Teaching Children Hunting, Shooting & Firearms Safety

From our friends at DRGO
(from usacarry.com)

Finally, a researcher whose work seems to support, rather the attack, Second Amendment rights. David Schwebel, a psychology professor, and his associates describe a training program to improve children’s ability to safely deal with guns. Perhaps surprising to those who read academic studies regarding firearms, they imply that children’s exposure to firearms is not unusual and may have positive consequences, such as becoming integrated into family activities as well as sports like hunting and shooting.

They have obtained a large research grant to teach children, in a number of ways and in several settings, skills to reduce the likelihood of misuse of guns. Techniques will a include newly developed video games and tasks to teach patience. They will also use “peers” – in reality child actors – to present realistic stories about the dangers that accompany unsafe firearms practices. The program participants will be girls and boys between 10 and 12, of diverse ethnicity.

In this report the researchers say little about how these “peers” will be chosen. Presumably, they will be slightly older than the participants. Having once been a 10-year-old boy myself, I wonder how effective it might be for such a participant to hear a story about guns told by a slightly older girl.

A strength of their plan, as the authors suggest, is that it acknowledges that in many households, especially those in more rural areas, telling and teaching children about guns is part of one’s upbringing and, I would think, no different than teaching safety regarding swimming or bicycle riding.

Professor Schwebel’s interest in enhancing the safety of children around firearms without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is commendable. Unfortunately, he is an outlier.

Project funding comes from the Centers for Disease Control. It’s good to see tax dollars used to reduce firearm accidents through teaching children about firearms, rather than by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Recent legislation  attempts to nullify previous restrictions on the use of tax dollars to fund studies promoting gun control; it appears that Professor Schwebel’s research is being paid for with money allocated in 2019.

More information about the project is provided by the University of Alabama:

“Our intention is to design a website that teaches children how to engage safely with firearms to reduce risk for unintentional pediatric firearms-related injuries and deaths,” said David Schwebel, Ph.D., director of the UAB Youth Safety Lab and principal investigator. “The website will deliver messages through the internet, a technological medium today’s children prefer learning in. It also will incorporate brief messaging to parents, who will absorb key lessons and reinforce them with their children.”

ShootSafe extends existing programs to achieve three primary educational goals:

  • Teach children the knowledge and skills they need to hunt, shoot and use firearms safely;
  • Help children learn and hone the critical cognitive skills of impulse control and hypothetical thinking needed to use firearms safely; and
  • Alter children’s perceptions about their own vulnerability and susceptibility to firearms-related injuries, the severity of those injuries, and their perceived norms about peer behavior surrounding firearms use.”

Seeing Red in Virginia

From our friends at DRGO

(from preparedgunowner.com)

[Ed: Dr. Petrocelli plans to write Virginia state legislators along these lines about the perversions inherent in Red Flag laws. This is a good example of necessary citizen involvement with otherwise clueless and self-absorbed government representatives.]

I am writing to you to ask that you consider the following information before taking action on any so-called “Red Flag law.”

No one wants “dangerous” people armed. I have worked as a forensic psychiatrist in maximum security forensic psychiatric hospitals and prison special housing units, and am well aware of the harm persons with or without mental illness can do with guns. As I’ve written before, the aspirational goal of violence risk assessment—to identify persons who are likely to act violently—is laudable.  Red Flag laws are offered to intervene with such individuals who cannot be identified through either the criminal justice system or the mental health system.

In the abstract, this makes sense: there must be persons who are dangerous but not mentally ill and have not yet committed a crime. Without these laws, they could fall through the cracks and commit atrocities.  Those of us who oppose these laws realize that this abstraction doesn’t play out so neatly in reality, and are accused that our opposition means we want to arm dangerous persons.

The most solid argument against the red flag laws lies in the fact that there is no widely accepted, scientifically validated procedure to make such a determination. Don’t take my word for it—instead, take it from anti-gun David Rosmarin, MD, in his presentation to the Massachusetts Medical Society (emphasis added):

“While the base rate for violence may be 20% for forensic populations, the 6-month incidence of violence in even urban populations is closer to 6%. This yields a positive predictive value of .14, which results in a false positive rate of nearly 90%.

“Even a test with an impossible 0.9 accuracy for both true positives and true negatives will be wrong more than nine times out of ten at a base rate of 1% for severe violence.  Even with a 5-10% (hypothetically high)base rate of violence, the clinician who always predicts “no violence” will be more accurate than the clinician who identifies 20% as ‘violent’.”

We simply do not have methods of accurately assessing peoples’ risk of violence.  This gets worse when trying to predict rare events, for example, mass atrocities. In fact, our methods are so poor for uncommon events that our predictions would be wrong more than nine out of ten times.  This fits with the rest of the literature, which indicated that guns have to be removed from ten to twenty people to prevent one gun related suicide, notwithstanding the fact that once the guns are removed, suicidal people find other ways: “Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased non-firearm suicides.”

Although there is great debate over how to approach risk assessment, it is generally agreed that the evaluator ought to use some structured method:

“Over the last two decades a number of actuarial formulas have been developed to predict various types of risk. Some have been the subject of extensive research and active debate in the field. Respected researchers have opined that risk assessment should be totally based on actuarial formulas, and asserted that such a procedure is superior to any clinical judgment (Quinsey et al., 1998). Others have decried reliance on these methods, saying that the day will never come when clinical judgment can be replaced by statistical calculations (Litwack, 2000). Still others have suggested that an integration of the two approaches may produce the most valuable results (Hanson, 1998).”

What do red flag laws offer in this regard?  Virginia’s Senate bill offers nothing of the sort.  Instead, it merely requires the court to entertain evidence of risk:

“In determining whether clear and convincing evidence for the issuance of an order exists, the judge shall consider any relevant evidence including any recent act of violence, force, or threat as defined in § 19.2-152.7:1 by such person directed toward another person or toward himself.”

There is no guidance as to how to reason about that evidence, or whether that evidence is outweighed by protective factors that mitigate the risk of violence-protective factors do not even have to be considered at all.  The irony of all of this is that the law requires the court to make a determination that, if offered as testimony by an expert, would fail to meet the requirements of admissibility, because the finding would not be based on any method commonly used by experts in the field. Nor would its reliability (or error rate) be known.  This is probably why New Jersey eliminated the rules of evidence for its red flag hearings.

Having established that risk assessment isn’t up to the challenge presented by red flag laws, these proceedings are an affront to the concept that underlies procedural due process:  fundamental fairnessFundamental fairness has been defined as the “most comprehensive protection of liberties,” and “the trenchant commitment to fair play and civilized decency in the relations between the state and the individual.”  How can there be “fair play” and “decency” towards red flag respondents when the arbiters of the fate of their inalienable rights have no scientifically valid procedure to apply to the evidence presented to them?

The Virginia Senate falsely compares its oppressive Red Flag law with Virginia’s civil commitment statutes because both begin with ex parte actions—so red flag laws’ must be constitutional. This is absurd, because what civil commitment lacks in front-end procedural due process it makes up for with fundamental fairness and decency.

Virginia’s mental health commitment scheme has three parts. The first, the Emergency Commitment Order, is issued ex parte, and orders law enforcement to bring a person to a place of evaluation for a short period of time. The subject is evaluated by a mental health professional authorized by the Commonwealth to perform assessments to determine whether or not the person is mentally ill and if so, on that basis, a danger to themselves or others.

Only then can the person be brought to a psychiatric hospital under a Temporary Detention Order (up to 72 hours). During that time the hospital staff evaluate whether or not the respondent needs commitment for treatment, can sign in voluntarily or should be released.

A full hearing, with counsel provided, is held before a Judge or Special Justice to determine whether or not the respondent should be committed for up to 180 days if that was recommended.  In summary, although civil commitment begins ex parte, two professional evaluations are done and a formal judicial hearing with the subject present with representation is required if further commitment is recommended.

Red Flag laws so far provide none of this. They require no expert evaluation before property is confiscated:  police arrive, announcing they have come to remove the respondent’s guns, and need not provide any additional information. This triggers notification to the NICS database that the respondent is now a prohibited person. Red flag laws do not permit the respondent to voluntarily and privately relinquish their guns once confronted. Instead, after two weeks of the seizure of their firearms and without mandatory counsel, a hearing is held to determine whether the guns should be returned or held for an additional 180 days.

Perhaps the greatest distinction between red flag laws and civil commitment is that civil commitment provides treatment under the doctrine of parens patriae—the State as parent to those who are in need of protection or care. The deprivation of rights that accompanies civil commitment is balanced against the need for that deprivation along with the treatment available to remediate the condition that led to the action in the first place.

Red Flag laws provide the respondent nothing: not counsel, not professional examination, and no intervention intended to restore the rights taken from them.  The importance of this divergence cannot be overstated. The courts have consistently held that intended purpose of civil commitment laws—provision of treatment—balances any up-front procedural deficiencies:

“The judicial approval of involuntary commitment rests upon the assumption that the state is pursuing beneficent purposes for the general society and for the person committed.”

Grafting procedural due process on to Red Flag laws does not rehabilitate them in the slightest.  Consider a pop culture analogy, Agent Smith’s interrogation of Neo in The Matrix. Just apprehended and facing a host of charges, Neo replies to Smith’s litany of allegations by saying “You can’t scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights I want my phone call.”  Agent Smith replies, “What good is a phone call, if you’re unable to speak” and he disrupts the Matrix so that Neo cannot speak. In this scene Neo’s procedural rights are preserved—he is offered a phone, counsel, and presumably the opportunity to rebut the charges—but he is rendered unable to use them.

This parallels the problem with Red Flag laws. All the procedural due process in the world—being present for the hearing, confronting your accusers, etc.—does nothing to ensure fairness, decency or respect if the ultimate issue can be decided without the respondent’s participation in a meaningful evaluation or, perhaps even worse, by emotionally charged accusations of feared future violence.

Unfortunately, the fact that Red Flag laws do not function as billed is a feature, not a bug, because they are used as Trojan horses for even more infringement.  Consider Dr. Rosmarin again:

“So in our state of 6.7 million — almost twice that of Connecticut’s — we are petitioning only one-fifth as frequently. In my experience as a forensic psychiatrist, I see two dozen cases meriting petition a year, easily.

“Massachusetts should modify our ERPO law to allow certain categories of licensed clinicians to petition the courts for an extreme risk protection order. Clinicians should be allowed to do so via a downloaded document, such as exists for initiating mental health involuntary commitments. This will allow clinicians to petition the court without leaving their clinical settings.

“Massachusetts should also enact a law that allows certain categories of licensed clinicians to report to the police chief where the patient lives and that the patient should not have gun access. This should be based on a judgment about dangerousness, not mental illness. The disclosure of medical information relating to dangerousness should be as narrow as possible. Something like:

“Chief, this is Dr. Rosmarin. In my opinion this person is dangerous and should not have a gun.

“The chief would then have discretion to interview the owner, revoke the license and to seize any guns.”

Are gun owners content with the idea that their clinicians can petition law enforcement online after determining them to be “dangerous”?  Will the police chief be more likely to phone the respondent for an interview, or conduct a no-knock raid out of “an abundance of caution” and a desire to “err on the side of public safety”?

Let’s put all this in the context of the events surrounding the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s annual Lobby Day.  I was pleased to be able to speak directly with my Delegate and Senator before attending the rally. I was too late to enter the fenced in, gun-free Capitol grounds, as 10,000 attendees were already there by 9:30 am, so I participated from outside the fence.  I met people from all walks of life, all ethnic backgrounds and all political persuasions, who were united in advocating for their inalienable Second Amendment rights.

Many openly carried the guns that our Governor seeks to prohibit. Despite the presence of all those guns, there was no violence. The Governor insisted that he and law enforcement “diffused a volatile situation” but the attendees were never “volatile.”  Criminals, not lawful gun owners, are the problem, and we were shocked that every real crime bill was left tabled in committee. This is an unconscionable response to the criminal homicide problem that exists in inner cities related to gangs and drugs.

The Virginia House of Delegates must recognize reality about Red Flag laws, and direct their efforts instead towards mental health and crime.  Red Flag laws address neither, and are an affront to the constitutions of our Commonwealth and our nation, and to the inalienable rights these governments exist to protect.

–Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

Freedom Flag G17 Slide Review

  If you haven’t heard of Freedom Flag Products, you should go look them up. About a year ago, they collaborated with Nevada Cerakote to send me one of their G17 slides. When they ask what model or cerakote I wanted, I left it up to both of them. Freedom Flag also makes AR products, as well as other Glock style slides. The review slide they sent me is in their “Track Style”, without an optic cutout.

  I can’t really describe the “Track Style”, but it is not a typical cookie cutter slide. It has some oblong, straight up and down, cuts at the rear for cocking serrations. Then down the rest of the slide it has, what I like to call them, mathematical shaped recesses. At the front of the slide, there are also 2 angled cuts with 3 slots cut in them. On the top front, is also a diamond shape recess with 2 slots. So a compensated barrel might work with this slide. Freedom Flag’s slides are for Gen 3 style pistols, this includes Polymer 80’s. They also come in 5 more standard cuts, in case you don’t like this style. An RMR cut is $50 more, if that’s your thing.

  As I would expect, the machining on this slide is spot on. I couldn’t detect a single mill mark. Yes you can see marks through cerakoted parts. The Glock slide parts kit installed with zero problems and everything works smooth as butter. This is the second slide that Freedom Flag has sent me, which is why the review has taken so long. The first slide they sent had a very, and I mean very, small tool mark on the angled cut. I was okay with it, but they pretty much demanded I send it back, so I did. That’s top notch service. I don’t know if this slide is the same one, or a new one, but I suspect it’s new. The rear sight cut was spot on, and I had zero problems installing the rear sight. The front slot seemed a tiny bit larger than I needed, I could twist the front sight ever so slightly when tightening it down. I measured it, and it was within Glock factory specs, so it must have been the front sight and not the slide. All in all, they do an excellent machining job.

  All Freedom Flag’s slides are Cerakoted. As mentioned, this slide was sent to Nevada Cerakote for some magic. I told them to also surprise me and that it was being installed on a gray Polymer 80 frame. Nevada Cerakote did not let me down. They did a 4 color gray/black camo on it that looks amazing. The colors are blended together so smooth that you can’t even feel where one ends and the other begins.

  Nevada Cerakote is pretty big in the cerakote market. They have their hands in lots of one off coatings for trade shows, like SHOT. They are factory trained and certified by Cerakote. But really, they just do a great cerakote and have great ideas for patterns. If you are looking to have something coated, please go check out Nevada Cerakote.

  The Track Style slide is a great addition to my Polymer 80. In fact I purposely bought the Poly 80 frame for the original slide. The slide mounted up easy. It slid right on and cycled smoothly. Frame to slide fit was phenomenal. Not so tight that I needed to break it in, but not loose either. I can barely wiggle the slide. To top it all off, the pistol cycles fine, even when the slide was brand new. When I first installed the slide, if you rode the slide closed on an empty magazine, it would stop about ¼” from going into battery. After 50 or so rounds, that stopped. It never did it using the slide release or sling shotting the slide. I’m using as Faxon barrel with the Freedom Flag slide. As expected, it shoots great. Both a testament to the slide and barrel.

  When using the Track Slide, I used it in a few OWB holsters. It fit fine in both of them. I did have to loosen the tension screws on both. I attributed this to the fairly squarish style of this slide. Not a big deal at all, more of just a heads up. To go along with this, the cerakote has not worn off the edges either. Another testament to the Nevada Cerakote quality.

  If you are in the market for a Glock slide, Freedom Flag does a fine job. They even make a slide that converts a G19 size frame into a G17 length slide and barrel. The slide is 100% made in the USA and at a competitive price. Definitely go give Freedom Flag a look, as well as Nevada Cerakote.

Firearms Insider Reviews – 8 Key Points

Claim to Fame:

Fully machined Glock Gen 3 slide with cerakote

Target Market:

Those wanting a unique, quality slide for their Glock or Glock style pistol

FNBs (Features & Benefits of this product):

  • “Track Style”

  • Designed for Gen3 guns, will not fit a Gen4

  • Cerakoted

  • Optional Laser Etching

  • Tighter tolerances for increased accuracy, reliability, and performance

  • Precision machined from heat treated 4150 barrel steel

  • Barrel lock-up manufactured with tighter tolerances

  • When used with a match-quality barrel, accuracy will be greatly increased

  • 100% Made in the USA

  • Compatible with Polymer80 Frames

  • Tested for function

What other aesthetic options or finishes are available?

Lots of single colors, or ask about special Cerakote

What others are saying?

5/5 stars – Fantastic and Durable Slide

I bought a graphite black slide a few months ago to go with a Polymer 80 G17 I built. Taking it out of the box, it’s a really good looking slide. The front serrations are very tactile and the back are equally good. When fitting it to the gun, it was indeed a very tight fit, but that really is a good thing. I did have to file a little bit on the inside of the slide around the barrel lock-up, but that was primarily due to the aftermarket barrel being a little out of spec. Once I fixed that, it worked great. I now have over 1k rounds through the slide and no issues. I’ve used it in the Limited Division at a USPSA match and it was great there, even got a couple compliments. I highly recommend filing in the logo on top of the slide with white to make it pop. Overall, I could not be happier. The customer service is very good and personal, and the shipping was quick. If you’re on the fence about it, just do it! You won’t find a better custom slide for the money

Link to other reviews:

Holster Reviewer on YouTube

Price point:

MSRP = $249.99, $400 as tested

MSRP (Cerakote) – $150 for 4 color camo

I need it now! Availability:

Freedom Flag Parts

Nevada Cerakote

Our Rating:


  • Tight slide to frame fit

  • Good barrel lock up

  • Custom Cerakote finish

  • Unique design


  • Square (holster fit)

  • No front cocking serrations on this model

Score: 8.5 Great


Favorite Link:   Axelson Tactical


Gun & Gear Review Podcast, episode 289

On this show we showcase gun reviews, gear and anything else a gun enthusiast may be looking for. We strive to evaluate products from an unbiased and honest perspective. I’m your host Chad Wallace from the Firearms Radio Network, your source for all things firearms related. In this show we will be discussing a Freedom Flag slide review, some Staccato pistol, a cz shotgun, and a garden gun.

StopHR5087.com – Oppose H.R.5087, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018


  • Bill: HR 5087 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2018
  • Author: Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI-1)

1. Send a message to Congress using our Grassroots Action form below.

2. Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121??to connect with your reps – tell them to oppose H.R.5087!

3. Share this page and Take Action message with your pro-gun friends and family!

H.R. 5087 would:

  1. Add new definitions and terms like “semiautomatic pistol,”??semiautomatic shotgun,”??”semiautomatic??assault weapon,” “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” “barrel shroud,” “detachable magazine,” and many more;
  2. Add an incredible number and type of firearms to the list of assault weapons;
  3. Enacts a total ban on “assault weapons” unless it is “otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018”;
  4. Enacts a total ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”;
  5. Enacts manufacturing requirements for “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”;
  6. Enacts new storage requirements for people who have “assault weapons”;
  7. Criminalize the exercise of Second Amendment rights and constitutionally-protected instruments;
  8. Imposes new firearm transfer requirements;
  9. Mandates law-enforcement reporting of “assault weapon” transfers or attempted?? through NICS;??and,
  10. Provides for grants of federal funds for useless “gun buyback” programs.

Use the FPC Take Action Grassroots form below and tell your representatives why they should oppose H.R.5087!



OPPOSE HR 4052 – The Magazine Ban

Send a message using the form below!

HR 4052 is a blatant attack on the Second Amendment.

It would outlaw any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

This is insanity!

Millions of magazines will be confiscated by government forces from law abiding gun owners!

We must stop this RIGHT NOW!

Tell your representative that you strongly oppose HR 4052 and send them an email today.

Link to sign petition:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose_hr_4052_the_magazine_ban?utm_campaign=1114hr4052&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition ??


Sportsmen’s Bill Offers a Vehicle for Deregulating Suppressors

Gun Owners of America has alerted you this year to great legislation in Congress that would protect your ears and hearing while you spend time enjoying your Second Amendment rights.

Today, that effort took a step forward.???? A House subcommittee heard testimony on HR 3668 — a “sportsmen’s bill” which, among other things, will make it easier for you to purchase firearms suppressors. The bill also makes a lot of minor corrections to federal gun law.

But the sponsor of this bill — South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan– took a major step forward when, earlier this year, he agreed to amend his sportsmen’s bill with provisions to protect gun owners’ hearing.

He did this by including language that removes suppressors from the licensure requirements of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) — meaning that you could purchase suppressors for your firearms without paying a tax or submitting to a waiting period.

For that, we commend Rep. Duncan.

Now, Congressman Steven King (R-IA) is prepared to take this legislation a step further, offering an amendment to completely remove all federal regulations on suppressors, both under NFA and under the 1968 Act and the Brady law.

This means that you would be able to purchase a suppressor without a background check.

King’s amendment is based on his Hearing Protection Act bill (HR 3139).

King’s plan is a fantastic idea, because if suppressors are to be removed from the federal licensure requirement, what sense does it make to continue requiring the government’s permission to purchase one?

The King amendment would essentially treat suppressors as any firearms accessory (scope, magazine, etc.).

Congressman King is expected to offer his amendment when the sportsmen’s bill comes up in committee for a vote on Wednesday.

Obviously, not every congressman will have an opportunity to vote on the King pro-gun amendment this week — only members of the committee will. The opportunity to vote on the King language in the entire House may come later.

So that’s why GOA activists all over the country should begin contacting their congressmen now, in favor of the Hearing Protection Act (HR 3139).

Doing so will help create a “buzz” in favor of the King amendment when it is voted on this week.

And that’s why I am urging you to either email your congressman, Rep. Mark Amodei (R), or put in a phone call at the DC office: (202) 225-6155.

Your message is simple. All you need to do is urge Rep. Mark Amodei (R)??to cosponsor and support the Steve King bill (HR 3139), which removes suppressors from federal firearms regulation.

This will go a long way to showing support for the Steve King amendment when the Committee on Natural Resources takes up the Duncan bill this week.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

P.S. After you contact your congressman, please take the opportunity to keep GOA on the frontlines by Doubling Your Dollar, at no extra cost to you.


How to Buy a Suppressor

Beretta 92 silencer-1.jpg

Whether you???re a rifle aficionado, pistol enthusiast, or both, suppressors just might spoil you rotten. I can speak for most suppressor users when I say, ???Once you shoot suppressed, you never go back.???

Why? While a suppressor doesn???t completely silence the noise of a gunshot, it reduces the sound to tolerable, and often hearing safe, levels. A day at the range is a lot more fun without being subjected to the sound of Thor???s Hammer every time you pull the trigger. Additionally, suppressors tend to smooth out recoil. While energy is energy and recoil is still present, suppressors dampen the feel. Since their purpose is to tame the sudden release of hot gases from the muzzle, you???ll feel a much more mellow sensation.

Also see:??A Beretta 92 and the Sound of Silence

Suppressors??are regulated both by federal and state government, so you have to consider two sets of rules when purchasing one. While that may sound confusing, the process is actually fairly straightforward.

Let???s consider the state issue first. As of today, suppressors are legal to own in 42 states, and in 40 of those, you can use a suppressor for hunting. You can quickly determine your state???s status by visiting the American Suppressor Association.

If you live in a quiet state, then you can move to step two, the federal process. As part of the National Firearms Act of 1934, they are regulated, so you have to get a permission slip from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE or ATF for short.) While there are some forms to fill out, the process isn???t all that difficult. It???s just more of a nuisance that will set you back some time and two hundred dollars.

You???re eligible to buy a suppressor from a dealer if:

  • You are at least 21 years of age
  • You are a resident of the United States
  • You are legally eligible to purchase a firearm
  • You pass a BATFE/ATF background check
  • You pay a one-time $200 Transfer Tax

You can buy the suppressor as an individual or as an authorized member of a trust or corporation. Whichever method you choose, the process ends the same. The ATF will return a copy of your Form 4 with a colorful new tax stamp attached. That???s your permission slip, and you need to keep a copy of it with you whenever you have your suppressor with you. You won???t be able to take possession of your new suppressor from the dealer until this tax stamp arrives, and that takes a really, really long time. Right now, the ATF is taking 10 – 12 months to process the forms. Be prepared to wait.

While it looks like there are a lot of steps, and there are, remember that your suppressor dealer will help you navigate this process. Let???s explore the process for both individual and trust purchases.

Buying as an individual

Since suppressors are regulated, when you buy as an individual, you are the only one entitled to possess that suppressor. You can???t loan it to a friend, let your brother or sister take it to the range without you, and if you die, no one else can legally use it. It???s kind of like a driver???s license. It???s for you and you only. If you give it to a friend, possession of your license doesn???t entitle them to drive.

1. Fill out the ATF Form 4. This is your application form and, when approved, a copy will be returned to you with the tax stamp attached. You???ll need to submit two copies with your application, one for the ATF to keep and one they return with the tax stamp affixed.

2. Include standard passport photos. These are easy to get. You can take them yourself if you crop and print them to the proper dimensions or you can get them done at most any local shipping store.

3. Fingerprint cards. You???ll need to submit standard FBI FD-258 fingerprint cards. Many local police departments will do this for you but call first to make sure. I got mine done in the booking room of the county jail. That was an interesting experience, but it worked.

4. Include a check or money order for $200 payable to the BATFE. That???s your permission slip fee, and you have to pay it for each suppressor you buy. Yes, it???s highway robbery, but there???s the federal government for you.

5. When your Form 4 comes back, you need to send a copy to your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) for their records. Your dealer can help you find out who that is and where to send the forms.

Buying as a trust (or corporation)

You can set up a firearms ownership trust or corporation and have that legal entity purchase your suppressors and own them. While it???s more of a pain to set up, the benefits are that multiple people can be members of the trust or employees of the corporation, and therefore can legally possess suppressors owned by the trust. I have a trust set up for my family so any of the four of us can take a suppressor to the range. If I get hit by a meteor, the trust continues to own the suppressors, and other trust members can continue to use them. Many lawyers offer firearms trust creation services. Also, suppressor companies and the Silencer Shop offer turnkey trust creation services. It???s surprisingly easy to do.

The process for a trust purchase is almost identical to that of an individual purchase, but there are three differences as follows.

Each authorized member of the trust needs to complete an ATF Form 5320.23 (Responsible Person Questionnaire.) Since the trust is filling out the Form 4, the ATF now wants to have documentation for each member of the trust individually. This is a recent change.

When sending the application package to the ATF, you???ll need to include a copy of the trust documentation itself, or, in the case of a corporate entity, a copy of the articles of incorporation.

When your tax stamp is returned, you???ll need to send both the Form 4 and all of the Responsible Person Questionnaires to the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer.

An easier way

While the process sounds like a pain, and it is, enterprising companies have made it easy. Since most of the requirements are relatively simple but time-consuming chores, the folks at Silencer Shop have automated the process using modern technology.

If you buy a suppressor there, they will handle pretty much everything for you. Just complete an online application form to start the process. Then, using their app on your smartphone, you can quickly take your own passport photos which are captured and uploaded to your application packet managed by the Silencer Shop team. For fingerprints, you can visit one of their hundreds of local dealers nationwide and capture your own fingerprints using their automated kiosks. Your prints are also uploaded and added to our application packet. Pay your tax stamp fee online, and the Silencer Shop folks will manage your entire application process. The best part is that if you want to buy another suppressor, your prints, photos, and application information are already on file, so the process is almost entirely automated. Gotta love innovation!

The Hearing Protection Act

You might have heard rumblings of the Hearing Protection Act. As the name implies, this proposed legislation aims to eliminate all of these onerous requirements to buy a suppressor. In many places in Europe, you can buy them over the counter at a hardware store, so why not here? The act is very simple and nets out to this. If you are legally eligible to buy a firearm, you can buy a suppressor – without all the ATF application paperwork.

While we???re all anxiously awaiting passage of this law, remember that it takes Washington 75% of eternity to get anything done, so if you want a suppressor, I wouldn???t wait. Early iterations of the bill had a clause for the refund of recently paid tax stamp fees. While there???s no guarantee, there???s good shot that if you spend $200 today, and the bill passes soon, you might get that money back. Even if you don’t, it might be worth the $200 to enjoy the benefits of shooting suppressed now.

by Tom McHale??

New and Improved Suppressor Legislation in Congress!

As you know, Gun Owners of America strongly opposes all types of gun control — including the National Firearms Act and the NICS background check system.

And now there’s a bill that will deal a major blow to both of those ugly marks on the Second Amendment.

Senators Mike Lee and Mike Crapo, along with Representative Steve King introduced the “Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act” or SHUSH Act in both Senate and House (S. 1505 and H.R. 3139).

But you may be thinking: Isn’t there already a suppressor bill in Congress? Yes, there is. It’s the Hearing Protection Act which was has been introduced back in January.

But the new SHUSH Act expands firearm freedom further than the Hearing Protection Act ever did.

The SHUSH Act would not only remove suppressors from the NFA,??it would legally treat suppressors as a firearm accessory, which means you could buy a suppressor as you could buy a scope — without a background check.

The fact is that suppressors are little more than elaborate metal tubes. There is no reason — other than blind hatred of gun owners — why these devices should be regulated at all.

So let’s make some noise on Capitol Hill about the SHUSH Act. Contact your Senators and Representatives to urge them to cosponsors S. 1505 and H.R. 3139.


In Liberty,

Jordan Stein
Director of Communications
Gun Owners of America
Follow me on Twitter: @jordankstein

P.S. GOA is working hard in the halls of Congress to get more cosponsors for the SHUSH Act. But when you flood their offices with emails, it makes congressional staffers listen a little closer in our meetings. So please contact your legislators –??Sen. James Settelmeyer (R), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D), and Rep. Mark Amodei (R)??– in favor of the SHUSH Act now.


Suppressor Deregulation Bill Gains Momentum in the House

A year ago, amending the provisions of the overbearing and unconstitutional National Firearms Act would have been considered “a long shot.”

And yet, here we are. ??A free-standing bill to remove suppressors from the act — dubbed the “Hearing Protection Act” — has 146 cosponsors, including several Democrats.

That bill is H.R. 367.

Now Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC) has included the Hearing Protection Act in a larger “Sportsmen’s” bill, which is expected to shortly move in the House.

This second Duncan bill is only in working draft form right now and has not been introduced as a free-standing bill.

This draft bill is expected to be considered in committee this week, which means that suppressor legislation could soon be moving to the full House.

The reality is this: ??Foolishly, the antiquated Depression-era National Firearms Act treats hearing protection devices like suppressors as though they were machine guns.

There is a full-scale FBI background check, together with fingerprints and a $200 transfer tax — all for a “health protection” device which is little more than an elaborate tube.

And frankly, this foolishness is perpetuated by a myth: ??that suppressors completely silence the sound of firearms, and, hence, are the “weapon-du-jour” for Mafia hit men.

The facts are different. ??In fact, in places like Norway, where guns are strictly regulated, the use of hearing protection is actively encouraged.

Please help me ensure that hearing protection for hunters and shooters is encouraged here, as well.

Urge your congressman, Rep. Mark Amodei (R), to cosponsor H.R. 327, the Hearing Protection Act.

GOA’s Legislative Action Center automatically sends “thank you” letters to those Representatives who have already cosponsored the bill — and urges those who are not on the bill to cosponsor it right away.

Finally, your letter will provide your congressman with an excellent Fact Sheet??– highlighting the health benefits from using suppressors — that has been prepared by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

Thank you for taking action.


John Velleco
Director of Operations

P.S. Help put the Second Amendment on offense by becoming a GOA Patriot Member today! ??And urge your congressman, Rep. Mark Amodei (R), to cosponsor H.R. 327, the Hearing Protection Act.