OK. you are correct.

I will add my name to the hundreds of other NRA members and former members. Like myself. Who have sent letters to the NRA.

Asking if they really care about firearms safety??

Because a suppressor IS A SAFETY ISSUE.

They make shooting a gun even safer. For your ears.

It needs to be stated that protecting your hearing has only become a concern since I think the early 1990s.

And suppressors do work on revolver handguns. As long as you use the correct ammunition. I know because I have personally tried it.

And it’s what I use to introduce new shooters to firearms.

Substituting tendentious rhetorical questions asked behind the NRA’s back for your failure to personally contact the NRA and honestly ask straight up is… irresponsible.

Ever since the kerfuffle surrounding Marion and WLP settled down a few years ago, I’ve heard and seen almost nothing from the NRA. I canceled my membership long ago and have never looked back.

In the 1928 case Nigro v. United States, the [SCOTUS] justices rejected a challenge to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, saying it qualified as a revenue measure despite the manifest goal of prohibiting nonmedical use of opiates and cocaine. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Howard Taft acknowledged that ‘merely calling an Act a taxing act can not make it a legitimate exercise of taxing power’ when ‘the words of the act show clearly its real purpose is otherwise.’ But he rejected the argument that the Harrison Act was a transparent cover for exercising police powers that Congress was never granted, deeming the law’s official rationale and the ‘substantial revenue’ it raised enough to make it constitutional. That stretch, University of Cincinnati law professor A. Christopher Bryant argued in a 2012 Nevada Law Journal article, qualified as ‘the most disingenuous Supreme Court opinion, ever.’

Circa 1934:

Testifying in favor of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, Attorney General Homer S. Cummings noted that the federal government ‘of course’ had ‘no inherent police powers to go into certain localities and deal with local crime.’ Rather, ‘it is only when we can reach those things under the interstate commerce provision, or under the use of the mails, or by the power of taxation, that we can act.’

Cummings explained how ‘the power of taxation’ worked in this context: ‘If we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say, ‘We will tax the machine gun,’ and when you say that the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated, you are easily within the law.’

In other words, “taxation”, “interstate commerce” [and mail], can be used to give the federal government ‘policing power’ it does not constitutionally have.

That is what happened with the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFZA) of 1990 (enacted as part of the Crime Control Act of 1990). In the 1995 case United States v. Lopez, SCOTUS ruled the 1990 GFZA unconstitutional noting that it “neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the [gun] possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce.” Well, congress responded by adding references to interstate commerce which federal appeals courts deemed sufficient to solve the problem identified in Lopez. The federal government granted its self ‘police powers’ it does not constitutionally have by including ‘interstate commerce’ in the GFZA.

The Constitution doesn’t actually grant authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare, and no such constitutional authority exists. What does exist constitutionally is the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the constitutional powers that are granted. No where in the constitution does it grant the federal government general ‘police powers’, but does in specific contexts such as taxation or interstate commerce or enforcing federal laws.

They have shown no interest in them in the past. And the are not featured in any of the NRA publications.

Or are they only concerned with the very wealthy machine gun collectors?

Human innovation and technology are really making the modern machine gun obsolete.