They have adapted to changing market conditions in the past, and they will continue to do so; but they will have lost one competitive advantage they have over most of their competitors (helping people through the Form 4 process and creating a firearms trust). However, some other competitors have already started offering similar services. Like Para, I'm hopeful, but not expecting that removal from the NFA will ever happen.

Also, Maddox's other business, the Banish line, will also skyrocket, so he has incentive for the removal of suppressors from the NFA.

I hated Springfield for their screw-up in Illinois. But I think this is a hatchet job on Silencer Central, and at this point, I'm siding with them on this.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:
I saw that Tom Gresham at Gun Talk has taped an interview w/SC to be broadcast Sunday. Available on Podcast too.

He interviewed them a few weeks ago as did many other outlets. Explaining the backstory and the system they developed. I’m inclined towards liking the guy after listening to the story.

If the lobbying story is as bad as it sounds, I’ll continue to suppress without their service, f’em and feed them fish.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
<<snip>>
They may have lobbied to keep silencers on the NFA to save their business model but encourage the $200 tax stamp to be dropped. If silencers were reclassified under the GCA, then their business model evaporates.
<<snip>>

I guess I'm an idiot as I just don't follow the logic here... WHY would keeping them on the NFA list save, or even serve their business model? Why would removing them from the NFA harm their business model? They could still ship them right to your door, couldn't they? I am failing to understand...

I would love to have one (or more), but until I can buy one without the $200 tax AND yet another background investigation to own one, I'm just not going there.