Don't forget to call your congressman and talk to them about the hearing protection act. Get it passed and we won't have to pay for that darn tax stampThis message has been edited. Last edited by: Tommysig,
|I run trains!|
Might want to edit your title. Bill is the "Hearing Protection Act", HPA for short.
Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view.
Thanks. Sorry for the mistake. Many more people are taking up the cause now.
Not a horrible story, but still biased, imho. Watch the graphics when the pro-suppresor advocate talks. Bet it could actually happen!
A gun-friendly article on this issue. Hope it goes through!
|186,000 miles per second.|
It's the law.
Donald Trump Jr is pushing hard for this.
Im hopeful, but not too hopeful....
In the video the opponent of the act argues that in a hunting situation the noise allows other hunters to identify where you are, thus making it safety. What about knowing your target and what's beyond it?
Or wearing blaze orange when required by law? Once again politicians are uninformed at best.
I am not sure there will ever be a better time for this to pass. Really hoping this will get through.
Any idea as to whether SBR's might also become exempt from the onerous ATF regs?
Not in this bill. It only covers suppressors. If we can get this passed, it will be, as Biden would say, a "Big F***in Deal" Let's take this one step at a time.
If we can get this and National Concealed Reciprocity, and defeat any restrictive gun regulations, we'll be doing outstandingly.
Loyalty Above All Else, Except Honor
|stupid beyond |
There is going to a serious supply and demand issue when this passes. So the question is, can I buy now without the company sending and without the 200$ tax stamp? I see they are reimbursing if within 6 months or something like that. Any ideas? Perhaps lay-away?
What man is a man that does not make the world better. -Balian of Ibelin
Only boring people get bored. - Ruth Burke
If the suppressor serial isn't filed the ownership hasn't transferred. Same as a handgun or rifle that's at your local FFL - payment toward or in full may substantiate a legal claim, but an agreed-upon arrangement for holding the item is no different than putting a gun on layaway and keeping it on the FFL's books and not completing the transfer of property.
I'm sure your local dealer would be the better person to talk to about this, as they'd be the one holding the item and possibly waiting on payment for what could be a while.
Here's the usual garbage from the WashPost, read at your own peril. It's on the opinion, not news page.
I'm embarrassed to admit I went to college where this moron "teaches."
The NRA wants to suppress one of guns’ most important safety features
By Robert J. Spitzer January 22 at 7:03 PM
The writer is chair of the Political Science Department at State University of New York at Cortland and the author of “Guns Across America.”
Ari Fleischer, press secretary for President George W. Bush, chanced to be passing through the Fort Lauderdale airport on Jan. 6 when he heard what he described as “multiple gunshots ringing out” close by. “We all realized it was gunfire, and it was coming from the level below us at the escalator.” Five people were killed, and six were injured. Fleischer and others could easily have walked straight into the line of fire had they not been able to hear those shots.
Gunfire — loud, sharp, rude, abrupt — is an important safety feature of any firearm. From potential victims who seek to escape a mass shooting to a hiker being alerted to the presence of a hunter in the woods, the sound warns bystanders of potentially lethal danger. Yet gun advocates insist there is a greater danger: hearing loss by gun owners.
The NRA is renewing with gusto its misbegotten push, begun in the last Congress, to make gun silencers easier to acquire by swiping a page from the public health community’s long-standing efforts to warn of the dangers of firearms. The Hearing Protection Act, which would remove federal registration and identification requirements for those seeking gun silencers, has received the blessing of President Trump’s son, Donald Jr., and the welcome of the gun-friendly 115th Congress. Even though silencer purchases are legal in all but eight states, advocates want to sweep aside background check and record-keeping requirements, such as photos and fingerprinting, first enacted as part of the National Firearms Act of 1934 , a law passed to curb gangster weapons such as submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Beyond the familiar political imperative to eviscerate any and all gun laws — so why not this one? — the goal is clearly to boost silencer (advocates prefer the term “suppressor”) sales, which have already become a gun industry boomlet. Further proliferation of silencers would also have the commercial benefit of boosting gun sales, because most existing guns do not have the threaded barrels necessary to attach them.
In addition to touting the supposed “public health” threat to gun owners’ hearing, silencer advocates also say that they reduce gun recoil, thereby increasing accuracy, and make the shooting experience “more neighborly,” according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The simple and obvious expedients of wearing earplugs or ear covers are alternately dubbed inadequate to protect hearing and a drag on the social experience of shooting. Concerns about criminal use are brushed aside by noting that, as the NSSF says, silencers do not “increase crime.”
But one might attribute silencers’ rare use in modern crime (the Violence Policy Center notes modern silencer use in a handful of serious crimes since 2011) to the success of the strict federal registration requirements governing them — a gun law that has worked, in other words.
Our forebears recognized the dangers of silencers almost immediately, and they weren’t limited to fears about criminal use. The silencer was invented in 1908 by Hiram Maxim, and the first state law outlawing silencers’ sale or possession came within a year — a Maine ban enacted in 1909. Pittsburgh moved against silencers that same year. As the city’s superintendent of police warned, “The risk of shooting is too great; the discharge of the weapon makes too much noise and attracts too many people. But with a silencer in use this would be different.”
From then until 1934, at least 13 states enacted silencer laws, with five of them specifically barring their use in hunting. North Carolina’s 1925 law, for example, barred “any gun” used for hunting “that does not produce when discharged the usual and ordinary report.” Ironically, Maxim ceased manufacturing silencers in 1930, according to the New York Times, “because of the popular impression that this invention was an aid to crime.” Instead, he turned his energies to automobile mufflers.
Absent some kind of cataclysmic hearing-loss crisis by America’s tens of millions of gun owners, this political push should be recognized for what it is: an effort to provide an extremely small benefit to gun owners that willfully ignores what can happen to others once a bullet leaves a gun barrel. The lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate. Just ask anyone caught in the vicinity of a shooting.
|Powered by Social Strata|