THEY CASHED MY CHECK!

WOW! I have thought about getting mine for years. Congrats. Now go out and get some post-86s.
IMAGE_041.jpg

DSCF0004-2.jpg
 
This is interesting. Since I know very little about it, would you please tell me about the process, expense and any other factors or considerations about being licensed for a silencer. I would like to know what I might be getting into, if anything, should I ever decide to go for it.

Thanks.

David
 
David,

Some links to get you going...all lifted from another forum.

This is an excerpt from an article:

First lets discuss ownership. Remember, we are talking about owning the suppressor only. If it is an integral suppressor and part of the gun, then you also have to fill out your paperwork for the gun when you get it. There are three methods of ownership, they are personal ownership, corporate ownership, and trust ownership. Each has different requirements and/or advantages too detailed to get into here, so again check local laws before proceeding. You must purchase your suppressor before you can apply for the right to own it so make sure you are qualified to own one before you start. It must be held by the manufacturer if you intend to pick it up in person directly from them or by a Class III FFL Dealer if it must be shipped to your area. It cannot be shipped directly to you. Once the suppressor has reached the location where you will pick it up, you can apply for your federal stamp. The manufacturer or the Class III FFL can help you with your application and may be able to help with advice on the ownership method that is right for you. Patience will be required here for this process may take up to 6-8 months to complete.

The article: http://tacticalhuntingreview.com/industry-pro-articles/

Here's another link:
http://www.ashoutdoors.com/Suppressor_FAQs.html

If you go this route you might think about posting a thread telling us all how it went in real life so to speak.
 
Sendit223,

I really appreciate your time in explaining this to me. It's not like I'm ready to rush out and get one, but I am curious and like the idea of maybe someday having one.

A few years back, I hunted jackal in Namibia and used the Guide's rifles. All of them were equipped with silencers. It really made a difference in the noise level, to the point we didn't use hearing protectors. We shot a 22 Hornet, 223 and 308, all equipped with silencers. It also cut down on the recoil. Silencers are common over there.

It's kind of funny how laws are from one place to another. In Namibia and South Africa, silencers are the rule of the day, yet they have very restrictive firearms regulations. Here, we have freedom, yet have to jump through all these hoops to have a silencer. Go figure.

Again, thanks for your input.

David
 
So will you be manufacturing as well as selling/transferring? Does this also cover full/burst for "testing" purposes?

I almost jumped on a Gemtech Sandstorm until I heard Idaho was going to pass a law this October about NFA items manufactured in Idaho, purchase by Idaho residents, staying in Idaho. I think Montana or Wyoming has the same law. No $200 stamp or wait from what I understand.
 
I am about half way with the funds to get one. I can't wait. I hope to have one by next year. I understand that the process takes awhile. I am going to set mine up as a trust though. Does anyone have theirs set up in a trust?
 
Jim,
Yes, to all the above. SBR any one?
I will play around with some test items of course. There are many good suppressors out there already, so not my main direction at this time.

I am glad these states have started the push, but I do not see the NFA items falling into that category any time soon...
 
Prices would be far lower if access to this hearing protection device were not so onerous and if ownership were not outlawed (some states).

It seems to me that if someone who orders hot coffee from McDonalds then gets hot coffee, spills it on themselves, and successfully sues McDonalds....then any one of us (or even a class of us) with hearing damage due to rifle fire without this safety device ought to be able to sue the pants off the infringing party...the state governments in this case (maybe the feds too).

I don't condone the Micky-D hot coffee fiasco, but if that's what passes for establishing the burden of liability...

Ok, maybe I'm hijacking this thread and need to go to the Church of the Painful Truth.
 
Originally Posted By: sendit223Prices would be far lower if access to this hearing protection device were not so onerous and if ownership were not outlawed (some states).

It seems to me that if someone who orders hot coffee from McDonalds then gets hot coffee, spills it on themselves, and successfully sues McDonalds....then any one of us (or even a class of us) with hearing damage due to rifle fire without this safety device ought to be able to sue the pants off the infringing party...the state governments in this case (maybe the feds too).

I don't condone the Micky-D hot coffee fiasco, but if that's what passes for establishing the burden of liability...

Ok, maybe I'm hijacking this thread and need to go to the Church of the Painful Truth.

Guys I have to do this and hopefully your understand it is only to educate yourself on the whole Micky-D hot coffee fiasco. This older lady was given her order of hot coffee and it was given to her in a wax small drink cup (the kind intended for cold drinks). She sits this coffee between her legs and by this time the hot coffee has melted the wax off the cup and the whole cup comes apart and you know the rest. Micky-D was very liable for this claim.
 
Back
Top