Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

From Politico:

"With respect to the silencer provision, we have taken a position that we do not object to that provision," said Pasco. "The reasoning is because silencers are not — and have not been in the recent past — a law enforcement problem."

Pasco said his organization has pushed for language allowing silencers to be traceable, which has been added to the bill.

That's a powerful quote to help passage. TBH I'm surprised the FOP came out with this statement.

If I recall correctly, the TLDR portion of the bill regarding suppressors would treat them the same as any firearm via Form 4473.

How does one render them traceable and not also add firearms to the "registry" ?

Beware Greeks (or police unions) bearing gifts.

Tru-Heathen:

Doing a 4473 for a suppressor wouldn't bother me much. The ATF already know that I own a gun (or two), and a serialized suppressor doesn't tell them too much more.

Now, when they demand micro-stamping the projectiles to tell them what suppressor was used.... .

Guess the point here is that when given a chance to restrict LAC's to protect Criminals, our congresscritters will nearly always go for the restrictions. Plays better in Pravda.

Regards,

I've no problem with a Form 4473; filled one out recently as a matter of fact. And if that is the means for the suppressor to be "traceable" then my concerns are unwarranted.

But let's say I'm still suspicious. And still do not trust LEO unions spokes-droids. They (the unions) have stood with the gun grabbers all too often. I would hate to think that we gain suppressor removal from the NFA,only to find ourselves holding the dirty end of the stick.

Guess I'd better try to find the text of the amended bill. BTDT, not my first goat roping.

I know I too am likely on any list of firearms owners because of purchases, online ammo buys,and/or credit card history. Doesn't bother me (too) much.I sleep well at night.

I need to read the bill .
Want to see if self-constructed cans are treated like self constructed firearms.
Be waiting for this to pass so I can try the $5.99 Fram Can.

Well, we might not get to see this pass.
Don't know if they are stalling or the rino's had no intention of passing it to begin with.
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/no-plan ... dVg2sZrzIW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JimE wrote:Well, we might not get to see this pass.
Don't know if they are stalling or the rino's had no intention of passing it to begin with.
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/no-plan ... dVg2sZrzIW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think they were looking for a convenient excuse. The concealed carry reciprocity is shelved also, and even gun expert Hillary isn't saying that would've caused more deaths in Vegas.

I predict that a move to ban bump-fire stocks will succeed. Although I oppose further gun regulations, I must admit that I think bump-fire stocks are stupid novelties not meant for serious shooters, and I would not shoot with someone who used one, legal or not.

Firearms suppressors make perfect sense and actively protect hearing. They are beneficial. If Democrats have enough public influence to pass a bump-fire stock bill, then Republicans need to demand an amendment deregulating suppressors. If the gun control crowd wants to "have a conversation," there's a conversation and a rational comparison.

Werz wrote:I predict that a move to ban bump-fire stocks will succeed. Although I oppose further gun regulations, I must admit that I think bump-fire stocks are stupid novelties not meant for serious shooters, and I would not shoot with someone who used one, legal or not.

Firearms suppressors make perfect sense and actively protect hearing. They are beneficial. If Democrats have enough public influence to pass a bump-fire stock bill, then Republicans need to demand an amendment deregulating suppressors. If the gun control crowd wants to "have a conversation," there's a conversation and a rational comparison.

Although I agree with you, the usual stuff I've heard from the gun control crowd in the past is mostly emotion based, and anything but rational. Their definition of "having a conversation" is you shut up, listen to them, and don't respond with any facts, because facts mean nothing to them. All they know about suppressors they've learned from Hollywood.

Werz wrote:I predict that a move to ban bump-fire stocks will succeed. Although I oppose further gun regulations, I must admit that I think bump-fire stocks are stupid novelties not meant for serious shooters, and I would not shoot with someone who used one, legal or not.

Firearms suppressors make perfect sense and actively protect hearing. They are beneficial. If Democrats have enough public influence to pass a bump-fire stock bill, then Republicans need to demand an amendment deregulating suppressors. If the gun control crowd wants to "have a conversation," there's a conversation and a rational comparison.

I watched the SEAL TEAM TV show last night. They were on a mission going room to room with suppressors (Hollywood silencers) making little noise. This is where the general public and the anti-gun people get their information on how quiet and deadly the suppressors are. No reality here. If they showed the actual sound it wouldn't be Hollywood TV.