The Challenges of Banning Suppressors and the Role of NFA and ATF
If suppressors were to be banned, the process would be complex and fraught with legal challenges. According to the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), simply declaring suppressors illegal would not necessitate their immediate surrender from those who already possess them.
The Grandfather Clause and Legal Implications
If suppressors were to be banned, the existing stock would need to be grandfathered in. This means that people who already have suppressors would be allowed to keep them under certain conditions. Otherwise, banning suppressors would amount to an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that individuals who purchased suppressors legally by paying the required tax have the right to own them. Barring the use of suppressors without granting a legal path to ownership could lead to significant legal disputes and difficulties for both individuals and the government.
The ATF’s Role in Supervision and Enforcement
The NFA does not mandate that suppressors be turned in unless the owner violates the rules. The ATF's stance on whether surrender would be required would depend on the specific legislative context and the outcomes of any subsequent legal challenges.
The Likely Enforced Compliance Efforts
The ATF and other regulatory bodies may attempt to enforce compliance through communication. They might send out letters and emails requesting the surrender of suppressors and point out that their possession is now illegal. However, it’s unclear how many people would comply with these requests.
Non-compliance could result in legal action, including the issuance of warrants. This could potentially lead to arrest at a traffic stop. Such enforcement actions could also be met with resistance, such as the arrestees shooting the arresting officers. Additionally, it’s possible that many suppressors would be reported as lost or stolen, making it difficult for enforcement agencies to act on the information.
Financial and Operational Challenges
Class 3 weapons, which include suppressors, have been heavily regulated since the 1934 Firearms Act. Obtaining and registering a suppressor involves a special permit, long wait times, and a costly application process. In 2017, the ATF processed 250,000 applications for class 3 items, with an estimated half being for suppressors. At a fee of $200 per application, this generated $25 million in revenue. It is highly unlikely that the government would discard this income source easily.
Operational challenges also arise because of the minimal manpower available for such widespread enforcement. Furthermore, given that suppressors represent only a small percentage of the total firearms market, the impetus for a complete ban may be low for various stakeholders.
Lastly, instances of legally owned suppressors being involved in criminal activities are extremely rare. Since 1934, there has only been one known case where a legally owned class 3 item, such as a suppressor, was used in a criminal activity. This rarity makes a blanket ban even more impractical.
Given these challenges, the likelihood of a comprehensive suppressor ban is low. The regulatory and enforcement structures in place make it difficult for such a ban to be effectively implemented.