This promo video of a photo shoot for Gem-Tech suppressors at Nellis AFB in Nevada brought to mind the thought that suppressors should be treated as AOW or Any Other Weapon under the National Firearms Act – at the very least. While still requiring the background check, the tax is only $5 instead of the current $200. In many foreign countries, while it it difficult to get a firearm, getting a suppressor for that firearm is no big deal. Even better would be the removal of suppressors from the NFA altogether as they are NOT a weapon and because shooting suppressed reduces sound pollution and protects one’s hearing.
If the Obama Administration wants to continue to emulate the European countries, this is one thing they could do that would get my agreement.
3 thoughts on “Suppressors Should Be Treated As An AOW”
Treating suppressors should be your fall-back position …
The first thing out of your mouth should be 'The NFA '34 needs to be repealed, but failing that …'.
Glad to be of help!
I'm with packetman, NFA is a sham and should be dissolved.
That being said this isn't a bad idea if we need to slip down the slippery slope.
Not only would the cheaper stamp remove an onerous burden from those looking to quiet down their guns, when people need to drop $200 AND PITA paper-work on top of the price of buying a can people expect them to last forever.
For Euros buying a can with as much-ado as us buying a hammer or a pocket knife, they look at their cans the same way we look at magazines. People are willing to drop serious coin for quality parts, but if we want something for fun or recreation we can buy affordable stuff and when it breaks we can trash it and replace.
So not only would it get rid of $195 of the NFA tax, but also I suspect people would be much more willing to buy a $50 can that might not last much past 1,000 rounds, because when the baffles or ports start to fall apart you can just trash it and buy a new one.
@Packetman: I stand corrected! You and Weer'd are both correct – it is a sham and it needs to be repealed.
Comments are closed.