Suppressors should not have a tax stamp associated with them. Suppressors are not firearms but an addition or accessory to a firearm, therefore should not need a tax stamp.
29 Likes
Agreed. This is one of the most ridiculous restrictions and it seems to stem from Hollywood fantasy of ‘silencing’ a firearm. A suppressor doesn’t silence. What is does is reduce the harm (high decibels of sound can harm hearing) to those in it’s proximity when it is fired.
Restricting a safety feature is ridiculous.
6 Likes
A suppressor is a safety device, and should be treated as such!
3 Likes
100% AGREED. As someone with tinnitus now, suppressors would have been very helpful.
2 Likes
Absolutely repeal the suppressor tax stamp.
Supressors are an andon attachment as noted in this discussion. Suppressors are great for lowering decibels helping to prevent hearing damage, a awesome plus for indoor shooting range.
They don’t create a super firearm like depicted in the hollywood spy movies.
1 Like
Supressors are extremely useful in avoiding hearing loss, as well as night hunting coyotes and fox, without alerting neighbors who are trying to sleep. New York state law currently doesn’t allow supressor ownership, one of only 7 states that have similar anti supressor laws. Federal law could overide this if written correctly, and federal law could eliminate the $200 tax and nonsense paperwork involved in obtaining a supressor.
1 Like