When the Hearing Protection Act passes, which is probably will

They'll all go up by about $200.

Probably decrease considering I'll just be using an oil filter.

Decrease drastically.

I will go out and make my own the second it passes. They're dead simple. Only expensive because of artificial scarcity

>>32733222
everybody and their mother will start making them, and price will drop. will take a few months to drop though

The price will go up. It will really just be shills intentionally decreasing supply just like .22LR.

Everyone else will just make their own.

>>32733222
on the secondary market, prices will increase for sure. that is, until supply catches up with demand, which may be a few years.
from a manufacturers standpoint, itll be interesting to see. its not as if theres ever been a suppressor panic. i suspect vendors will increase prices, some wont. but theyll all sell out of product.

>>32733222
The prices will go up until production stabilizes

>>32733222
Depends on what kind and when. Initially, almost every manufacturer will probably be sold out, causing prices to soar. After a few month, but probably under a year, prices will be much lower than they are now.

Pre HPA
>production high
>demand low

Post HPA
>production high
>demand high

Prices remain stable or go up a little

A few months after everyone has their suppressors

>prices plummet

Suppressors are ridiculously easy to manufacture

It will go UP for a while then go way down. Just use an oil filter until capitalism drives prices down.

another thing ive been considering are muzzle devices. im thinking theyll be scarce and a little pricey for a while too.

File: download.jpg (66KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 540x960px

>>32733222
Why would anything nice ever happen? Of course prices will go up. They will probably stay up for a while. Fuck you.


Prices will come down eventually though.

Can and should I buy now and have it waiting?

Should I buy some solvent traps?

>>32733297
This makes the most sense out of all the responses, honestly.

File: TFW.png (66KB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 659x609px

>>32733321
>HPA passes
>plenty of suppressors in stock for purchase and at a lower price than usual because of demand
>everyone happy except antigunners
it could happen. think positive

>>32733330
>Have it waiting

Do you know what the HPA is?

Buy solvent traps if you want but hold on suppressors.

File: 14857742646.png (188KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 327x316px

>yfw scarcity-based markets crash every time anti-gun laws are chipped away
>yfw Gucci-tier suppressor companies collapse from low-cost new entries
It'll be like one of my business textbook cases but about something I give a shit about

>>32733222
You will see SOLD OUT for at least a year.

>>32733363
Solvent traps are actually really shitty, too thin and cheap steel, if I hypothetically did so, it fell apart after warping before I shot a full magazine

>>32733409
I've never used one so I have no clue. I'm not paying for that shit.

>>32733391
Gucci suppressor companies are pushing for it because they know selling to much larger market will net them more overall, even if they have to drop the price substantially.

>>32733391
Gucci companies actually do some research because the US suppressor market needed ruggedness, ease of maintenance and also general evolution of baffle design reducing Db. Many euros comment US designs are much bulkier and heavier than theirs

>>32733391
the suppressor market isn't as scarce as you think, maybe for small high end guys times will be tough but the big boys have military/police contracts, export sales to other countries and 98% of everyone applying for a tax stamp buys from the same top companies.

the highend ones are going to stay expensive but all the medium to cheap ones are going to drop drastically

>>32733222
Considering just about every gun owner in the country will go out and buy at least 3, I think they'll be sold out for awhile.

If they're treated like regular guns (IE you can build one as long as you don't break any laws), we'll likely see tons of plumbing pipe suppressors.

>>32733409
Where did you buy your kit from? My form 1 suppressor made with a stainless steel kit from SD tactical has held up to over 1k rounds. On a 10.5 inch barrel no less.

File: murdermuffler2000.jpg (51KB, 903x798px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 903x798px

>>32733222
It's probably going to cost pennies! Imagine one-shot disposable murder mufflers! Crime is going to skyrocket!

>>32733222
It depends on how the HPA is written. Previous versions have left suppressors on the NFA and just added a having a regular background check as an alternative for the normal transfer. From what I've seen, this appears to leave all the other red tape in place for manufacturers and FFLs. It also means that all the red tape around building your own still exist along with the ATF's current shitty interpretation about solvent traps (the oil filter or other disposable part is the suppressor and not the adapter). All of these anons would still run into the same legal issues as if they did it today.:
>>32733244
>>32733246
>>32733255
>>32733300
>>32733330
>>32733363
>>32733547

>>32733222
It will decrease relatively quickly. There might be a short 1-2 month surge in prices, but most suppressor manufacturers will be able to scale up production by then and we'll see prices drop.


I can't wait for a can for my AR. It will make innawoods shooting so much easier.

>>32733547
are there any adapters that go from 1/2-28 to bottle cap size? seems like that would be a thing.

>>32733573
I thought I specifically read "a bill to remove firearm suppressors from the NFA"

I know fuck all about suppressors. Are they serialized? (something to trace) If they are then it's a pretty good judgement call that they're leaving the option for further regulations in the future open for consideration.

Or are we just going to be able to walk in and buy one willy nilly?

>>32733605
No, it's a bill that claims to "regulate suppressors like long guns", but the text of previous versions have done that in the way I said. I really hope this version doesn't end up like that considering the completely over the top "concealed carry reciprocity" bill that was proposed that allows people in states with constitutional carry to carry anywhere in the US with just an ID, scraps all state level laws about what non state owned property you can't carry on (unless the property owner puts up a no guns sign themselves), gets rid of federal gun free school zone restrictions, and possibly overrides state level magazine capacity laws related to handguns if you have a carry permit. If proposing a bill like that is acceptable (where I don't think there's a state in the country that wouldn't have state level laws loosened) then we shouldn't have to deal with a shitty way of deregulating suppressors like the previous proposed versions of the HPA.

>>32733574
This is the most likely outcome. Of course there will be a short boom, but logic presents that if you remove the one price retaining feature, the nfa restriction, then EVENTUALLY, probably some short time in the future, they will drop in price as demand is met. I would love to be the first one in line pulling corks with the rest of my brethren, but honestly I'll just wait for the dust to settle. We've all been through the ammo scare of 2013, I see no reason to suggest this will be any different.

>>32733683
If you're right I'm going to be beyond pissed off I have waited and specifically asked my senator (Rand Paul) to support this and this entire time thought it was going to make suppressors exactly like other firearms (even though I'd rather have them treated like flash suppressors.)

I'm guessing we can't read the current versions text?

>>32733222
While I hope it will get passed it's probably unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9MoCyr4-F0

>>32733726
Text of the newest version was just released and it's the same as the older version:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367/text?q={%22search%22%3A[%22silencers%22]}&r=2

>>32733776
so what he said is basically chuck shumer is going to fuck us...

>>32733945
>Silencers are treated as long guns
>Taxes on them shall have no force or effect

What is the problem here exactly?

>>32734064
See >>32733573

>>32733975
My understanding was that the Democrat party could only filibuster. Those Demojews are all 80+ year olds, not likely they would Filibuster everything pro-fun.

>>32734082
It says they're treated the same as long guns and cannot be taxed. If they cannot be taxed and are treated like long guns how will they be on the NFA?

>>32734129
>It says they're treated the same as long guns
That doesn't appear to be part of what's actually being amended.

>If they cannot be taxed and are treated like long guns how will they be on the NFA?
Because the NFA includes a lot more than taxes.

>>32734159
>That doesn't appear to be part of whats actually being amended

What do you mean by this ? Doesnt it matter that the first line says they'll be treated like long guns or does all that matter is the direct amendment to previous measures? Does the first line hold no legal weight?

Either way it's says it will strike "any silencer" from section 5841 so I don't see how what you say is correct?

>>32733683
>>32733945
>>32734064
>>32734129
>>32734210
I'm confused.

>>32734277
Click on the bill he linked, in the bill text there will be a link to the section of law being amended, the bill says which modifications to the sections text it will change if passed. It strikes silencers (number (7)) on the list off and makes number (8) (7)

>>32734210
>Doesnt it matter that the first line says they'll be treated like long guns or does all that matter is the direct amendment to previous measures?
Just the direct amendments matter.

>>32734277
Reading back over the law, I am as well. I thought the NFA was under a different part of the US law but it is in fact the NFA that the bill would be amending here:
>(a) In general.—Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking “(7) any silencer” and all that follows through “; and (8)” and inserting “; and (7)”.
This seems to be amending silencers out of the NFA. However they add this in this amendment to section 5841:
>“(f) Firearm silencers.—A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subsection) with respect to such silencer.”.
Which makes absolutely no sense considering section 5841 only appears to apply to the firearms defined in section 5845(a), which is the section silencers are being amended out of, so there's no reason to even mention silencers here.

This includes the all areas of the law that are being amended:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=C2B18D1DA1B0E9C77EE4D2F2A5AA9A95?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-chapter53&saved=|KHRpdGxlOjI2IHNlY3Rpb246NTg0NSBlZGl0aW9uOnByZWxpbSk%3D|||0|false|prelim&edition=prelim

File: phil loves little boys.png (76KB, 644x844px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 644x844px

>>32734277
We know

>>32734419
Yeah I don't see why they had to add (f) at all if silencers mention is completely taken out of 5841

Fucking political legal nonsense man

Oh wait they needed (f) to make the suppressor the equivalent of a long gun I suppose since chapter 44 of title 18 covers firearms. But I don't see why they have to mention the NFA if seemingly all mention of silencers is being removed from the NFA.

>>32733222
Obviously decrease.

They're charging $800+ for a fucking tube full of washers.

File: 1456832947849.gif (2MB, 500x337px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x337px

>>32734479
Well at least I think I'm pretty sure my previous interpretation was wrong. Looking back again, judging by this part of (f):
>(as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subsection)
It seems like it might be for getting rid of existing NFA registry data related to silencers.

>>32734514
>since chapter 44 of title 18 covers firearms
But (f) is going under chapter 53 of title 26. The part amending title 18 at the end of the bill looks to be just about how states can regulate suppressors.

>>32734612
Yes your first interpretation was wrong but I'm still trying to figure out how that added bit effects things

>>32734426
Fuck you, I spat my coffee laughing.