TexasCHLforum.com

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:What is wrong with Cruz? Did his loss to Trump cause him such distress he's retreated to a safe space?

I'm guessing that he's just tied up with things like schooling sanders in debates...

Yeah, but how long does it take to tell your chief of staff to make sure your name appears on some legislation as a cosponsor?

I'm looking forward to buying my first suppressor at Academy for $39.95.... (checks wallet).

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:What is wrong with Cruz? Did his loss to Trump cause him such distress he's retreated to a safe space?

I'm guessing that he's just tied up with things like schooling sanders in debates...

Yeah, but how long does it take to tell your chief of staff to make sure your name appears on some legislation as a cosponsor?

not this long....

Ruark wrote:I'm looking forward to buying my first suppressor at Academy for $39.95.... (checks wallet).

YEP! Every Tom Dick and Harry are foing to be making and selling them! I expect prices to plummet! Anyone think im wrong?

TreyHouston wrote:

Ruark wrote:I'm looking forward to buying my first suppressor at Academy for $39.95.... (checks wallet).

YEP! Every Tom Dick and Harry are foing to be making and selling them! I expect prices to plummet! Anyone think im wrong?

I'm going to guess that prices will go down, but not plummet. I'm sure you will be able to buy some "disposable" supressors for cheap, but I would expect the big name quality supressors to stay within 10-20% of their current prices. There is an elasticity to every product, and companies know what they can and should get for their products.

I was at SHOT Show. The consensus of suppressor manufacturers that I talked to was that the shelves would be empty the day the bill is signed and prices would skyrocket. Eventually the price would stabilize, hopefully much lower with others entering the market, as supply caught up with demand.

Rhino1 wrote:I was at SHOT Show. The consensus of suppressor manufacturers that I talked to was that the shelves would be empty the day the bill is signed and prices would skyrocket. Eventually the price would stabilize, hopefully much lower with others entering the market, as supply caught up with demand.

This is kind of what I have heard. It'll take 2-3 years for everything to fully stabilize...

It may take a while to be legal in some states. That would help limit the demand a bit.

Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

its a tube and some baffling, nothing overly impressive here!

House bill to 101 sponsors today.

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

I think it's partly because most people will balk at paying a $200 tax on a $150 item. If you can afford to pay a much higher price for the item, the $200 tax seems less onerous.

There's also the economies of scale. The suppressor market is very small compared to say the firearms market. To be able to turn enough profit to stay in business they need a higher markup.

Those reasons and, "Because they can."

Eliminating the tax will eliminate all of those things. It will take time for the market to settle, however.

If suppressors are removed from the NFA, what's the argument to treat them as firearms? Why shouldn't they be treated like any other muzzle device?

Ameer wrote:If suppressors are removed from the NFA, what's the argument to treat them as firearms? Why shouldn't they be treated like any other muzzle device?

Well now you're just being logical. Stop that!!!

Ameer wrote:If suppressors are removed from the NFA, what's the argument to treat them as firearms? Why shouldn't they be treated like any other muzzle device?

Compromise to get moderate democrats on board and keep moderate republicans on board. That's the only reason that provision is on it, if you ask me.