Comparison
When I purchased a firearms suppressor, I had to get fingerprinted, get approval from the local sheriff, fill out various government forms, get passport photos made, pay a $200 tax, wait three months, and then I could get my $300 suppressor.
But if you’re in New Zealand, you can walk to the local gun shop and buy one for about $25USD.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
That’s what liberty smells like in NZ.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am
If that’s liberty, I’ll pass thank you.
Have a look at their overall gun laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand
Since handguns are my thing, I’ll point out the specific laws regarding pistols:
This is in addition to all the licensing and permit requirements one must meet to be declared “fit and proper” to have a firearm.
I’d rather live with the NFA, myself.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I think we could use this as leverage for getting suppressors removed from the NFA though. I remember a picture of Prince William and his girlfriend hunting and the suppressor is very obvious on the rifle in the picture. I’ve been meaning to post that on my own blog and point out the discrepancy of these thing being so easily had in the British Commonwealth but practically outlawed here. CBS’s Sunday Morning show did a piece some time ago about American Grey Squirrels taking over in the UK. They went through a woods with a guy hunting them with a suppressed .22.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:22 am
When I purchased a firearms suppressor, I had to get fingerprinted, get approval from the local sheriff, fill out various government forms, get passport photos made, pay a $200 tax, wait three months, and then I could get my $300 suppressor.
You contributed to half a dozen people or so having a job to go to. I suppose you could have been a better
tax-paying citizenstimulator of the economy by buying, or making one, illegally, and thus contributing to judges, prosecutors, jail guards, and prisons-for-profit shareholders.March 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I agree with Joe Allen: Given the choice, I’ll take being able to protect myself and my family outside of my home over getting a suppressor I can only use on the range any day. Ideally, both, but life’s a trade-off sometimes.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“When I purchased a muffler for my car, I had to get fingerprinted, get approval from the local sheriff, fill out various government forms, get passport photos made, pay a $200 tax, wait three months, and then I could get my $300 muffler for the car.”
Markie Marxist sez: “Of course! We can’t have people driving around in dangerous, ultra-quiet, assault vehicles that can sneak up on pedestrians, run them over and then make a sneaky getaway without making a sound! The murder rate would go through the roof! Thousands of people a year would be killed by silent but deadly, car-assassins!”
“There would also be huge increase in deaths among pedestrians who never heard the vehicle that killed them! Thousands of pedestrians a year would be crippled and maimed by silenced vehicles that sneaked up on them! Even innocent drivers would be victims of the deadly silence of their own vehicles as pedestrians were inadvertently run over!”
“We need to expand the Brady Campaign to become ‘The Brady Campaign to Prevent Vehicle Violence’ in order to prevent the proliferation of these killer car silencers. Car owners who argue that they are entitled to the privacy of a quiet vehicle are just too dangerous! This is a public safety issue; privacy has no place in this debate!”
March 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Sheesh. I had rto go through the same BS and it took from July 24th to Dec 17th to get the papers back. Now that I have it, it seems like it’s something you ought to be able to buy in a blister pack at WalMart.
Revision please, you 565 people who run the world!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
+1 to Joe. non-regulation of supressors is one of the few things Euro-Weenies get right. Still they get that one thing right at the expense of anything resembling individual liberty and personal defence.
the NFA sucks balls, but at least I can carry an *unsupressed* Pistol for personal protection. And that’s even in very un-free Massachusetts
March 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
-17 to Joe and everyone else who doesn’t get that this is a “even the freedom-challenged NZers understand that suppressors aren’t dangerous or criminal”.
đŸ™‚
March 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I’ll trade unlicensed, unpermitted, anonymous face-to-face gun sales for all the suppressors, belt-feds, and bayonet lugs in the world.
A scoped .30-’06 deer rifle, completely off the books, does more for liberty than all the governmentally-registered suppressed full-auto Galils on the planet.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Kirk Parker,
And before you get your panties all in a twist, yes, suppressors should be encouraged, not discouraged. After all, they made me put one on my car…
March 10th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Setup a trust and you only have to pay for the stamp, no begging for signatures or getting your fingers dirty.
Not too mention you can put your family on the trust so your wife can legally use it if she wants or something.