Greetings,

Right you are Bang! That is actually the current opposition point of view against getting the HPA legislation moving forward. The (non) issue they are stating is the LOUDNESS of a gun shot is a WARNING to those in the vicinity to take cover, depart, etc.. By making firearms quieter, it would negate (in the Hollywood understanding of sound levels anyway) that warning. That's what all of the anti groups are running with as of now. If that is the best they can come up with, we should be in good shape getting HPA passed.

Interestingly, doing some research into NFA '34 it seems the initial rational for restricting suppressors was POACHING! I don't think we have a national poaching epidemic right now, and if that was the sole argument against suppressors, then it should be that much easier to pass the HPA.

Also, I completely agree with the posters that mentioned legislation would be a much better solution than a change at the regulatory level, as it would be more difficult for a subsequent administration to undo. At least there are those at ATF who may be supportive of change in a positive direction for us.

Regards, Jim


Quote Originally Posted by Bang View Post
Understand. But bullets fly in cities like Chicago. Not all of them have a known origin. All that is needed is for people telling media they never heard a shot and some newshawk suggesting a silencer was used, and off we go. Remember cop-killer (Black Talons), Saturday Night Specials, and other buzz-words from the past? All I'm saying is we are all subject to bullshit that certain politicians cash in on. A "silencer" to the unknowing public is the tool of the professional hit man.