Giffords has now repeatedly admitted that NFA-registered suppressors are rarely used in the commission of crimes. So why do they still support total bans? I can’t buy a suppressor in California even though I’m willing to go through NFA registration.
I’ve asked both Emma Brown (Giffords Executive Director) and Chris Harris (their VP of Communications) to explain. So far, neither has responded.
The organization’s stated position is they don’t oppose the Second Amendment, they just want “reasonable” gun laws. And they wouldn’t lie about something like that, right? Well, given that they concede that NFA-registered suppressors are rarely used in crimes, it’s fundamentally unreasonable to continue to support state bans on them.
If they’re just trying to be reasonable — and who doesn’t want to be reasonable? — why don’t they get their favorite states like California to lift their suppressor bans, legalizing them for those of us who are willing to go through NFA registration? I’d love to buy one and would happily register it. And I would publicly thank Giffords for helping make that possible.
Imagine the PR coup that would be for them. Any time someone said Giffords’ real goal is to ban all guns, they could just rebut the claim by pointing to how they helped get bans on suppressors in states like California lifted.
And California politicians listen to Giffords and Everytown. They’ve passed laws those organizations have pushed for. The state also hires from them. The Director of the Office of Civilian Disarmament Gun Violence Prevention at the California Department of Justice is Ari Freilich, formerly a Giffords policy director.
NFA-registered suppressors are literally something they have admitted isn’t a problem, yet they still haven’t withdrawn their support for a ban. If Giffords won’t do this, that’s really all the proof you need that they want full-on bans despite what they may say.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.