Cannibul
Member
Might as well ban cars to stop drunk drivers.
What is the chance of the Hearing Protection Act becoming law?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Might as well ban cars to stop drunk drivers.
AlexanderA
Member
There's still a blanket rule against his lobbying, on any subject.
Obviously if there are more available, that means more "can" be stolen and misused. Limiting something because someone "could" misuse it..... Thousands of murders occurs every year and no one hears a shot. And "mass" shootings are so infrequent and produce so few victims in the big scheme, that they barely warrant consideration....except by the media. How many murders in Chicago last year (one city)? How many killed in mass shootings across the US?
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
This act *should* pass, which in no way indicates that it will pass. It is the ultimate form of common sense gun legislation. Through a single bill we can de-regulate (perhaps de-criminalize, if you will) an item that will:
1) protect shooters and hunters from irreparable hearing damage.
2) Lower the environmental impact of shooting ranges.
3) Do nothing to make firearms more dangerous, or more likely to be used in a crime.
But, despite the great reasons for passing this legislation, I'm still not entirely hopeful that this bill will pass, and I think the old-guard of our own shooting community is a big part of the problem. I can't tell you how many times I've been at a shooting range with one of my suppressed rifles, and had some old codger walk over and start lecturing me on how my item is illegal, and going to land me in federal prison. Half of these guys still don't hear you (probably due to hearing damage) when you explain that it isn't an illegal item. The other half of these guys still walk off muttering about how only an assassin needs a suppressor.
On top of the nonsense I just described, we have always had the media using the assassin angle to justify NFA laws, even though I can't think of a single historical assassination that has ever used a suppressor (this only ever seems to occur in Hollywood movies). We also have the media creating a fairytale about how the noise from a gunshot saves unsuspecting hikers from being shot by hunters (as if there is ANY reason to believe that imagined issue has ANY basis in fact -- because it's an utterly ridiculous argument).
I do believe that our new president doesn't much care what the media thinks, and that's a great thing. But, I think most of the members of congress still care what the media thinks, and that could severely undermine us on this issue.
Nevertheless, I think this bill is as important now as it will ever be. If it doesn't pass now I'm not hopeful that it ever will. We currently have a Republican congress, and a Republican president. If you can't get such a common sense law passed in this environment, you'll never see it happen.
1) protect shooters and hunters from irreparable hearing damage.
2) Lower the environmental impact of shooting ranges.
3) Do nothing to make firearms more dangerous, or more likely to be used in a crime.
But, despite the great reasons for passing this legislation, I'm still not entirely hopeful that this bill will pass, and I think the old-guard of our own shooting community is a big part of the problem. I can't tell you how many times I've been at a shooting range with one of my suppressed rifles, and had some old codger walk over and start lecturing me on how my item is illegal, and going to land me in federal prison. Half of these guys still don't hear you (probably due to hearing damage) when you explain that it isn't an illegal item. The other half of these guys still walk off muttering about how only an assassin needs a suppressor.
On top of the nonsense I just described, we have always had the media using the assassin angle to justify NFA laws, even though I can't think of a single historical assassination that has ever used a suppressor (this only ever seems to occur in Hollywood movies). We also have the media creating a fairytale about how the noise from a gunshot saves unsuspecting hikers from being shot by hunters (as if there is ANY reason to believe that imagined issue has ANY basis in fact -- because it's an utterly ridiculous argument).
I do believe that our new president doesn't much care what the media thinks, and that's a great thing. But, I think most of the members of congress still care what the media thinks, and that could severely undermine us on this issue.
Nevertheless, I think this bill is as important now as it will ever be. If it doesn't pass now I'm not hopeful that it ever will. We currently have a Republican congress, and a Republican president. If you can't get such a common sense law passed in this environment, you'll never see it happen.
Squire Western
member
Prediction: The HPA will pass in this more than normally acute, RKBA Congress! 
So does that mean Congress is unlikely to give consideration to the financial benefit of eliminating the tax stamp? (and possibly the job creation that could come about from it?)
I personally would like to see it pass...That being said, I can't imagine them giving you back your $200 for the stamp that has been already paid recently. I think a good compromise would be $100 "tax", and cut out the 6-10 month bull **** wait, just the 4473 and go.
Elkins45
Member
Isn't this the same argument for restricting access to guns?
.........and that the onus for it's disappearance gets pined on team D.
The chances of it passing are Slim & None.
Slim skipped town
Last edited:
greyling22
Member
it is the same argument, and it is a valid one. guns are effectively banned in england, and gun crime is down. it still happens, but it is down. Other crimes are up, people are still doing horrible things to each other, they just aren't using guns. They are using what is available to them.
And to be clear, I'm not saying the act shouldn't be passed, just that it won't because proliferation of suppressors means that inevitably they will be used in a crime or mass shooting, and a politician won't attach their name to that and risk losing the election because of it.
And to be clear, I'm not saying the act shouldn't be passed, just that it won't because proliferation of suppressors means that inevitably they will be used in a crime or mass shooting, and a politician won't attach their name to that and risk losing the election because of it.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I'm cautiously optimistic that the bill will pass, but not without a lot of work.
- The American Suppressor Association (ASA) exists, and has been quietly racking up state-level victories for a few years now. http://americansuppressorassociation.com/
- Suppressors are more popular than ever (seriously, go pull the numbers from the BATFE page, around 900,000 cans were sold in 2015.)
- There are more suppressor manufacturers than ever before, making better products, and they appear to be organized and working together with the ASA to mainstream cans.
- The Hearing Protection Act regularly makes the weekly Top 10 list of "Most Viewed Bills" at congress.gov.
- The NRA is on board with the mainstreaming of suppressors, something that they never would have supported even as little as ten years ago.
- Donald Trump Jr. has taken an active role in speaking with suppressor advocates, and has spoken positively of gun rights and suppressors.
- The House version of the bill has something like 74 cosponsors.
- A study by the CDC ( http://americansuppressorassociatio...017/01/CDC-Study-California-Firing-Ranges.pdf ) stated the following:
Right now is the best shot the gun community has at getting legislation passed into law. Gun rights held fast during possibly the most hostile presidency in modern history, and now that the deck is in our favor, we need to start pushing to be heard. Ultimately, the NRA, ASA, etc. can only do so much, what we need are regular citizens (this means you) pressuring their elected representatives to co-sponsor and urge support for the bill.
- The American Suppressor Association (ASA) exists, and has been quietly racking up state-level victories for a few years now. http://americansuppressorassociation.com/
- Suppressors are more popular than ever (seriously, go pull the numbers from the BATFE page, around 900,000 cans were sold in 2015.)
- There are more suppressor manufacturers than ever before, making better products, and they appear to be organized and working together with the ASA to mainstream cans.
- The Hearing Protection Act regularly makes the weekly Top 10 list of "Most Viewed Bills" at congress.gov.
- The NRA is on board with the mainstreaming of suppressors, something that they never would have supported even as little as ten years ago.
- Donald Trump Jr. has taken an active role in speaking with suppressor advocates, and has spoken positively of gun rights and suppressors.
- The House version of the bill has something like 74 cosponsors.
- A study by the CDC ( http://americansuppressorassociatio...017/01/CDC-Study-California-Firing-Ranges.pdf ) stated the following:
- Anti-rights advocates are in complete disarray right now, with basically no support in the legislature and the only thing keeping them from falling apart completely are Bloomberg's deep pockets.
Right now is the best shot the gun community has at getting legislation passed into law. Gun rights held fast during possibly the most hostile presidency in modern history, and now that the deck is in our favor, we need to start pushing to be heard. Ultimately, the NRA, ASA, etc. can only do so much, what we need are regular citizens (this means you) pressuring their elected representatives to co-sponsor and urge support for the bill.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Suppressors are commonly available in a number of European countries, including the UK, Sweden, Finland, and Germany. Additionally, they're a cash and carry item in New Zealand.
RPRNY
Member
Correct. It would be scored as loss of xx million in revenue per annum from loss of $200 offset by x million in revenue from Pittman-Robertson excise tax. The P-R revenue will be a fraction of the tax stamp revenue. But by DC standards, they're both chump change rounding errors. The HPA will not be decided on based on its revenue impact. Unless House leadership takes it up in budget reconciliation or comprehensive tax reform, it is very unlikely to even get a mark up
wally
Member
If you want it to pass, get to work. Contact your congress critters, the NRA has made it easy! You don't have to be a member to use the site:
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1422
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1422
BluesDancer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 146
Done.
Wow...that really was fairly easy wally! Thanks much for that link; seems like a good way to push for the HPA.
AlexanderA
Member
Let's consider "unintended consequences" from the introduction of the HPA. In the last few years, the suppressor industry has been on a roll, with suppressors rapidly becoming mainstream and the backlog at the NFA Branch increasing exponentially. Then the HPA was introduced, with the strong backing of the suppressor makers, and suddenly they find that their market is dead. People are not buying, waiting to see if this bill passes, and in the meantime suppressor inventories are building up and the manufacturers are having to lay off employees.
So the suppressor industry finds itself in the paradoxical situation in which a bill in limbo is worse (for it) than no bill at all.
What went wrong? I think the suppressor industry, like many of the rest of us, was convinced Hillary would win. If Hillary had won, that would be the end of the HPA, and the industry could go back to business as usual, with the added incentive of panic buying. But Trump unexpectedly won, and hopes for the HPA were suddenly raised. Not realizing that the legislative wheels grind slowly, potential buyers put their plans on hold.
There may be suppressor companies that might not be able to survive if the unresolved situation lasts 2 or 3 years.
So the suppressor industry finds itself in the paradoxical situation in which a bill in limbo is worse (for it) than no bill at all.
What went wrong? I think the suppressor industry, like many of the rest of us, was convinced Hillary would win. If Hillary had won, that would be the end of the HPA, and the industry could go back to business as usual, with the added incentive of panic buying. But Trump unexpectedly won, and hopes for the HPA were suddenly raised. Not realizing that the legislative wheels grind slowly, potential buyers put their plans on hold.
There may be suppressor companies that might not be able to survive if the unresolved situation lasts 2 or 3 years.
Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
^ True.
Beyond that, while I hope HPA passes, I fear the Senate will be the roadblock. It has a decent chance of making out of the House. Trump would likely sign it considering all his pro-2A talk during the election. The GOP Senate majority, however, is thin, and there are some major RINOs in said chamber.
AlexanderA
Member
There are at least 3 Senate Democrats that might cross over and vote for the bill, offsetting possible Republican defections. Still short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. The only hope for the HPA is if it is attached to budget conciliation, or some other must-pass bill.
- Status
