Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vows to fight legislation that would ease restrictions on gun silencers
Source: NY Daily News
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vowed Monday to not keep quiet as Congressional Republicans pursue legislation to ease restrictions on gun silencers.
Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said bills introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate earlier this year would make it easier for criminals to dodge law enforcement by using suppressors on firearms.
These deadly gun silencers pose a huge risk to our enforcement and our communities and I will do everything I can to stop this ill-thought-out legislation that would allow more criminals to get their hands on these dangerous weapons, she said.
Federal law currently puts silencers in the same category as machine guns and grenades. Obtaining a silencer requires a nine-month approval process and $200 tax.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gillibrand-rips-bill-ease-gun-silencer-restrictions-article-1.2996560
DFW
(54,055 posts)former9thward
(31,805 posts)And they are not silent. They suppress a certain amount of sound which is why they are called suppressors. The only people who call them silencers are people whose only experience around guns in watching James Bond movies. Suppressors help protect hearing which is why they should be encouraged.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Imaginative straw man, cupcake.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)djg21
(1,803 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 15, 2017, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Or perhaps this is just an example of juvenile name calling when someone expresses a differing viewpoint or doesn't adhere to accepted DU ideology? This seems like something a "cupcake" would do.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Paladin
(28,204 posts)Right......
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...and is there any reason to have a law against "cool"?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)longer and heavier and less balanced, then yes.
Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, suppressors do not make a gun silent, just less loud.
former9thward
(31,805 posts)In fact that is the policy of the federal government. Why are you opposed?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I have some property by the Seattle police range and I wish that they used suppressors. A subsonic .22 round is a lot quieter than almost anything out there.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)It's not always easy to tell where shots come from. I've had people hunting near me and I couldn't tell it was them when they shot, but I just don't see why if somebody really wants one the current process is particularly bad.
Like if I was in an urban area and there were 2 gangs in a gunfight, I'd like to know the relative positions of the combatants, so I can avoid getting in the crossfire.
If there was a mass shooting and some guy was shooting people from a hidden position, I'd like to be able to tell from the report of the gun he's shooting basically where he is, so I can take cover.
Many times hunting I can hear people shooting over and over like they are not really taking good aim. I always worry about stray rounds and try to move away from the shots. With the silencer it would be even harder.
I get the idea that a silencer might help reduce hearing damage, like some in this thread have mentioned, but we have ear plugs and hearing protectors in the gun world. I prefer ear plugs. However I own both.
Plus the current law does not make silencers unavailable, it just make sure that, like machine guns, that the only people willing to buy them are willing to shell out the money and jump thru the hoops. This allows people to have them, but does not allow them to flood out into the generaly gun owning population, which means they won't be showing up in crimes and mass shootings.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)The firearms were equipped with suppressors.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)Were they using a suppressor?
A louder report can echo from nearby topography sometimes in a more confusing pattern than a quieter one.
Hearing protection muffles all noise. This removes some measure of connection to the surroundings which isn't a plus when hunting. I support, at the very least, making them legal for use at a range and for hunting.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Response to hollowdweller (Reply #14)
discntnt_irny_srcsm This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)If they were a game changer, criminals and mass shooters would already be using them.
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,218 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)NickB79
(19,114 posts)A $200 tax stamp and 9 months waiting for your paperwork to clear is hardly an obstacle to owning one as it is. Hell, the local gun shop near my mother-in-law's place in St. Paul, MN, has an entire display case of them, and will give you step-by-step aid in filling out the paperwork. It's tempting to purchase one, but I have better uses for my money (and it's illegal to hunt with a suppressor-fitted gun anyway, so it'd be nothing but a paper-puncher).
So, on one hand I don't see the need to make them easier to purchase, since it's already fairly straightforward to do so. You just need patience.
On the OTHER hand, with suppressors being legal for civilians to own for decades, and a fair number of them being in use daily, I can't recall any crimes committed by someone with a suppressor-equipped gun. I doubt easier access to them will suddenly cause a surge in suppressed-firearm crime.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)Tax money goes to training folks on details of the laws and their enforcement. Since these are registered items, tax money goes to maintain the database. Presumably people have been charged and convicted for violating those related laws. Tax money pays for the enforcement, due process and punishment of the violators.
Without the firearm attached a suppressor, IMO, is singularly ill designed for use as a weapon and certainly not more lethal than a standard piece of pipe or other blunt object.
The price of these items varies. I'm not seeing that adding $200 to that price and wait of 7-10 months will make them better or safer in any way.
The ATF restriction makes even less sense that most of the war on drugs or building the trump wall.
Waste is waste and as bad as it is to spend money for nothing, punishing someone for owning safety equipment is insane.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Vinca
(50,170 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What, does she next plan to champion a bill against passages to imaginary worlds in pieces of furniture?
maxsolomon
(32,992 posts)Technical aspects of firearms little understood by the non-Gunner public? Check.
Liberal female politician? Check.
Onerous tax to discourage public ownership of said equipment? Check.
Unless these restrictions are in a Reconciliation Bill, wake me when the Filibuster dies.
derby378
(30,252 posts)My money says he'd tap Kathleen Rice on the shoulder, since she represents McCarthy's old district.