The Hearing Protection Act
BY Herschel Smith8 years, 1 month ago
With the possible removal of silencers/suppressors from National Firearms Act control, a number of legal questions around the devices emerge.
The current mechanism for change, H.R.3799 — the Hearing Protection Act — is stuck in the U.S. House but would likely see a stronger reboot in the next Congress in 2017. If a new bill gains enough momentum to make it through Capitol Hill and onto the waiting desk of President Trump, it would leave a few things undecided if signed into law with its current language.
Today, some 42 states have legalized suppressor ownership for civilians, several within just the past few years. As the HPA simply removes the items from the purview of the NFA, the states that ban them now can continue to ban them into the future. On the other hand, states that currently allow ownership could move to restrict it should the items no longer be shackled with requirements for tax stamps, registration and extensive waiting periods caused by paperwork.
“It’s no different than the states that prohibit the sale of machine guns or even certain Title I firearms,” Adam Kraut, an attorney specializing in Second Amendment rights with the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, told Guns.com.
While on the outset this fact would seem to hurt the legislation, it largely removes much of the steam from anti-gun lawmakers hailing from states that currently ban suppressors such as California and Illinois …
Oh, I would never underestimate the ability of collectivists to control everything. Visit Guns.com and read the rest of the article, which is an interesting analysis of other questions, such as what happens to the current registry of suppressors if the law were to pass?
This is all well and good, and I hope we see progress on this front. I mainly hope that not because of the hearing protection such devices provide (since one can currently wear hearing protection when shooting), but mainly because wearing such devices inhibits proper man-machine interface. For example, do you find it rather difficult to get a good cheek weld on your rifle if you’re wearing muffs? Or another way of asking it is this. Do you find that you are modifying the way you would do things naturally because you are wearing muffs?
Again, this is all well and good. But what about my SBR? I want to see SBRs removed from the NFA list. Are you listening? I want SBRs removed from the NFA list. You didn’t hear it that time either? Okay. I WANT SBRs REMOVED FROM THE NFA LIST!!!!!
On November 16, 2016 at 12:14 pm, Pat Hines said:
Remove suppressors, SBRs, and short barreled shotguns.
On November 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm, Fred said:
Everyone’s projecting. Trump promised non of this and the congress has refused to act. Pfft, Never happen.
On November 16, 2016 at 9:52 pm, SunwolfNC said:
4. Make silencers easy to access.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/11/donald-trump-second-amendment-coalition-obama-executive-actions/
On November 19, 2016 at 8:08 am, Pat Hines said:
I beg to differ. Trump promised to support and defend the Second Amendment, therefore he is to support all legislation of which we’ve listed above.
Get it? The Second Amendment prohibits ALL US government gun laws, period. Supporting the Second Amendment means you support all repeals of those laws.
On November 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm, Fred said:
He never said this. somebody on his NRA #2A “coalition” said something to somebody or something, so what.
The NRA are traitors to liberty. How’s that paying for the privilege of seeking permission going for you, feeling all warm and free? THAT’S INFRINGEMENT, AT THE URGING AND WITH THE BACKING AND BLESSING OF THE NRA. So did Raygun promise to defend the 2A, remember what happened in ’86?
If you guys want this, you should already be writing to his NYC address every day. Stop hoping and start fighting.
My focus this year is on TN going constitutional. I’ve already put some money behind it and I will be systematic and loud this year.
Get to work.