5.7 Million Suppressors Registered: ATF Data Shows Massive Growth in Ownership

According to the American Suppressor Associations (ASA), the official number of silencers/suppressors registered in the United States of America was 5,776,685 as of the time they Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firarms, and Explosives (ATF) responded at the SHOT Show in January of 2026. This correspondent obtained information from the ATF on January 22, 2026. At that time it was stated the information had already been released, and over 150K National Firearms Act (NFA) applications had been approved in January of 2026 to that date.

The graph for registered silence numbers has been created using the cumulative numbers for January of each year from 2011 to 2026. When numbers were not available for January, linear interpolation was used to approximate the January number. Each year had at least one reference number.  2017 had three reference numbers, none of them for January.

The number of registered silencers has been compounding at a rate of about 22.6% per year.  That rate is roughly the same as doubling every 3.2 years.  If such a rate continues, there will be about 50 million registered silencers ten years from now.

It is unlikely there will be 50 million registered silencers ten years from now. This correspondent believes the registration requirement will be removed well before 10 years. It could be removed within two years, given the lawsuits now in play. 50 million silencers in the hands of American gun owners, ten years from now, is plausible.

Silencers are very popular firearm safety accessories when they are not restricted by oppressive governmental policies.  Silencers can be made inexpensively with economies of scale. Even the best, most technologically advanced silencers/suppressors will come down in price as economies of scale come into play.  In New Zealand, silencers had, until 2019, been an over the counter commodity, similar to purchasing a rifle scope in the United States. Silencers were relatively cheap.  From a Gun Watch article in 2015:

Silencers are often referred to as suppressors. The best descriptive term is gun muffler. In New Zealand, which has a strong tradition of gun ownership, gun mufflers are unregulated and cheap. They are for sale over the counter or in the mail. The above ads or similar ones can be seen on the online buying and selling site for New Zealand, trademeco.nz. From trademe.co.nz . . .

This Silencer will fit any centrefire rifle with 17CM of exposed barrel with a diameter smaller than 19mm.

Takes away the loud crack (down to about a 22 magnum noise) and helps protect your ears from permanent hearing loss.

Super strong tooling grade alloy construction designed to withstand bursts of Full Auto fire, making it virtually indestructible on a hunting rifle and keeping the weight down to just 370 grams.

There is no licence required to purchase these in New Zealand.

Rimfire gun mufflers are commonly available for under $20. Consider that a New Zealand dollar is current valued a .65 U.S. dollars.

Silencer prices in New Zealand have increased, but they are still available through the mail.  The exchange rate is now about .59 USD to 1 New Zealand Dollar. At the current exchange rate, quality .22 rimfire suppressors can be had for about $36 USD, and quality high power rifle suppressors can be purchased for prices ranging upward from $120. The highest price showing was about $450 USD.  The New Zealand market is tiny compared to the United States. About 400,000 people in New Zealand are firearms owners, with about 1.77 million firearms.

Current prices for a silencer in the United States run about $350 to $2000. Those prices will drop with deregulation and economies of scale.

There are over a hundred million gun owners in the United States, with over 540 million firearms. A market for 50 million silencers in the United States, once the regulatory burden is removed, is entirely possible.

 

©2026 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont Governor Signs law Removing Ban on Supressors for Hunting

Map from the American Suppressor Association

On June 1, 2022, S. 281, was signed by Republican Governor Phil Scott of Vermont. An amendment, removing the ban on the use of suppressors for hunting in Vermont, was passed as part of the bill, which regulated the of hunting coyotes with dogs,

The bill passed  the Vermont House on May 4, 2022. The vote was 89 for, 49 against. At that time the bill only contained the regulation of coyote hunting with dogs. The final legislation was a compromise on hunting regulation of coyotes and the use of suppressors for hunting.

The amendment to remove the ban on hunting with suppressors was added on 10 May, 2022. From the American Suppressor Association:

MONTPELIER, VERMONT – Today, Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) signed S. 281 into law, making Vermont the 41st state to allow the use of suppressors while hunting. The ASA-backed pro-suppressor provision of the bill, championed by Representatives Pat Brennan (R-Chittenden-9-2) and George Till (D-Chittenden-3), was amended into the legislation during the floor debate in the House of Representatives on May 10th. It passed the Senate as amended the very next day. The new law, which carries a two-year sunset provision, will take effect on July 1st.

The bill passed the Vermont Senate on a voice vote on 11 May, 2022.

The original bill was an attempt to make hunting coyotes with dogs illegal in Vermont. As part of the compromises made in passing the bill, regulations on hunting coyotes with dogs were required, and the ban on hunting with suppressors was lifted.

The bill will take effect on July 1, 2022. With the reform, Vermont becomes the 41st state to restore the legal ability to hunt with suppressors/silencers.

A sunset clause was included in the bill so that all provisions will expire on July 1, 2024.

The suppressor reform was not mentioned in the Vermont Public Radio paragraph about the bill's passage.

The importance of passing the bill is: There will be two years without a ban on the use of suppressors in hunting in Vermont.

Supporters will be able to show two years without problems. This is what has happened in other states.

Use of suppressors while hunting is common in Europe, Africa, and New Zealand.

Supporters of European style gun regulation fall silent about the widespread use of suppressors in Europe.

The only state which allows widespread ownership of suppressors, but does not allow their use in hunting, is Connecticut.

Eight states continue the irrational ban on the ownership and use of suppressors/silencers/gun mufflers.

They are the usual suspects; states which have infringed on Second Amendment rights for decades: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,  and Rhode Island.

Of the six states which do not have a state protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution, four are on this list.

Iowa will almost certainly add an right to keep and bear arms to its constitution in 2022.

The hearing protection act, which would have removed suppressors from the bizarre regulatory and tax regime of the National Firearms Act, was primarily prevented from passing in 2017, by House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Prediction:

As the use of silencers becomes legal, accepted, and common across the nation,  they will be accepted into the states which currently infringe on Second Amendment rights.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Trump Administration finalizes Removal of ITAR "Gunsmith License"

The Trump administration is at the point of finalizing reform of antiquated cold war rules which were used to target gunsmiths and small gun manufacturers. Included in the reforms are transfer of responsibility for export of most firearms and ammunition from the Department of State to the Department of  Commerce.

In 2016, the State Department, under the Obama administration, "clarified" the definition of "manufacturers" who were required to register under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The registration fee was $2,250 per year.  PNJ.com reports the actions of the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC):

The DDTC defined manufacturing as, among other things: The production of firearm parts, the systemized production of ammunition, modifications that change round capacity, the machining or cutting of firearms resulting in enhanced capability, and use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms.

 The change in definition appeared to cover everything from drilling and tapping for scope mounts to threading a barrel. It impacted  the small gunsmith, for whom $2,250 a year would be a large expenditure, more than large manufacturers. Those small gunsmiths are the least likely to be a threat to the United States military.

Attempts to reform the bureaucratic attack on gunsmiths began immediately. Return to the status quo was opposed by those who wish a disarmed population.

The Trump administration worked to return to the original situation for gunsmiths, while reforming antiquated, restrictive rules of firearms exports which had accumulated under ITAR.

The final form of the new rules is expected to be published on 23 January, 2020. There will be a 45 day period after that before the rules go into effect. From NSSF:

WASHINGTON — NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, applauds the Trump administration’s posting for public inspection of the final rules that modernize the export regulations for sporting and commercial firearms and ammunition products. The formal publication of the final rule is scheduled for Jan. 23. The rules will be implemented 45 days after formal publication.

President Donald Trump’s administration successfully completed the long-promised modernization of the export control regulations that began more than eight years ago under the prior administration, but which was never completed due to domestic gun control reasons.

“This is a tremendous achievement for the firearms and ammunition industry. We salute the Trump administration for modernizing our nation’s outdated Cold War era export controls and putting American manufacturers on an even playing field with their foreign competitors,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President for Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “This initiative will enable U.S. manufacturers to create more good-paying jobs in America while also helping to strengthen our national security.”

The rules issued today transfer export licensing of sporting and commercial firearms and ammunition products to the Commerce Department from the State Department. This change removes unnecessary and outdated regulations and allows the State to focus its export control resources on those items that give our warfighters a tactical advantage. It makes no sense to treat the commercial sale of hunting or target shooting rifles with the same level of scrutiny as nuclear weapons, tanks and fighter aircraft.

The new rules also eliminate a punitive annual $2,250 registration fee that gunsmiths and small companies who do not manufacture, nor export firearms or ammunition products were forced to pay.

The new rules will need to be examined carefully to see what they do and do not cover. It appears silencers/suppressors for sporting firearms will not be included in the transfer to Commerce. They should be. They are a simple technology shown to be beneficial in non-military settings. Many countries in the First World have little or no regulation of silencers/suppressors.

For example, any child with a few dollars in New Zealand, can walk into a store and walk out with a silencer/suppressor, yet silencers/suppressors are almost never used in New Zealand crimes.

Some are saying the transfer to Commerce will remove the restrictions that were placed on the publication of files for the 3D printing of firearms parts.  That would be a welcome change, and a fulfillment of parts of the settlement the Department of State made with Defense Distributed, in conformance with respect for the First Amendment.

A reading of the explanation of the proposed rules shows that files containing code for 3D printed firearms will still be controlled by the Department of Commerce. From the file to be published in the Federal Register, listed on amazonnews.com:

Given concerns regarding First Amendment restrictions the control is appropriately tailored to only impact technology and software in an electronic format, such as AMF or G-code, that is ready for direct insertion into a computer numerically controlled machine tool, additive manufacturing equipment to produce the firearm frame or receiver or complete firearm.

It is not clear this will stand a court test on First Amendment grounds. The controls will not impact the distribution of such files in drives or printed on paper.

The rule might  be circumvented by rendering AMF or G-code files in such a manner they would have to be corrected or altered before use.

The reason given for the necessity of control of these files is suspect:

As a result, Commerce has reached the conclusion that U.S. national security and foreign policy necessitate that BIS maintain controls over the 3D printing of firearms when such software and technology is posted on the internet. The potential for the ease of access to the software and technology, undetectable means of production, and potential to inflict harm on U.S. persons and allies abroad present a grave concern for the United States.Without regulatory oversight, U.S. foreign relations and national security interests could be seriously compromised. For these reasons, this final rule provides that technology and software ready for insertion into an automated manufacturing tool that makes use of the software or technology to produce a firearm frame, receiver, or complete firearm is subject to the EAR, consistent with the regulation of such software and technology when previously controlled under the USML.

None of the above rational is based on a "military advantage" of the United States. It seems, peculiarly, to be based on the idea of preserving foreign governments' limited ability to keep their populations unarmed. It is based entirely on subjective hypotheticals and potentials. All of those are based on the assumption armed populations (other than those of the United States) are entirely detrimental.

The transfer of controls from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce, the elimination of the burdensome fee for gunsmith activities, and the easing of export controls for common, commercially available firearms and parts, are all welcome and useful reforms.

Exactly how the regulations will work in practice remains to be seen.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch











 

Pregnant Mother uses AR-15 to Save Husband during Violent Home Invasion

Image screenshot from Bay9

 On Wednesday, October 30, at about 9 p.m. Jeremy King, his 11 year old daughter, and eight month pregnant wife, were subject to a violent home invasion by two armed men.

Suspects forced their way into the home. According to various interviews with King, the suspects demanded that he "give everything". He denied having anything. The suspects started pistol whipping him and kicking him in the head while he was on the floor. From baynews9.com:

King said one of the men started pistol-whipping him while another kicked him repeatedly in the head. His wife, who is eight months pregnant, was in the back bedroom and peeked out to see what was going on.

King said one of the men shot at her. She retreated, grabbed an AR-15 and returned fire.

 King's heavily pregnant wife used good tactical sense. She did not barge out of the back room with the AR-15. She took up a position, and, as one of the invaders came into her line of sight through the doorway, she shot him. Both home invaders fled the scene. A man was found 200 feet from the house, in a ditch, dead. From baynews9.com:

“When he came toward the back door in her line of sight, she clipped him,” King said. “He made it from my back door to roughly 200 feet out in the front ditch before the AR did its thing.”

One of the advantages of the AR-15 platform for home defense is the ease of use, even by people with little upper body strength. It recoils relatively little, but has plenty of power to for human targets. The report of an AR-15 is very loud, especially indoors.

One improvement for home defense would be a sound suppressor, or silencer. The rifle would still be loud, but the user would be less likely to be deafened by the report. Federal law has made acquisition of sound suppressors bureaucratically cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive. Many countries have far less regulation of suppressors than the United States. In  New Zealand, they are an over the counter item. Suppressors have never been used much in crime in the United States.  No reason was given for their regulation when the 1934 National Firearm Act was considered in committee.

King appreciates the advantages the AR-15 rifle gave his pregnant wife.

“Them guys came in with two normal pistols and my AR stopped it,” King said. “[My wife] evened the playing field and kept them from killing me. “

 The King home is in a semi-rural area of Florida. The home invasion occurred near the center of  the image from Google.




Over penetration is less of a problem in a rural setting. Careful selection of the ammunition can control how much penetration is likely. There are many expanding and frangible bullet choices available for the AR-15 platform.

It will be a little while before Jeremy King knows if he has any permanent loss of vision.

The Sheriff's representative, in this video on facebook, says they are looking for the remaining black male home invader.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Virginia Beach Shooter was Law Abiding, Used Handguns, Former Member of the National Guard,and Black

Virginia Beach Building 2, from Google Maps

The mass murder in Virginia Beach took place in Virginia Beach Municipal Building 2. Notice the elevated entrance, which prevents drive in car bomb attacks.

The mass murder in Virginia Beach took place inside a secured location. The people inside were forbidden from possessing defensive firearms. It was a gun free zone. The shooter, who worked at that location, had a electronic pass which gave him easy access to the gun free zone. 

Coverage of this event was different than previous mass murders in the United States.  I mentioned, in an email, that something was different about this event. It took a little while to determine what was different. One thing different is the police decided to focus on the victims rather than on the killer.  The decision is a positive development. From the nymag.com:

Police Chief Cervera said, when he released the shooter’s name, that the police would not continue using it in order to keep the focus on the victims. Authorities have not released a photo of Craddock, who is black.

The shooter had no criminal record beyond a single traffic offense, and served in the Virginia National Guard from 1996 to 2002, when he was discharged at the rank of specialist.

I, and numerous others have been advocating for reform of media coverage of these events for years. Limiting the coverage of the killer and focusing on the victims are part of the suggested reforms. The purpose of the reforms is to reduce the copycat effect, also known as media contagion. One study, presented at the American Psychological Association, found irresponsible media coverage may be doubling the number of mass killings.

One immediate thought occurred with the reduced media coverage. It was that the killer was a minority. For decades, the media deliberately withheld the race of criminals. The lack of reporting became so bad, the common wisdom is, if a perpetrator's race is not mentioned, they are a minority.

The old media has incentive to downplay the race of this killer. It contradicts their narrative that mass killers are always white men.

The killer used only handguns, not a semi-automatic rifle. The Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of handguns in the home is a core Constitutional right, protected by the Second Amendment. Those who wish a disarmed population have been working hard to claim that semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment, because they have been used in mass murder. The use of handguns in this mass killing undercuts that narrative, because it illustrates that rifles are *not* uniquely suited or necessary for mass murder.

There has been some attention to the killer's reported use of a suppressor. The use of suppressors in criminal acts is very rare in the United States, and in the world.

The shooter used two .45 caliber handguns. Reportedly, one of them had a suppressor.

Later in the nymag article, it is noted the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, more correctly, BATFE), reported the pistols used in the attack were obtained legally.

On Saturday, an ATF official said that Craddock had legally purchased both of the .45-caliber handguns he used in his attack — one in 2016 and the other in 2018. Police found two more weapons in a search of his home, and the one they have identified records for was also purchased legally. Craddock also used a sound suppressor, or silencer, in the attack, as well as extended capacity magazines.

Details of the suppressor have not been released. There are numerous fake suppressors on the market, and it is difficult, without testing, to know if something that looks like a suppressor actually has any significant effect on lowering the decibel level of the firearm it is attached to. The BATFE has reported the shooter legally purchased the two .45 caliber handguns used in the attack. A legal suppressor would have a serial number and a model. It is interesting the BATFE has not been able to report if the suppressor was legally acquired.

A legal suppressor would have required a background check, fingerprints, and a waiting time of months, as required by the federal level regulations of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

BATFE records for NFA items are notoriously unreliable, but it boggles the imagination that they could not determine the legal status of a suppressor, in the hands of authorities, in two days.  At minimum, you would think the shooters name and address would be readily available in the BATFE NFA records.

There have been previous mass shooting situations where the shooter was reported to be wearing body armor, which later turned out to be simple magazine carriers. Future reporting should reveal details on whether the suppressor was real or fake, legal or illegal.

Suppressors are not difficult to make. The shooter was an engineer. I know people who have made their own suppressors outside of U.S. jurisdiction. It is not rocket science. One was an illiterate Panamanian. The other was a U.S. military member.

Societies where suppressors are sold over the counter without any paperwork, for cash, such as New Zealand, have not reported any significant level of criminals using suppressors.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Four Homemade Submachine Guns Confiscated in Sydney, Australia, 2018

Four homemade submachine guns found during a drug raid in Waterloo, Australia.

Imager from twitter.com/7newssydney:

When extreme restrictions are placed on the acquisition of legal firearms, one of the easiest repeaters to make at home or in small workshops is the submachine gun. The four homemade submachine guns shown above were discovered with a number of other firearms, drugs, and 2.75 million Australian dollars, about two million in U.S. dollars. From facebook.com/nswpoliceforce:

Acting on information received, Strike Force Raptor, assisted by the Drug and Firearms Squad, executed a search warrant a storage facility at Waterloo in the early hours of Wednesday (30 May 2018).

During the search, police located 1.15kg of cocaine, 1.1kg of ice, 26L of GBL, 13 firearms, including five sub-machine guns, two semi-automatic pistols, and two revolvers; ammunition, a silencer, and $2.75 million cash.

The firearms will undergo forensic and ballistic examination.

Just after 9am yesterday (Thursday 31 May 2018), Strike Force Raptor arrested a 34-year-old man after he arrived at Sydney Airport from New Zealand.

He was taken to Kogarah Police Station and charged with three counts of supply prohibited drug, possess ammunition, deal in proceeds of crime, resist arrest, participate in a criminal group, and aggravated firearms offences.

He was refused bail to appear at Sutherland Local Court later today (Friday 1 June 2018).

 With that kind of money available, the fabrication of guns and the availability of ammunition on the black market is easy to understandable.

The most famous case of organized crime fabricating submachine guns in Australia is that of Angelo Koots. Koots was a jeweler who made copies of the MAC-11. He was caught in a sting operation and convicted in 2013. His copies were said to be of as good quality as the originals. He claimed that he had made a hundred of the guns selling them for up to $15,000 each, with two magazines and suppressor included.  Koots was sentenced to six years in jail, with parole possible after four years. $15,000 is on the extreme high end for a black market gun.

One of the Koots guns was recently confiscated in a raid in Sydney on 10 April, 2018. In that raid, less than $100,000 ($75,000 U.S.) was confiscated.

Such firearms are easy to make, taking only a couple of days each once the first one has been made and jigs fabricated.  It is probable that Koots spent less than a year's worth of labor making the hundred guns, which may have brought in 1.5 million dollars from organized gangs. There are many talented fabricators who would be willing to work for a small fraction of that amount.

A different black market submachine gun design, the "Carlo", is frequently encountered in Israel, made in small shops. Those guns sell for about $800-$1,000 on the black market.

In the United States, because of the extreme regulation of submachine guns, original, legal, MAC-11 submachine guns cost about $9,000.

Homemade, or small shop submachine guns are made all over the world where extreme gun restrictions are in place. They are commonly found in the Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Israel, and the Philippines.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

110 Years of Semi-Auto Hunting Rifles

Semi-automatic rifles have been common in the hunting fields in the United States for a hundred and ten years and more.  I picked up the Remington model 8 above at a gun show in Tucson a few years ago. The design has been popular for a long time. The rifle pictured was manufactured early in 1907. It was called the Remington Autoloading Repeating Rifle at the time. The Model 8 designation was applied in 1911. The rifle pictured was one of the first chambered in the .30 Remington caliber, Remington's ballistic equal to Winchester's .30-30.

Unfortunately, the Remington model 8 does not have an easy way to mount an optical sight. It could be done, but it would be a custom job.

Looking for a deer rifle for the woods of Wisconsin, I decided on an AR-15 clone chambered in .300 BLK. The ballistics are slightly less powerful than the time tested .30 Remington or .30-30. With modern bullets such as Barnes solid copper, expanding TTSX bullet, it is a perfectly adequate deer killer to 250 yards. With a 160 yard zero, you hold dead on to 200 yards. I put together the AR-15 clone this year, so there are 110 years of hunting rifles in the photograph. 

With modern materials the AR with Leupold scope weights 6 pounds, 12 ounces. The Remington model 8 with iron sights weighs 7 pounds, 14 ounces. Most of the weight difference is in the longer barrel of the Remington and the steel receiver.

Both rifles have excellent reputations for reliability.  The AR, especially with optics, has the advantage in accuracy. With the Barnes ammunition, 1 inch groups at 100 yards are common. For people with good eyes, the Remington's iron sights are perfectly adequate. In a recent test, five shots went into 1 inch at 40 yards. 

The price of the early Remington model 8  rifles was $58. It does not sound like much, but it was 2.9 ounces of gold at the time. It was sold as a high grade sporting arm. Today, you can buy a good AR-15 clone for $600. A decent scope will cost another $200. Together, they are only .4 ounces of gold today.

The AR-15 type rifles are popular in the hunting fields today. The modular design, excellent ergonomics, and variety of calibers make it useful for game across the spectrum from varmints to elk.

Another advantage of the AR-15 is the ease of use of suppressors. Reform of the archaic, complicated, and expensive federal laws on possession of firearm suppressors seems likely. Suppressors are commonly used around the world for hunting. In Europe, they are considered good manners. They are commonly found in the hunting fields in Africa. In New Zealand, they are available over the counter.

Adding a suppressor to the AR-15 platform would increase the weight to about the same as the Remington model 8. I look forward to being able to hunt without wearing hearing protection. The potential was one of the reasons I decided on the AR-15 platform and the .300 BLK caliber.

Another advantage of the .300 BLK on the AR-15 platform is its use by young hunters. The stock is easily adjusted. The weight is reasonable. The recoil is moderate. A small person can use the firearm much easier than the heavier, longer, non-adjustable model 8.

I like the Model 8 Remington. Designed by John Moses Browning, it was a breakthrough for its time.  It will be used in the hunting fields into the next century.  But time, technology, and materials have all improved. From a purely utilitarian perspective, the AR platform is the better firearm.


©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Silencerco Maxim 50 Another reason to Reform National Gun Law

SilencerCo, the innovative silencer company that produces most of the silencers for the United States market, has developed a revolutionary new product. It is an integral silencer on a modern muzzleloader, called the Maxim 50.

Josh Waldron of Silencerco has been one of the strongest voices pushing for reform of the antiquated and poorly conceived National Firearms Act.

In 1932, when the Act was passed, no one gave any explanations for including gun mufflers, called silencers. The inclusion of silencers never made any sense. In the rest of the "developed world", silencers are often regulated much less than guns. In New Zealand, a liberal mecca, anyone with cash can buy silencers over the counter. Even children are not barred from doing so. Most of Europe considers silencers to be a safety and noise pollution device. New Zealand has not had a rash of "silencer crime". England has not suffered from an abundance of criminals armed with silencers.

Americans have suffered under the over-regulation and extreme taxes imposed on users of silencers for 70 years. Millions of people have lost hearing because of the public health blunder of the Roosevelt administration in the 1930's.

The 1934 National Firearms Act has had small areas of common sense interpretation added over the years. Muzzleloading guns are considered antiques, and are not regulated under the act. That is why a silenced muzzleloader is not burdened with the extreme red tape and taxes that ordinary silencers are. To obtain an ordinary silencer, a target shooter or hunter has to have his fingerprints taken, apply for a federal tax stamp, pay $200, wait six months to a year, and then, maybe, obtain his silencer. Congress is considering reducing those burdens. A reform law would regulate silencers the same as ordinary rifles and shotguns.

The current restrictions do not apply to the Maxim 50. To obtain a Maxim 50, simply find it at the SilencerCo store online. The price is $999. The rifle is the very successful Traditions Vortek Strikerfire. Pay the price and the rifle and integrated suppressor will be delivered to your doorstep. There are some additional constraints in the most restrictive political areas.

New Jersey, Washington D.C., New York City, and Illinois require the Maxim 50 to be shipped to a Federal Firearms License, who can then transfer the rifle to you. The rifle needs to be shipped to a physical address, not a post office box.

Other than those restrictions, I believe the Maxim 50 can be purchased mail order all over the country, to adults over the age of 18. $999 is not a bad deal for an excellent rifle and silencer combination. The rifle and silencer together weigh less than eight pounds. That is a good weight for a .50 caliber rifle.

I suspect the Maxim 50 will quickly be sold out and back-ordered. At $999, you are paying about $500 for the silencer. The rifle, separately, sells for about $500.

SilencerCo's introductory offer includes a limited edition, all-weather carrying case.

The introduction of the Maxim 50 is another nail in the coffin of the ill-considered over-regulation of gun mufflers in the United States.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

President Trump will Pass the Hearing Protection Act

In 1934, the Franklin Roosevelt administration was able to pass omnibus gun control legislation, with massive infringements on the Second Amendment.  It was the National Firearms Act.  The law was primarily designed to eliminate the private ownership of handguns. That was too much of a direct assault on the Second Amendment for Congress, which removed handguns from the bill. The remainder of the act passed, creating a bizarre law with unintended consequences.

For obscure and unknown reasons, gun mufflers, also known as silencers, or suppressors, were included in the act. Silencers immediately changed from being a $10 accessory, available over the counter, to becoming an item requiring a federal tax stamp costing $200.  The tax stamp required an intrusive and time consuming application process. $200 in 1934 would be $3,600 today.  As another measure, $200 was 5.7 ounces of gold in January, 1934.  That was by legislative fiat.  In December of 1933, it would have been 10 ounces of gold.  If you use gold as the standard, 5.7 ounces of gold would be worth $7,400.  It was common for a day laborer in 1934 to be paid $1 a day.  People worked long days, six days a week. The tax on a silencer was about the yearly pay of a minimum wage worker of the time. It was not a tax.  It was a prohibition.

The rest of the world did not share America's self imposed prohibition on gun mufflers.  In the rest of the world, silencers were regarded as a useful accessory, something that the neighbors appreciated because it reduced noise pollution.

In Europe, silencers are far less regulated than they are in the United States.  In New Zealand, a 12 year old can walk into a hardware store, pay $20, and walk out with a perfectly serviceable commercial silencer.

Inflation has whittled away at the prohibitionist tax on silencers in the United States.  $200 dollars is now 28 hours at minimum wage instead of a year's worth of labor.  People understand the damage done to unprotected ears by close proximity to gunfire.  Silencers have become essential safety equipment in many circumstances.

A growing movement has risen up to place silencers in the same regulatory environment as ordinary rifles and shotguns.  It removes the prohibitory tax and the burdensome, unnecessary regulations. Legislation has been introduced in Congress by Matt Salmon (R) Arizona.

The Hearing Protection Act. It keeps the federal regulation that states refer to when they require federally sanctioned ownership for legal possession of silencers in many. That regulation becomes the same as for ordinary rifles and shotguns.

When legislators are informed of the bizarre history of U.S. regulation and prohibition of these safety devices, they have no problem passing corrective legislation.  Josh Waldron, one of three founders of the American Suppressor Association, says that when legislators become informed, 90% of both Democrats and Republicans vote for  the reform legislation.

The Hearing Protection Act will pass.  It only needs to be presented to Congress.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

Review: Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers

Silencers in New Zealand are cheap and unregulated

Western Criminology Review 8(2), 44–57 (2007)
Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers*
Paul A. Clark
Alaska Public Defender Agency

Paul A. Clark has done some long needed research on the illegal and legal uses of silencers, and the theory for criminalizing their possession in the United States.  The paper was published in 2007.  It is 57 pages long, with the last three pages consisting of end notes and references.

The research was prompted in part by the draconian mandatory sentencing for possession of a silencer during a crime.  The crime of unregistered silencer possession warrants a  minimum sentence of 27 months in prison.  If a silencer is possessed during a drug transaction, the mandatory sentence is 30 years; if the silencer was unlicensed, another 10 years can be added.

The paper is easy to read, although it is in a dry, academic, just the facts, style.  The dry style cannot erase the numerous examples of legislative horrors that the author casually mentions.  A hunter who made a silencer to shoot pests without annoying the neighbors - over two years in prison.  An otherwise minor drug case - 40 years in prison.

Clark covers various approaches to the regulation of silencers across jurisdictions.  In Sweden, there were no restrictions; in Texas, heavy restrictions and penalties.  The data is slightly dated.  Most Texas restrictions were removed in 2014, although the draconian federal penalties still apply.

The examination of the legislative history behind the United States extreme regulatory scheme is revealing as to purposes.  There were none. From Criminal use of Firearm Silencers(pdf):

In 1934, the federal government began to regulate
machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers by plac-
ing a $200 tax on such weapons to discourage their sale
(U.S. Congress, 1986b:219-220). The 1934 congressional
debates provide no explanation about why silencers were
licensed. Paulson (1996:10) opines that during the Great
Depression, poaching game was thought to be a problem
and silencers were licensed because of this concern.
In 1968 the federal government passed the first ma-
jor federal gun control provisions. Anyone committing
a felony which could be prosecuted in federal court re-
ceived an additional one to ten years if a firearm was used
(88 Stat. 1214, 1225 (Oct 22 1968)). The statute did not
distinguish among different types of firearms, or include
silencers.

Clark dutifully notes the record of piling on of mandatory sentences for suppressor use without any evidence of necessity or purpose. In 1986, an enhanced sentence of 20 years was added for use of a silencer in the commission of a crime.  No reason was given.  In 1988, the penalty was increased to 30 years.  The reason given was the murder of left wing radio personality Alan Berg in Denver in 1984.  It was widely assumed that a silencer had been used, though there was no evidence to indicated this.  In fact, the gunshots were reported by neighbors.  The enhanced penalty has been on the books ever since.

Clark methodically works at determining how often silencers are used in crime, and whether silencers make criminal gun use more or less likely.  His estimates, which are convincing, are about 1 murder per year, and about 2 assaults, with possession during commission of another crime (mostly drug trafficking) the balance of about 30 cases a year, all with illegal silencers.  Here is his conclusion:

Comparing the silencer conviction data with ordi-
nary firearm conviction data shows that guns “equipped
with a silencer” are only one-third as likely to be used to
kill or injure, one-half as likely to be actively employed,
and one-half as likely to be used by someone with a prior
record.

Clark methodically works through all the data present on silencer use by criminals, and the legislative history, to attempt to determine whether there is any reason for the draconian sentencing enhancements, or for that matter, for the expensive, time consuming bureaucracy that has been used to stifle legal silencer use and development.

It is a well researched academic paper on the subject. Anyone interested in the history of gun laws, especially United States gun laws, would be well served by reading this paper.

When presented with the facts of silencer legislative history, regulation and use, it is hard to justify any regulation at all.  This may be the reason why several nations have either minimal regulation, or, none. 

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch