I think the confusion stems from the fact that a suppressor IS a firearm all by itself
Since you can't kill animals with a suppressed firearm, I suppose using one on an intruding long pig would get you in big trouble?
surprised no one mentioned this, don't shoot across a street either.I anticipate primarily using it to kill coyotes that are getting too close to the livestock across the stree
surprised no one mentioned this, don't shoot across a street either.
A suppressor is not a firearm under Indiana law (which is controlling as we are talking about shooting a coyote).
DNR: Hunting Guide & RegulationsIs this because of the obvious inherent dangers of shooting across a street such as pedestrians and vehicles? Or is there some law or other reason this should be avoided? I'd hate to tell my neighbor "Ya, I saw the coyote, but didn't shoot it because that would require me to shoot across the street which someone told me I shouldn't do. Sorry about your chickens."
I suppose I could cross the street and scare away the coyote, which would save his chickens. But a dead coyote won't come back to bother them another time. Besides, a dead coyote is just food for the hogs, or other less dangerous scavengers (since I can't "take" a coyote).
However, Indiana Law says you can't use a suppressed weapon to "hunt" animals. I just don't want the two separate arguments on this thread to get lost in one another.
Yep, $200 transfer tax and stamp on the suppressor. Permanently attached means absolutely nothing, it's still a suppressor and must be registered as such and have the tax paid.
If it's not an MP5 MG we're talking about (it's a Semi-auto) then it's likely because the permanently attached suppressor brings the barrel length up to 16"+, and the single tax stamp is for the suppressor, not for the SBR.I agree with your reasoning. It is certainly the case when detachable. BUT I have seen in the past at least one (I think 2 actually) MP5SD SBR advertised on Sturm as a 1 stamp gun. How would that (have) work? Incorrect advertising or was there at some point (or still is) a 'loophole' when ATF allowed the registation of integrally suppressed SBRs using one stamp? I am curious. I thought that they used to allow it.
If it's not an MP5 MG we're talking about (it's a Semi-auto) then it's likely because the permanently attached suppressor brings the barrel length up to 16"+, and the single tax stamp is for the suppressor, not for the SBR.
If it's not an MP5 MG we're talking about (it's a Semi-auto) then it's likely because the permanently attached suppressor brings the barrel length up to 16"+, and the single tax stamp is for the suppressor, not for the SBR.
Where did you hear that? The gunshop? I have NEVER heard any exceptions to the rule. A suppressor, or even a single part of a suppressor is always considered a firearm and must be registered. I've never heard of any legal suppressor without a tax stamp. Integral suppressors still require a tax stamp.I know we've already discussed that silencers are considered a firearm according to the NFA needing its own stamp. I heard an exception to this is if the suppressor is integrated into the gun. As in permanently a part of the gun (not permanently attached). Could this be the loophole alfahornet is looking for?
Where did you hear that? The gunshop? I have NEVER heard any exceptions to the rule. A suppressor, or even a single part of a suppressor is always considered a firearm and must be registered. I've never heard of any legal suppressor without a tax stamp. Integral suppressors still require a tax stamp.