But I was assured he was pro gun
Trump: Will ‘seriously look’ at banning gun silencers:
“I’d like to think about it. I mean nobody’s talking about silencers very much. I did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned and we’re looking at that. I’m going to seriously look at it. I don’t love the idea of it,”
You’d think he’d save the screwing gun owners over part until re-election time.
June 5th, 2019 at 4:54 pm
Republicans count on the fact that, although they suck, and suck really bad, Democrats are worse. It’s the old Good Cop/Bad Cop ruse. The Republican will get you a drink of water, act less threatening toward you than the Democrat, etc., but his job is to take you to the same place the nasty, mean ol’ Democrat wants to take you.
June 5th, 2019 at 7:41 pm
Given that he appoints very pro-gun justices to the Supreme Court, and that will have far more effect going forward than any ban on suppressors which are essentially a niche market, and which could possibly even overturn such a ban as unconstitutional (maybe), I think that anyone who puts any thought into it would rather see Trump in the White House past 2020 so he could replace RBG or Breyer with another pro-gun justice than, say, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.
June 5th, 2019 at 8:53 pm
This is how you get from almost being able to pass the hearing protection act to a possible ban. If he’d just keep his mouth shut we’d be better off.
June 5th, 2019 at 9:27 pm
So far, we’re only assuming that his picks for SCOTUS will be stand up on the Second Amendment. History shows that going to SCOTUS has some odd effect on judges. Consider Justice Roberts, as a recent example.
Suppressors, while not a mainstream item in the firearms world, are far from niche items. They are the most widely owned Class III item in the country. I have some, and now find them far more attractive as potential purchases than more firearms.
June 5th, 2019 at 10:45 pm
“I have some, and now find them far more attractive as potential purchases than more firearms.”
That demands the question be asked…why?
June 6th, 2019 at 12:13 am
JTC… Apparently you don’t shoot with silencers much. Either that or you don’t have tinnitus or children who’s hearing yku want to protect. Eh?
June 6th, 2019 at 9:36 am
Clearly there is a disconnect here between what Trump is thought to say .vs. what Trump does.
Now ‘bump stocks’ are not guns in any shape or form. Thus laws prohibiting them are quite valid as for as the Constitution.
And Trump says, “I will look into it”. That is all he said.
Calm down folks.
June 6th, 2019 at 2:48 pm
He told me he would “totally look into” advancing national reciprocity. He missed his opportunity when the R’s were in control of the House and Senate.
June 6th, 2019 at 3:40 pm
@Ben, you miss my admittedly cryptic inference and implication that Freeholder’s impetus may be more market inducement than safety consideration, much like the hording of MG’s by investment corps.
June 6th, 2019 at 4:40 pm
@JTC, oh I understand. Yeah, definitely didn’t see that. They’re not really comparable though because there is no market reason to hoard silencers. I just assume he’s buying lots for them for the same reason I do, which is that they are awesome to shoot with.
In fact, there’s a reason not to hoard silencers if you think they will ever drop the $200 tax or remove from NFA, because you are immediately down $200 unless you are a dealer or manufacturer.
June 6th, 2019 at 5:53 pm
“President Donald Trump stated he would “think about” a ban on gun silencers, following news that the suspected Virginia Beach shooter used a legally-bought gun suppressor. ”
What about socks? Presumably, the shooter used legally-bought socks too. I bet Trump is thinking about a ban on socks.
June 6th, 2019 at 6:29 pm
Lots of logic and reason there Ben, but that’s not how bidness works. Rarity, whether real or created, drives perceived value. Witness the AWB and the normal-capacity magazine bubble which made me a bunch of free money at the time. Yes, they were thankfully temporary whereas the MG ban has legs and is ongoing, inspiring the aforementioned hording and confidence required to spend $10,000 for a $500 piece of hardware, with the expectation of more perceived value inflation later.
Right now mufflers are indeed safety devices that are not banned but for whatever reason are regulated, registered, and taxed, but never underestimate the capacity of grabbers, gov and entrenched agencies to reject all of your reason and logic as to why that should not be the case. And while a full-on ban would render them illegal and valueless (see bumpfire stocks), a more likely ban on new production and sales would create perceived value and profit for the ones that are already out there, just like with MG’s.
Not saying that the profit motive is the case with Freeholder, but his wording did present that possibility, and it would not be without precedent, as outlined above.
June 6th, 2019 at 7:42 pm
Why do I like silencers as potential purchases over firearms?
I have all the guns I want, plus. I’m slowly downsizing the collection. One of the problems with having a really good income is that it allows you to get stupid with purchases. I look in my safes these days and simply say to myself “What the hell was I thinking when I bought THAT?”
As Ben says, tinnitus. It sucks. It’s the constant background music to my life. I don’t want that music increasing in volume. Plugs/muffs only cut the db level down just so much.
Compared to any gun that I would actually consider these days, silencers are cheap, even with the tax stamp. When you’re retired, that sort of thing figures into your thought process.
Multiple calibers necessitate multiple silencers. Most silencers work on a single caliber. If you want to effectively silence a .22LR, you can’t use one that is made for .45 ACP. It will “work”, but it won’t silence the round as well as one made for the specific round.
It’s just really nice to be able to shoot without plugs, muffs or plugs and muffs. If I’m introducing a new person to shooting, I’m doing it with a silenced .22LR. It’s been enlightening how much easier it makes it to show someone the true joy of shooting when they aren’t getting freaked out by that thing in their hands “exploding”. There’s plenty of time after that to let them experience unsilenced firearms in larger calibers.
There are more reasons; those are just the biggies.
June 6th, 2019 at 7:45 pm
I see @JTC… that assumes they ban new silencers and grandfather existing ones as they did with MGs and AW and Hi-Caps. I don’t think a ban is going to happen, so stockpiling if you have to pay the $200 makes no sense in that case.
June 6th, 2019 at 9:02 pm
Thanks for the clarification of your motive, Freeholder.
I guess I thought the timing of your statement of wanting to aquire more mufflers in the context of a discussion on banning them gave me a sense of deja by when so many scrambled to buy up 10+ mags, etc. to make a quick buck (I didn’t join the scramble but I was holding a crap-ton of them and did unapologetically profit off that supply/demand bubble.
@Ben, I agree a ban is unlikely anytime soon, but that was the speculation of the post. I offered my own about some scenarios of that and you did insert yourself into that. I do hope you are right. But the fact remains though that even the current regulated status serves both as defacto registration and falsely inflated prices; rescinding that would mean any good machinist could turn out good mufflers for less than the price of the current tax…so there is already a faux market bubble and a reason for vested interests (makers, retailers, owners, collectors) to oppose that. That rather dark fact and my suspicious nature is based on the market for MG’s which unlike Freeholder’s lack of concern with the monetary/investment factor, is heavily occupied by entities who have that as their only concern.
June 10th, 2019 at 2:06 pm
@Bill Twist
He appointed A pro gun justice to the Scotus. Gorsuch, the Kavanaugh is pretty terrible when it comes to rights.