re: GOA v NFA Lawsuit Thread: GOA has submitted their lawsuit in the 5th District Court of TX

which one are you guys?

quote:

---

Silencers aren't firearms.

---

“Silencers” aren’t silent.

They’re really called “Suppressors”.

That’s another media twist to make them seem deadly.

quote:

---

Silencer central worked behind the scenes to frick us.

---

I got a shirt when I bought my suppressor from them. Will use it as a rag now.

quote:

---

A current Democrat lawmaker basically admits that the tax was a deterrent from possession. That’s unconstitutional.

---

Yeah, there’s no other logical reason for restricting suppressors. Dems don’t want guns to be more comfortable to shoot bc that encourages people to shoot. What’s surprising is that the tax was kept at $200 and not $20,000.

Has there been any updates?

I'm curious, if they pull suppressors from the NFA, what does that mean for the DIY crowd? I mean, I hear talk that you'd have to do a background check like for a firearm, but you're allowed to make your own firearm too... it's just not that easy (outside of a couple 80% concepts).
Suppressors on the other hand shouldn't be that tough. You may not get the best quality, but you should be able to get something reasonably functional.

Particularly for the oil filter adapter; what I am understanding is that they tend to suppress for maybe 10 or so shots. But if you're able to buy/make a threaded adapter, and not go through any hassle with swapping a new filter on, then that suddenly becomes very affordable for something like hunting. It may not be "best", but if it drops decibels a bit then it worked.

quote:

---

i wouldn't expect anything to be removed from the bill. only added to. unless the supporting senators can't persuade the senate manager that this is a budgetary item and not a policy item (see the Byrd rule), then the suppressors would be removed from the bill.


we're hoping it stays, and they can get the SHORT Act included.

---

I'm a bit leery of this...

it would have to go back to the House if the Senate adds something, correct? It passed the House by 1 vote, without the SBR bit included, and some Dems made a scene about the suppressors being in it.

I would say everything in the NFA could meet the Byrd rule, but most of that would incite the anti-gunners. There's really no easy justification for SBRs, etc, but with suppressors you can cite health (hearing) benefits. That's not MY position, but you have to get it through Congress.

I'm worried if they add something else, it could hang up, and they'd end up pulling all the NFA stuff out as a result.

They both pass the Byrd rule, they are both taxes, so they are revenues. A delusional frickall would think otherwise.

The HPA and Short Act are the least important things republicans care about this bill. Democrats can scream all they want, it literally does not matter.

Republicans are fighting about deficit spending and debt ceilings. None of them are talking about the firearm aspects because the absurd spending is their concern. That leaves this unique opportunity for us to get these bills through.

I don’t want to get my hopes up. They’ve screwed up in the past. I’m extremely torn between the stupendously outrageous spending and getting these bills passed.