no stamps needed

[steven11b]

Just vote for Ted Cruz! But back on topic, I don't agree with the tax its just another thing the government passed when they thought they were the experts on the topic as there is no added lethality when making or using any of these items. Sort of reminds me of the Colorado senators talking about 30rnd magazines and how once they are used they will have to be disposed of because the bullets are gone and then they passed a law banning 30rnd magazines. There is no reason at all for a suppressor, SBR, SBS etc to be taxed or have extra restrictions over any other firearm. I already am paying over 40-50% of my income to some sort of tax. Lets keep the government from taking even more money for something that they wish to ultimately ban. They don't want you to have it but they will sure take that tax money wont they? I don't know about you guys but giving money to ATF isn't high on the wish list as these are the same people who wanted to ban 5.56 ammo, ran a guns into Mexico for cartels, resulting in a Border Patrol Agents death with said weapons.


Edit: Another thought was I have donated probably around $100 this year to the NRA. However I have donated $400 in tax stamps to the ATF in this same year who did nothing more then place a stamp on a piece of paper. They produced no product, no service but were paid $200 for that 1 minute of looking over my paperwork?

[RDA]

Hahahaha! Go for it guys! Yeah! Rock the Vote!

Just be sure you know who started this (a silencer company) and what bandwagon you're jumping on. This type of stuff screws the future generations and you're in the "I want it now" mentality. You have no problem paying taxes everyday, and your complaining about this? The tax can not be raised as is. "The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,538 in 2015). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[3][4]" That's actually great news, but you want more. You could be paying that amount ($3,538), and you're whining about $200? Don't give me that "I don't want to give my $ to the gov't!" You do it everyday... Better yet, here's a copy and pasted list of taxes you're NOT bitching about, and should be. Right now, I mean RIGHT NOW, you're using something that requires you to pay the gov't.

(snipped the tax list)

Again, just stop and think about this, or any other type of issue like this. If I was "anti-gun" (which I'm not), I would WANT this to pass. Just to reinstate it later, with an even higher tax, and think to myself "suckers!" Because that would really limit silencer sales and probably put any companies that are involved with that out of business.

Your theory that "they'll just reinstate it later, with an even higher tax" is certainly no easier (and would likely be even be more difficult) than them increasing the current tax stamp by revising the existing statute.

Silencer sales are higher than ever right now-and you want to change that?

Sure, sales are higher with more manufacturers than ever, but sales would increase exponentially with even more competition if you didn't have to go through the ATF approval process and a $200 tax stamp.

[idaho.jon]

Silencer sales are higher than ever right now-and you want to change that?

Sure, sales are higher with more manufacturers than ever, but sales would increase exponentially with even more competition if you didn't have to go through the ATF approval process and a $200 tax stamp.

Not to mention lifting some of the regulations on the manufacturing side.

[pd_3307]

I dont care about the $200 tax as much as i care about wait times and all this other BS. I personally would rather have it all scrapped than think about the "what if" scenarios that could happen later. Its easy to find the negative in anything if you really want to. If the anti- gun crowd is too busy fighting this, then they wont have as much time to focus on screwing us with other anti-gun legislation. The "take it for what it is" and "it could be worse" mindset isnt logical to me but the people against all of us arent either. When people say it could be worse the first thing im thinking is....well it could be better though. Not arguing with any of you guys. Just friendly discussion is all.

[41Bear]

The latest up date:

Nov 16, 2015 — New Cosponsors

H.R. 3799: Hearing Protection Act of 2015
New Cosponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]

New Cosponsor: Rep. Eric “Rick” Crawford [R-AR1]

New Cosponsor: Rep. Dan Newhouse [R-WA4]

The bill now has 25 cosponsors (25 Republicans).

[BlackLight]

Most legislation, good or bad fails several times before it passes, if it does. Obongo would veto this but next time if we have President Trump or Cruz, it will get signed

For me it's all about the intrusiveness of ATF and the fact that they know right where to come to attempt confiscation..

[Dr Fumbles]

Most legislation, good or bad fails several times before it passes, if it does. Obongo would veto this but next time if we have President Trump or Cruz, it will get signed

For me it's all about the intrusiveness of ATF and the fact that they know right where to come to attempt confiscation..

+1 for Cruz or Trump
The bill can fail; to show what is attainable.

[RockyRiver]

I'm not sure it would be all that great for silencer companies or for the consumer. They are making just about all they can see right now with the $200 tax. Competition is fierce and research and development is strong to produce the best silencer . Its that way because they make a great deal of profit on each unit. If the silencer regs go away the price of silencers will drop to what they are in countries like New Zealand where $50 to $150 (USD) is the going price except for a few outliers in the $300 USD range. Maybe the competition will stay stronger in volume, maybe it won't as once the market is saturated there will be silencer companies dropping like flies. I'm no fan of taxes but I think that oddly enough the tax might actually be forcing companies to make better products to attract customers while allowing them to make enough profit to stay in business.

[plant.one]

if the tax gets pulled - what will happen is a BUNCH of company's who dont wanna deal with the hassle right now wills swing right into production to fill the gap - especially on the lower end of the market.


the enhanced premium products will still command good $ so those company's out there right now producing good stuff will continue to do so.

what we are missing is the AU part of the market where a basic suppressor can be had for around the same cost or less than your glass can. most of the stuff in that lower side of the market will never be amazing cans, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to go out and just buy a half dozen or so and dedicate them to their own rifle for your lessor shot equipment and keep your premium stuff on the guns where it really matters like you high volume stuff?

just as an exmple - you have a hunting gun that you only shoot supersonic anyway & just using the can on it to make it relatively hearing safe on a gun you only fire lets say a few boxes of ammo through a year. Lets say a handi rifle in .30-30. why does that need a $800-$1000 can on it? you stuff a $100 knock around grade can on the end, and now you have a brush gun you're still not worried about if it get a scratch or two on it eh? and if you do manage to FUBAR it, you throw it away and get another one. because its not a $1000 serialized and regulated item.

[Larry B]

If noise reduction devices become deregulated there will be many companies jumping into the markrt. There will be $50 to $1500 units. What consumers are willing to pay is what will determine what products will be profitable. Some folks will still want and pay a premium price for a premium product but there will be large group looking for good product at a much lower price. They will be like scopes, everything from Tasco and Simmons to Swarofski and Schmidtt &Bender. With the economy of scale in manufacturing prices will drop dramatically. A Maglite with freeze plugs makes a pretty good supressor. If making 10000 what could the manufacturing unit cost for a similal unit be brought down to? If a business is not profitable it is not the consumers fault it is because they can't market a good or service at a price point at a needed profit margin. Companies marketing products at the lower end will do production offshore like almost every other product to meet a price point. This would all be a good thing for the average shooter. Just don't buy one made by Remington.
Larry B