NFA Stand for: National Firearms Act. It was passed in the 30s as a response to the uptick in crime Prohibition inspired and it regulated Machine Guns, explosives like grenades, and other destructive devices and suppressors.
It would be controversial amounst gunnies to repeal it. For one, there are a lot of machine gun owner that like the artificially high market value of their guns. Repeal the NFA and they lose money on that investment, so that’s not in their interest, nor the rest of the gun-rights world, as they are an important part of the whole political alliance. And repeal of NFA scares the reglar folks, picturing people walking around carrying Tommy guns as their personal defense piece, ala that original Star Trek episode where the whole planet took their cultural cues from one Earth book that only described Chicago style gangsters, circa 1920.
But I’m not talking repealing ALL of NFA. That is step 145, and we are on step 6. But their could be a repeal of a part of it. The part with spund suppressors. Just allow silencers to be legal.
What is the major argument AGAINST silencers? That it makes a murderers job easier to get away with? Really? Are their killers out there that think, “I want to kill this guy, bad, but I don’t want to attract any attention and get caught, and a gun is too loud. If the gun was a bit quieter I’d TOTALLY kill him.”? And if someone is willing to murder, and wanted a silencer on his weapon, would the NFA and it being illegal (like murder already is) keep him from getting one?
Suppressors have other legitimate advantages. You don’t need hearing protection to go shooting. It won’t disturb your neighbors a quarter mile away if you are plinking on your farm. The abatement of noise pollution is reason enough, if you think the argument that suppressed weapons are particularly dangerous already specious.
And it’s not like silencers are illegal now. Law abiding citizens can get them if they want. The NFA just means you have to jump through some more regulatory hoops and pay a tax. To repeal the sound suppressor as destructive device part of the NFA would entail taking some of the cost out of the purchase.
And here is where Ruger could shine, if the NFA was so altered. They already make great .22 pistols and rifles. You can even get them with an integral suppressor, NOW. If they cost no extra I bet they could jump onto that market with their inherent expertise and make some money. But it would require a bit of a philosophical shift for Ruger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"And it’s not like silencers are illegal now. Law abiding citizens can get them if they want."
It is my understand, please correct me if I am wrong, that the original intent of the $200 stamp on top of the $200 manufacturing cost was to put it far out of reach of the regular citizen.
According to wikipedia:
"The transfer tax of $200 placed on the transfer of firearms controlled by the Act was roughly equivalent to five months' salary in 1934"
According to wikipedia the mean household income in 2005 was $46,326. 5 months income works out be to $19,302.50 !!!!! Wow!!!
The NFA is slowly getting eroded by inflation :)
But still, banning suppressors is about as ridiculous as banning ear muffs.
I think the anti's would ban ear muffs if they thought they could. It would mean less people would shoot!
That is my understanding, too. That $200 was supposed to be real money 70 years later. 10 times the cost of the gun, not 1/10th
Post a Comment