Question of the Day: Why Do 13 States Continue to Ban Silencers?

Can U feel the love tonight? Here’s the case for silencers from Advanced Armament Corp’s Can University (geddit?): “Silencers generally increase the accuracy of a host firearm while reducing recoil and eliminating up to 90% of the muzzle signature. Shooters are able to concentrate more on breath control and trigger pull when they are not subjected to the fatigue and distraction of a deafening, bright, muzzle report. Beginning shooters are typically not intimidated when introduced to the shooting sports with a silenced firearm, and are able to easily hear instructions given to them by trainers as the report of a host firearm is reduced to below the OSHA guideline level for hearing damage. Silenced firearms are also less likely to disturb any people, livestock, or wildlife.” So what’s up with the 13 states that ban them?

comments

  1. avatar Patrick Carrube says:

    I was thinking about one for my LWRC M6A2 for the same reason… I would err on the side of a suppressed long-arm (or carbine in this case) as the length issue does negate the advantages of a pistol. Plus, a suppressed M4 or similar would look awfully "mean" to an intruder… then again, any modern carbine would look pretty intimidating to an intruder!

  2. avatar TTACer says:

    My guess is that it would depend on your local DA. Pure speculation but I would think that in Florida and Texas it wouldn't matter, any where else and it could very easily be a problem.

  3. avatar Dan Baum says:

    This will be a long struggle. Farago's right about silencers; I have one, and it has improved my shooting experience, and that of the people around me, immeasurably. (I particularly like how you can hear your bullet hit the target.) Hollywood is a problem, of course; silencers are usually portrayed as murder weapons. The very word is sinister. But they make a whole lot of sense, especially as the US becomes more crowded. And if you look at NSSF's figures — and ATFs — you see that silencer sales to civilians are growing with incredible rapidity — up ten percent or more a year. People are catching on. Slowly, one hopes, the laws will, too.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    If there was any doubt whether a SD shooting was justified, the use of a suppressor might tilt the judgment of the LEOs, DA or trier of fact against justification. Lance's jury speech above is precisely the way it would be played out in a courtroom. In fact, using a silencer might even be used to assert that there was a consciousness of guilt on the part of the shooter. After all, when defending ourselves, noise it our ally. Stealth is the ally of the BG. However, I do not think that a jurisdiction's animus toward suppressors would, by itself and with nothing else, create the appearance that a shooting was unjustified. The facts leading up to the deployment would be far more relevant.

    As the carnival barker once said, "you pays your money and you takes your chances." Personally, I'm leaving mine noisy. I want the gun to go bang and not pop, and I want the BG to crap in his pants when he hears it.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email