Suppressors

HandgunHTR · Tuesday at 8:03 AM

I am getting ready to drop $2500 on a good pair of hearing aids.

I wish I would have had the options that I have now when I was blasting my hearing away in the fields and marshes of days long gone.

kennyg · Tuesday at 8:40 AM

ShtrRdy said:
Having to get a tax stamp for a "silencer" was established in 1934. The fee at that time was $200. That's right, the fee today is the same as it was 89 years ago.

the fee ought to be the same as it was 90 years ago

kennyg · Tuesday at 8:46 AM

I would think if they ever took suppressors off the naughty list, the bigger gun companies would enter the market and prices would come down. If they can build a reliable pump shotgun or handgun for less than $400, they should certainly be able to build cans for less than what they currently sell for.

kdenn58 · Tuesday at 8:47 AM

$200 1934 equals $4700 today's dollars!

kennyg · Tuesday at 8:53 AM

kdenn58 said:
$200 1934 equals $4700 today's dollars!

Yes, since they couldn't ban them outright, the goal was to make them so expensive they would be effectively banned.

This is the one time the invisible tax (inflation) actually worked in our favor.

Treeslug · Tuesday at 11:14 AM

Driftin said:
Hopefully the ATF doesn't get down sized by the current government and wait times increase to traditional 9 months.

Hopefully the ATF will go full time catching the abundance of criminals using illegal weapons and get out of the revenue business. Seems to be plenty of illegal guns used in gang warfare to keep more than just the ATF busy. And when did you last vote on removing a rogue ATF administrator or vote on one of their policies?

Dirtrax · Tuesday at 6:58 PM

Driftin said:
Hopefully the ATF doesn't get down sized by the current government and wait times increase to traditional 9 months.

I don't know that they added more folks to speed things up. They simply added efficiencies to an antiquated system.
I can buy any firearm and have an approval in 5 minutes or less. They use the same resources. So why not just use the nics system and get an approval at the place of purchase? Knock the fee to $100 and I'm a happy camper!

PopNFresh · Tuesday at 7:01 PM

ShtrRdy said:
Having to get a tax stamp for a "silencer" was established in 1934. The fee at that time was $200. That's right, the fee today is the same as it was 89 years ago.

shhhhhhhhh. you trying to ruin this for even more?

Airedale56 · Tuesday at 10:13 PM

Ckleeves said:
The ATF would still exist with or without the sale of tax stamps because the money goes into the US treasury departments general fund so I wouldn't say buying a suppressor is really empowering the ATF.

I'm sure money from tax stamps makes its way back to the ATF in some roundabout way but If it was wide open on suppressor purchases they would probably just hire more people and suck down more of our federal tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of it either and think it's a pretty stupid but at the same time I'm not going to let 200.00 be the deciding factor on it.

Well, that USED TO BE TRUE.

I bought my first silencer in 1988 and made out a bank draft check to the U.S. Treasury, subsequent ones as well.

Then there was a subtle change and I was instructed to to make payment to the BATFE.

If I was paying a tax, the payment went to the U.S. TREASURY.

If I am paying a (processing) fee for the cost of filing paperwork and a background check, the money NOW goes to the AGENCY.

Since the AGENCY already receives a BUDGET to process said applications, then why am I FORCED to pay the AGENCY a FEE? AGAIN?

Does anyone else consider this as a conflict?

It feels like we are being played…..

txgunner00 · Tuesday at 11:17 PM

Clem Bronkoski said:
I'm waiting for a response from my senators and Mr Trump on this issue. I don't see why I passed the background check to purchase a firearm then have to pass another one for a non-firearm plus pay a tax stamp fee of $200.
IMO a suppressor is nothing more than an additional accessory like a sling or muzzle brake.
This os an overreach by the ATF.

I agree with your sentiment. I'm an FFL/SOT and have a lot to say about the ATF, however, their regulation of suppressors is one thing they are not overreaching on. It's black letter federal law. That's why we need something like the hearing protection act to remove them from the scope of the 1934 National Firearms Act. The rules on bump stocks, braces, FRT's, etc. are examples of overreach.

slick Nick · 2025-01-29T07:26:50-0600

THE ATF CANNOT MAKE LAW, which is what they are/were pushing for. Hope fully they will go away, and law enforcement will go do what they are supposed to do. All the checking re checking and recording has done nothing. When nut cases where on a watch list they still bought guns and did horrific things. They just need to go away. We have enough laws etc just enforce what we have and leave the regular joes and Jane's alone.
Just my rant!!!!

MTPaul · 2025-01-29T14:17:38-0600

PopNFresh said:
shhhhhhhhh. you trying to ruin this for even more?

My thoughts exactly! Let this sleeping dog lie...

Airedale56 · 2025-01-29T22:16:59-0600

77 days e-form 4 approval today

RODSTRADLEY · 2025-01-30T00:05:10-0600

WeiserBucks said:
Try to make one from scratch and report back.

I did, total Titanium, 7 cone baffles and the Inconel blast baffle + tax stamp. Never again build another, a lot of CNC work and the cost of material and a 10+ month wait!

Suppressors

HandgunHTR

Well-Known Member

kennyg

Well-Known Member

kennyg

Well-Known Member

kdenn58

Member

kennyg

Well-Known Member

Treeslug

Well-Known Member

Dirtrax

Well-Known Member

PopNFresh

Well-Known Member

Airedale56

Well-Known Member

txgunner00

Member

slick Nick

Well-Known Member

MTPaul

Active Member

Airedale56

Well-Known Member

RODSTRADLEY

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Recent Posts