getting started in suppressors

https://gunthreadadapters.com/shop/uncategorized/solvent-trap-adapter-muzzle-brakeflash-hider-for-34-npt-napa-4003-wix-24003-filter/

>>29533293
I'd prefer to go the legal route....

>>29533357
it is legal

>>29533375
Oh, well thank you then.

>>29533401
Its legal if you dont plan to use it as a suppressor. Once you shoot through it its illegal.

File: TS_3.jpg (73KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x600px

>>29532756
you have till july to go the trust route. if its submitted it will get grandfathered in, meaning it doesnt have to be approved by then. after which you will need prints and need to notify LEO, but you dont need approval.

sparrows are good cans. gemtechs are a little thinner and look really good on the rugers. huntertown cans are hella cheap. good reviews but i dont have any experience with them. ill probably get a few before july just cause.

>>29535198
Wait, did that hearing protection act thing get pushed through? Or is this some other regulatory change?

>>29535999
rule 41p, now 41f.

>>29537685
Thanks, interesting change, not too bad for individuals I suppose other than what I suspect will be increased wait times.

>>29537799
>more legal shit
>finger prints
>no change to ABILITY to make your own sbs/sbr

its pretty bad all the way around.

>>29535999
HPA has very little chance, wouldn't hold your breath. I am supporting it, but still have a couple of stamps waiting.

>>29535198

>you will need prints and need to notify LEO, but you dont need approval

I'm surprised the ATF caved on the signoff requirement. I'm guessing democrats were planning on pushing this HARD to prevent future purchases by interfering with elections at the local level but found something else to spend their time on.

>>29539686
requirement is a defacto ban. that was the great thing about trusts, the local CLEO couldnt fuck you just cause he didnt want legal sbr/sbs/silencer there. hell its a federal law, why the fuck should a local get a say? but you're right, it could have been a lot worse.

Bring
Up
My
Post

>>29532756
The process hasn't yet changed, but effective July 13th, the new regulations will take place. Right now is the time to buy it if you don't want to have to deal with the nonsense later, but a lot of places are going to be low on inventory for suppressors.

SilencerCo is the largest Silencer manufacturer by a pretty large margin. Awesome company all around. Both the Spectre II and the Sparrow are great cans, as is the new Osprey Micro.

I'd also recommend looking into the Surefire Ryder 22-A and 22-S, as well as the Dead Air Mask HD.

>>29539523
>very little chance
It's doing well, considering.

>>29541908
>new regulations
Can you give me the run down on what you mean by this? I've been looking to get into NFA items (specifically suppressors) but I don't know anything about how to get them or the process other than you have to pay a tax stamp.

>>29541918
So the current process most people go through is
>Setup Trust
>Buy Suppressor
>Dealer fills out Form 4 with the Trust name and Address
>Sends in with copy of Trust

And that is it. Extremely simple.

If you do it as an individual, you must also get passport photos, fingerprints, and get the local CLEO to sign on the form, which is a PITA.

Starting July 13th, they are extending the requirement of the Fingerprints and Passport photos for all "responsible persons" on the trust, essentially boiling down to trustees having to fill out a form with their information and Fingerprints/Photos, and sending all of that in with the application.

On the bright side they dropped the CLEO signature requirement in lieu of a CLEO notification, so now there are not as many benefits to using a trust.

>>29541946

>PITA to get a CLEO to sign

Every CLEO with the exception of one county in my state has an open door policy for sign offs. Why does Texas have such shit gun laws?

>>29537685
>>29537834
>>29539686
Whoa wait what?

I live in Dallas County where the CLEO blanket does not sign anything. It's been trust or nothing.
Does this mean I could acquire NFA items as a private individual and simply have to notify CLEO? Or do you just mean it's still trust or nothing, with the added requirement of notifying CLEO?

>>29541946
So a trust has to have more than one person on it? Also if I do it as an individual, do I need the CLEO signature or just notification?

A question from a non-American: since the >shall not be infringed phrase is so commonly thrown around all the time, what is up with everyone filling out Euro-levels of paperwork and jumping through hoops just to be able to own a suppressor? Either you believe that you have a right to own firearms and accessories (like suppressors) without special permission from faceless bureaucrat, or you don't. Where is the revolutionary spirit that arises whenever someone mentioned banning (or just licensing/registering) guns? It's a strange double standard, no?

>>29541963
With most peoples current schedules, it is much harder to go out of the way to get a CLEO signoff, rather than not having one at all. It's getting forms sent off instantly rather than the contrary.

>>29541964
After July, Yes.

>>29541965
Not necessarily. One "Grantor/Settlor/Trustee" and one beneficiary who is not a responsible party. That is it.

>>29541977
>Euro-Levels of paperwork

It's honestly not even much paperwork. Less to it than a 4473, it's the waiting for the government to process the paperwork that is the pain in the ass.

>>29541964
CLEO approval is gone wither way. But you're still on the loosing side of things, especially if you're black, have a funny name or live in a particular neighborhood. Now you NEED to report locally, where before you could create a trust with pirated software and the local fuckface wouldnt be the wiser.

>>29541996
>it's the waiting for the government to process the paperwork that is the pain in the ass.
Why is this seen as acceptable for suppressors, SBRs, and automatics, but not for normal guns?

>>29542024
national firearms act of 1934

>>29541965
>>29541996
Got it, thanks. Do you have a link or somewhere that explains how to set up a trust?
>>29542022
>pirated software
Can you explain this?

I'm not Dallas anon btw, different Orlando anon just interested.

>>29541964
>>29541996
Okay cool, thank you.
If I don't yet have a trust set up, what is the advantage of making one? Assuming I wouldn't purchase an NFA item until after July.

>>29532756

NZ fag here, .22lr suppressors are basic, dont spend too much on one. Theyre under $100 for a decent one here, closer to $50.

>>29542024
With a lot of people, it's not deemed acceptable, and as the Suppressor market grows as fast as it has in the last 4 years, more and more people are realizing how ridiculous it is. More and more states have legalized it, and now we even have a bill in the House trying to remove them from the NFA.

As with most laws, they are much harder to get overturned than they are to get passed.

>>29542033
Look up the SilencerCo Easy Trust. Bare necessity for just getting NFA items, and is quick and easy to setup.

I have a $10 off coupon code somewhere.

>>29542037
After July, having multiple people allowed to independently possess the NFA items.

>>29542030
But not only is it a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, the SC specifically stated in Miller that the 2nd Amendment protects weapons suitable for military/militia usage, which includes literally all of the things regulated by the NFA. How is this constitutional, and why do gun owners abide by this nonsense?

File: eneffay.jpg (567KB, 1200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1200x1800px

>>29541977
Most people (Americans) don't feel strongly about suppressors, so the railroaded laws of bygone eras aren't a target for repeal, especially when media portray them as exclusively negative.

Most people also don't feel strongly about banning salt funs, so similarly those bans never gain enough traction and here we stand on a pile of failed bans.

The cool thing about true democracy is that we get what we want, not what a nanny state government wants for us. Apparently what we want is a little more freedumb than the rest of the civilized world, but not too much.

It's pretty rad here, even if it could be radder still.

>>29542033
>pirated software

i used a pirated copy of quicken will maker to make a trust and have 6 items on it with 2 more on the way. people seem to think a 'nfa trust' is something special, but its really nothing more then a normal, simple trust. people will shell out hundreds of dollars just cause some one in the firearms industry made it but the truth is you can fine the software and outlines for free.

>>29542071
best argument i have heard is in 1934 cans, machine guns, sbr/s where not standard military issued therefor not a violation of the 2nd amendment. of course now they are but governments dont like to give rights back to their people

>>29542120
Machine guns were very much in standard issue at the time. The SC was just ruling to suit the moral panic from prohibition-era gangsters using scary weapons.

>>29542095
Have a link for the outlines or a walkthrough on how to do that? I have Quicken so I'd be up for doing that if I knew I wasn't going to fuck it up

>>29542068
If I am an individual owner, others can handle and use the NFA item as long as I am present, yes?
I just can't lend it to a friend, or for example ask my wife to bring it up to the range?

Honestly seems like a win otherwise. CHL already requires fingerprinting/photo ID so that is no big deal here.

>>29542166
i was speaking more to the effect of reasoning, not reality. and the standard issue rifle wasnt a machine gun, it was a bolt action rifle. of course machine guns existed but the average soldier didnt carry one.

>>29542261
http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/how-to-create-a-trust-using-quicken-willmaker-to-purchase-nfa-items.114339/

>>29542362
Thanks, I'll save this for later.

Only question I have left is about the part that says to list the NFA items to be included in the trust. If I don't have any NFA items (yet), do I just leave it blank and add them in later via an addendum?

>>29533375
No, it's not.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/10/24/solvent-traps-still-illegal-use-intended/

>>29542464

>TFB
>Ever

>>29542426
thats your schedule A, thats the shit your trust owns. if you dont have a stamp, you dont own it, so dont list it until AFTER you have a stamp. As for your first item, the trust needs to own something, so put 10$ in your schedule A and submit. and since your schedule A isnt notarized YOU can change it when ever you like. every time i get a new item from a form 4 or form 1 I just add it, resubmit the thing on my next purchase and it comes back. i had mine notarized in AZ and live in SC now and it still comes back every time.