I was watching the Armed Attorneys youtube channel - they do some really, REALLY good material that all gun owners should soak up. One video (linked at the bottom) discusses the potential criminal punishments for using an NFA firearm, including a firearm with a suppressor, in a self-defense shooting.

The applicable statute is 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) involve the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, or the possession of a firearm in furtherance of those crimes. The key part is "crime of violence" - if a citizen uses, say a suppressed handgun to shoot an attacker and the local prosecutor, jury and judge decides that the shooting wasn't justified, then the charge of murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc IS a charge for a "crime of violence" and could slap an additional 30 years onto one's sentence.




Now, on the plus side, it appears that convictions under this statute are almost entirely for crimes involving drug trafficking, robbery, and similar offenses, and usually involve repeat offenders. But we've seen plenty of cases discussed on THF where a citizen was prosecuted for a valid self-defense shooting, so the potential exists for misuse of this law.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether someone ever would be charged under this law in a defensive shooting - my point is that suppressors need to be removed from the NFA entirely. On a practical level, learning about this law has made me stop and carefully consider my dedicated home defense gun, which is a 45acp SBR with a suppressor. The considerations that went into this for me is that 45acp is unlikely to go through walls into neighboring homes, and the suppressor would protect my family's hearing if I ever did need to stop a home invader. Here's the Armed Attorney's take on this subject:

Good info. I’ve never really thought about that before. My backpack gun is a SBR JAKL in 300 BLK with a YHM can. Soon to probably be replaced by an MP5K once it proves itself and I SBR it, it will also wear a can. Around here in TX if I ever needed it, I don’t think it would make much of a difference. But I do take it with me when I travel as well and going through some of these liberal places makes me think twice.

They absolutely should be removed from the NFA list. They are just mufflers. No one can go buy any internal combustion engine without a muffler. Drive through town with a straight piped gasoline engine, and Law Enforcement can write you a citation for it. In European countries one is considered rude if he or she shoots unsuppressed. Yet, we have to jump through hoops in the U S. It is backwards.

Has anyone seen whos name is at the top of BATF on RFKs crowd share?

What? Who is it?

Congressman elect Herrera who lost to tony after they spent 10 mil to his 1 and 500 votes kept tony in his seat.

He noticed... NSFW link fyi

OMG that would be the most epic [censored] Trump has ever done. Brandon would pretty much strike everything from NFA.

And he would do it and he would be the first that actually knows guns and manufactures them as he has all licenses. It is more than epic if he picks him and congress knows him.

The next 2 years is probably the best chance we've ever had to get the hearing protection act passed...and I'm still not holding my breath.

Be careful what you wish for. I was discussing this with a former congressman and friend (still a friend no longer a congressman) a couple years ago and used the " muffler requirement" defense. He explained it can swing a couple ways using that defense. One way results in suppressors being removed from the NFA list and are an NFA un-taxed uncontrolled option. The other swing would include a compromise of them being removed from the list in exchange for them not being optional, but required, just like mufflers and catalytic convertors. Imagine being forced to purchase a compatible suppressor for every caliber you own, or the price of a suppressor being added to every new gun purchase without proof that you already possess a compatible suppressor.

Also, while suppressor manufacturers and dealers are currently in our camp, I can see swing #2 being very lucrative financially and something they would publicly denounce but dump tons of money in lobbying for behind the curtain. Any gun rag or show would offer free air time/add space so their public denouncement would cost nothing. Then, when they 'lose", they will emphatically apologize for failing us while crying all the way to the bank.

Think the forced purchases and increased sales will bring the prices down? Money and politics are very comfortable bedfellows.

I hope I'm being excessively cynical.

I hope you are too. I'll take my chances though. I doubt that those that would vote for the hearing protection act would also vote for the requirement of said muffler.

Two critical words here. "Chances", and "Doubt."

I don't think they would become a requirement. Top fuel dragster do not have mufflers. They are driven on private property, and not on public roadways. Suppressors could become a requirement hunting on public lands though.