silencers
02-06-2011, 10:21 AM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Where the ducks don't come no more
Posts: 4,420
I have never been even remotely interested in fully auto Class 3 stuff... but silencers and suppressors have always interested me. Being a waterfowl hunter, my hearing already sucks at the ripe old age of 27. It never made sense to me what they were thinking when they outlawed those things way back when.
If my information is correct, when you get a tax stamp for a class 3 weapon, you are basically surrendering your right to probable or reasonable cause for a search of your home are you not? This has always been one of the major hang ups for me on purchasing one. Not that I have anything to hide... I just don't want a no-knock raid on my home during meal time. Anybody know if there is any truth behind this?
If my information is correct, when you get a tax stamp for a class 3 weapon, you are basically surrendering your right to probable or reasonable cause for a search of your home are you not? This has always been one of the major hang ups for me on purchasing one. Not that I have anything to hide... I just don't want a no-knock raid on my home during meal time. Anybody know if there is any truth behind this?
02-06-2011, 10:32 AM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
I CLEARLY stated IF you lived in Montana. I know where the OP lives, I was just saying, If you lived in Montana its no big deal to own one, no paperwork involved. I didnt intend on starting a arguement, the uninformed had the pleasure of that. Just sharing a little info that most are unaware of.
02-06-2011, 10:43 AM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,905
Yup, the montana bill withstood the surpreme court. It basically relied on the premise that started the Civil War, and the same premise that has allowed California (among other states) to allow the use of marijuana. To abide by the US constitution, the laws of the states are not allowed to further restrict the rights of citizens, only to grant them EXTENDED rights. So the states can legally pass laws, if they follow due procedure, that would contradict the federal authority. So while possession of controlled substances, or Class III weapons might be regulated by the BATFE, it is the right of individual states to waive such requirements for it's citizenship.
Personally, I've never been a fan of using sub-sonic centerfire ammo because the power factor and range are so poor. The alternative is to use a bigger bullet, but the bigger the bore, the less effective the suppression.
All that said, check your state regs. Hunting with Class III's in many states is prohibited, even if it IS just a suppressor.
That said, back in college, I bought a pre-ban suppressor ($200 tax stamp, $1600 for the suppressor) and threaded the muzzle of a Win 94 Trapper lever action. With .357mags, it was pretty quiet, but still made a "crack", with .38spcls, it was nearly silent. Somewhere between an air rifle and a .22lr fired underwater. It was pretty nice for hunting hogs and coyotes at night down in TX without waking up the neighbors on the next 40.
Personally, I've never been a fan of using sub-sonic centerfire ammo because the power factor and range are so poor. The alternative is to use a bigger bullet, but the bigger the bore, the less effective the suppression.
All that said, check your state regs. Hunting with Class III's in many states is prohibited, even if it IS just a suppressor.
That said, back in college, I bought a pre-ban suppressor ($200 tax stamp, $1600 for the suppressor) and threaded the muzzle of a Win 94 Trapper lever action. With .357mags, it was pretty quiet, but still made a "crack", with .38spcls, it was nearly silent. Somewhere between an air rifle and a .22lr fired underwater. It was pretty nice for hunting hogs and coyotes at night down in TX without waking up the neighbors on the next 40.
02-06-2011, 11:25 AM
#14
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 273
Yeah that was years ago, It wasnt. Just like the marijuana laws in California and in Washington state.
Here you migh want to read this one, Know it all!
http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_gov...w_gun_law.html
Here you migh want to read this one, Know it all!
http://www.panamalaw.org/montana_gov...w_gun_law.html
You mean like year and half ago? Wow, thats years alright. It appears you ought to read these links because you obviously do not understand what is going on.
And yes, many pot growing establishment have and continue to be raided by the DEA in California. And its thier federal right.
02-06-2011, 11:32 AM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 273
Yup, the montana bill withstood the surpreme court. It basically relied on the premise that started the Civil War, and the same premise that has allowed California (among other states) to allow the use of marijuana. To abide by the US constitution, the laws of the states are not allowed to further restrict the rights of citizens, only to grant them EXTENDED rights. So the states can legally pass laws, if they follow due procedure, that would contradict the federal authority. So while possession of controlled substances, or Class III weapons might be regulated by the BATFE, it is the right of individual states to waive such requirements for it's citizenship.
Personally, I've never been a fan of using sub-sonic centerfire ammo because the power factor and range are so poor. The alternative is to use a bigger bullet, but the bigger the bore, the less effective the suppression.
All that said, check your state regs. Hunting with Class III's in many states is prohibited, even if it IS just a suppressor.
That said, back in college, I bought a pre-ban suppressor ($200 tax stamp, $1600 for the suppressor) and threaded the muzzle of a Win 94 Trapper lever action. With .357mags, it was pretty quiet, but still made a "crack", with .38spcls, it was nearly silent. Somewhere between an air rifle and a .22lr fired underwater. It was pretty nice for hunting hogs and coyotes at night down in TX without waking up the neighbors on the next 40.
Personally, I've never been a fan of using sub-sonic centerfire ammo because the power factor and range are so poor. The alternative is to use a bigger bullet, but the bigger the bore, the less effective the suppression.
All that said, check your state regs. Hunting with Class III's in many states is prohibited, even if it IS just a suppressor.
That said, back in college, I bought a pre-ban suppressor ($200 tax stamp, $1600 for the suppressor) and threaded the muzzle of a Win 94 Trapper lever action. With .357mags, it was pretty quiet, but still made a "crack", with .38spcls, it was nearly silent. Somewhere between an air rifle and a .22lr fired underwater. It was pretty nice for hunting hogs and coyotes at night down in TX without waking up the neighbors on the next 40.
02-06-2011, 11:36 AM
#16
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 273
I have never been even remotely interested in fully auto Class 3 stuff... but silencers and suppressors have always interested me. Being a waterfowl hunter, my hearing already sucks at the ripe old age of 27. It never made sense to me what they were thinking when they outlawed those things way back when.
If my information is correct, when you get a tax stamp for a class 3 weapon, you are basically surrendering your right to probable or reasonable cause for a search of your home are you not? This has always been one of the major hang ups for me on purchasing one. Not that I have anything to hide... I just don't want a no-knock raid on my home during meal time. Anybody know if there is any truth behind this?
If my information is correct, when you get a tax stamp for a class 3 weapon, you are basically surrendering your right to probable or reasonable cause for a search of your home are you not? This has always been one of the major hang ups for me on purchasing one. Not that I have anything to hide... I just don't want a no-knock raid on my home during meal time. Anybody know if there is any truth behind this?
02-06-2011, 12:10 PM
#17
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
Yes it has., Just maybe you need to do a little more research. I know people in Montana that has no problem buying them, no matter what your opinion maybe, it doesnt change the laws in Montana. THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!! I am getting out of this pointless arguement, because as always we have another internet expert here that knows better. Sorry for getting off the subject!
Last edited by fritz1; 02-06-2011 at 12:18 PM.
02-06-2011, 12:16 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: central and east texas
Posts: 4,894
They are legal as long as they are registered with the BATFE. You can buy one that's already registered from a class 3 dealer or individual by transferring it through a class 3 dealer on a BATFE Form 4. The registration costs $200 plus whatever the dealer charges, usually $50-$75. If buying from an out-of-state dealer or individual, it must first tranfer to a dealer in that state, then to a dealer in Texas. Both dealers may charge a fee but the registration is still $200. Or, you can build one yourself, after registering it, on a BATFE Form 1. It still costs $200 but it doesn't have to be transfered through a dealer. You can download these forms online at the BATFE website. If you are registering as an indivdual you must have the "chief law enforcement officer" for your jurisdiction sign the form. This is usually the sheriff or chief of police but other officials can suffice; check with the BATFE. Getting a qualified signor is often the hardest part of the process. It just depends on your county. However, if registering as a corporation, you don't have to have anyone sign for it. You can form a corporation just for this purpose. This has another advantage as any officer of the corporation can legally possess it. The registration process normally takes three to four months. Anyone who can legally buy guns can register a silencer, machine gun, etc.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_handgu...#ixzz1DDTOjJHE
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_handgu...#ixzz1DDTOjJHE
Last edited by halfbakedi420; 02-06-2011 at 12:24 PM.
02-06-2011, 12:30 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 273
Yes it has., Just maybe you need to do a little more research. I know people in Montana that has no problem buying them, no matter what your opinion maybe, it doesnt change the laws in Montana. THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!! I am getting out of this pointless arguement, because as always we have another internet expert here that knows better. Sorry for getting off the subject!
Check out ATF's response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana...t#ATF_response
ATF responseOn July 16, 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published an open letter to Montana Federal Firearms Licensees, clarifying the bureau's position on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. According to this letter, "...because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply." The letter then summarizes ATF requirements for FFL holders.[6]
02-06-2011, 12:35 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 273
Furthermore, It hasn't even made past the ninth circuit of appeals, but numbnuts here "fritz", is claiming its made it all the way to the US sepreme court.
Read on legal challenges.
egal challengePlaintiffs filed suit in support of the law, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal complaint states that Marbut "wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws."[8][9][10][11] One firearms manufacturer in Kalispell, Montana has stated that because they cannot afford to litigate, they do not plan to sell their AR-15s or AR-10/AR-15 family receivers to private parties without a Form 4473. But they did state that they intend to do so, once a court ruling clears the way.[12]
On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."[13]
The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal[14] with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read on legal challenges.
egal challengePlaintiffs filed suit in support of the law, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal complaint states that Marbut "wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws."[8][9][10][11] One firearms manufacturer in Kalispell, Montana has stated that because they cannot afford to litigate, they do not plan to sell their AR-15s or AR-10/AR-15 family receivers to private parties without a Form 4473. But they did state that they intend to do so, once a court ruling clears the way.[12]
On September 29, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy dismissed the suit "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."[13]
The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal[14] with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.