TexasCHLforum.com

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:14 pm Jerry Miculek did a video on using a pillow as a silencer: It was exceptionally effective for 3-4 shots.

https://youtu.be/cnMeTlXsXC8

A metal device that makes the deafening report of a firearm safer while being handily outdone in pure sound suppression by an untraceable pillow can hardly be a good target for legislation.

clarionite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:54 pm I was very disappointed that the Hearing Protection Act wasn't passed in the first two years when we held both chambers and the white house.

Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized. At
present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The wide
acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF to have a
significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is now approximately
8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing
times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and
dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA
processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants
and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since
silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to
reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the
expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to
diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically
not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of
silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and
historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s
experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in
the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a
year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the
defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of
prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack
of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not
be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be
considered for reclassification under the GCA.

If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer would
be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts,” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
useful.