Critique my silencer proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LAR-15

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
3,385
This would remove silencers from the NFA:

A BILL
To amend the law found in Title 26 US Code dealing with certain sound regulating devices.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Hearing Protection Act'.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF SOUND REDUCING DEVICES

(a) Section 5845 (a) of Title 26 United States Code is amended by:

(1) After ‘machinegun;’ inserting ‘and’

(2) Striking ‘(7)’ through ‘and’


(3) Striking ‘(8)’ and replacing it with ‘(7)’




SEC. 3. EFFECT ON OTHER LAW

(a) It shall be a defense to prosecution that a person possessed a silencer or muffler before the date of enactment of this act in accordance with Federal law and the laws or provisions of any state, district, territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States or any political subdivision thereof where such person resided or resides on the effective date of this act that are in conflict with this act or it’s purposes. Such laws or parts of laws that are in conflict with this act and its purposes are declared null and void after the effective date of this act and its amendments.

(b) Nothing in this act shall nullify or void any law or part or provision of any law of any state, territory, district, possession, commonwealth or political subdivision thereof not in conflict with this act and its purposes.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
 
Sounds great, let us know when to contact legislators asking for support. Who will you submit it to seeking introduction?
 
I was thinking my Rep Heath Shuler (D-NC) but ran as pro gun.

I think with all the new 'pro gun' Dems out there this might be an issue worth bringing up.

Congress rejected a total ban on silencers in 1986 so the chances of Congress banning silencers is slim.

Chuck Schumer tried it again in the mid 1990s and failed.

What congress should do is allow silencers as Title 1 firearms for hearing protection (hence the name of my bill)
 
I think supressors would be the easiest thing to DeNFA, followed by SBR's. What you really need is a campaign in congress to inform and show how people will benefit from the use of supressors.
 
i'm with it, but my gut tells me there would be a flood of legislation at the state and local levels to abolish these evil devices. the liberal bedwetters in the media would be blaring "why do you need a silencer" yadda yadda
 
I don't think so.

Either silencers are legal in your state or not.
 
Sounds great, let us know when to contact legislators asking for support. Who will you submit it to seeking introduction?
Click to expand...

id like to see a politician actually take this seriously.

i'm with it, but my gut tells me there would be a flood of legislation at the state and local levels to abolish these evil devices.
Click to expand...

im sure that would happen at the state level just like they did with the 1994 AWB. in fact some pro-NFA states already have it in their books, like Texas:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/46.05.html

PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) an explosive weapon;
(2) a machine gun;
(3) a short-barrel firearm;
(4) a firearm silencer;
(5) a switchblade knife;
(6) knuckles;
(7) armor-piercing ammunition;
(8) a chemical dispensing device; or
(9) a zip gun.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's conduct was incidental to the performance of official duty by the armed forces or national guard, a governmental law enforcement agency, or a correctional facility.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended.

(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's conduct:
(1) was incidental to dealing with a switchblade knife, springblade knife, or short-barrel firearm solely as anantique or curio; or
(2) was incidental to dealing with armor-piercing ammunition solely for the purpose of making the ammunition available to an organization, agency, or institution listed in Subsection (b).

(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree unless it is committed under Subsection (a)(5) or (a)(6), in which event, it is a Class A misdemeanor.

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the possession of a chemical dispensing device that the actor holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Commission on Private Security and has received training on the use of the chemical dispensing device by a training program that is:
(1) provided by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education; or
(2) approved for the purposes described by this subsection by the Texas Commission on Private Security.
Click to expand...

hence this existing state law would have to be changed as well since the absence of registration with NFA would not allow a defense to prosecution under the state law.

i think other states have a similar law in their books too.
 
i'm with it, but my gut tells me there would be a flood of legislation at the state and local levels to abolish these evil devices. the liberal bedwetters in the media would be blaring "why do you need a silencer" yadda yadda
Click to expand...

Either silencers are legal in your state or not.
Click to expand...

See, this is why I hate all the talk about changing RKBA, repealing laws, NFA, FOPA, etc.

We need ONE set of (FEDERAL) laws, that are applied everywhere, anytime.

You can get the "silencer laws" changed---but it wouldn't do me any good. You can get "high-cap" mag restrictions removed---but it wouldn't do me any good. Hey the AWB sunset---but it didn't do me any good, either.

Now everyones USUAL answer is "move to a free state"---which is of course ridiculous, as most people, have friends, family, jobs, that don't allow them to just "uproot" and move.
 
I believe my proposal voids laws that require NFA registration of silencers.
 
Incremental steps.

If you can get silencers removed from the NFA, then their use will grow in states that allow them. It shouldn't be too hard to push through congress, because the Anti-gun states would still think that they could ban them locally. Once silencer use is common and proven to be beneficial in states that allow their use, it will be much easier to convince the other states.

The more people who are using an object safely, the harder it is to ban that object, and the easier it is to repeal bans.
 
Good proposal; I would suggest moving ahead with it.

Don't forget the persons with disabilaties angle. People with sensitive hearing, or those who have suffered some hearing loss should not be shut out of the shooting sports and hunting because of the NFA registry, it's inherent inaccuracy and wrong headed state laws. Hearing loss is cumulative, and permanent so let's get this passed before anyone else loses that much more of their hearing!

Wouldn't this also assist folks with a light sensitivity issue since the suppressors also help quell muzzle flash?

Do you have collateral support from constituents? That usually helps get the ball rolling.
 
The only support/push is from folks on this website sending this to their representatives also.

I know people who have hearing trouble from shooting firearms.

As many pro gun reps we can send it to, I think would enhance it's chances.

Hearing loss is a serious problem.
 
Can you get some

neighbor/friend/shooting acquaintence support? That's the best way to convince a legislator to move.

My rep won't do it, period. May eventually vote for it, but even that's questionable.
 
I believe my proposal voids laws that require NFA registration of silencers.
Click to expand...
So your proposal is not total preemption, just "if you were legal before, then you stay legal." What of new owners in those states with laws that require NFA registration? I don't follow how they are protected.

I agree that not trying to sell federal preemption would be a good first step, but it seems like it will require a lot of state level fixes just to maintain the status quo (as to where you can have suppressors). Moving them to Title I would make them "in compliance with NFA."
 
The main concern is to make sure people who own silencers that have to be NFA 'registered' to be lawful are not prosecuted at the state/territorial/local level.
 
I understand your objective. The only provision you are missing is the section that starts with..."The Congress of the United states finds
1) the ability to hear is important whereas
2) many gun owners are experiencing unnecessary hearing loss furthermore
3) sound suppressors are a reliable way to reduce the decibels produced by firearms also
4) silencers aren't used in crimes

etc etc etc

You have to justify the reason for the law :D
 
Silencers are ineffective with supersonic loads. Those with silencers would normally be shooting "underpowered" ammo.
This argument might be useful for some of the fence sitters as a silencer would encourage folks to shoot "safer" ammo.
 
Be incremental. The modification to federal law is good; don't push it by creating a "states rights" issue, drop the attempt to change all law in one fell swoop.

By dropping the non-federal override part, the law looks very innocuous. Keep it that way.

Silencers are ineffective with supersonic loads.
Click to expand...
Correction: they don't make 'em "silent", but they do reduce the noise level dramatically. Muzzle blast is mostly eliminated, which is most of the noise the shooter (and those nearby) experience. The supersonic crack emanates from the bullet in flight, which is rapidly moving away from the shooter.

While not "Hollywood quiet", a silencer on a gun is far preferable than not having a silencer on a gun.

I would recommend we use the more correct "suppresor" or "sound suppressor"
Click to expand...
"Silencer" is the legal standard term.
 
I use the term 'sound reducing device'

Good point on the findings.

Anybody got any good ones?
 
Great timing too. When the tiger is poised to nibble away at you, it makes good sense to provoke him to rip off your head.

When you've completed this proposed legislation and contacted potential sponsors for it, why not start on the rest of the list: it's a good time to attempt to legalize private ownership of armor piercing ammunition, machine guns, cannons, and nuclear devices too.

At the very least it would be a sure way to convince the voting public that gun owners are harmless, stable people.
 
Silencers are ineffective with supersonic loads. Those with silencers would normally be shooting "underpowered" ammo.
Click to expand...

As an NFA dealer and a suppresor owner, that is incorrect. The supersonic crack is more of a whump noise, and is only devestating on the internet.

I like this idea.
 
I would recommend changing the bill short name to to something 'feely', like "Hearing Health and Noise Reduction Act", or "Hearing Health and Protection Act" (so it'd have the acronym HHPA, similar to HPPA, which relates to healthcare providers and information security).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
My proposal
Replies
6
Views
505
Phantom Warrior
P
L
  • Locked
Proposed bill I am giving to my House rep
Replies
0
Views
384
LAR-15
L
L
  • Locked
Proposal to lower US silencer taxes
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Limeyfellow
L
L
  • Locked
Please comment on my proposed bill
Replies
11
Views
468
Henry Bowman
H
L
  • Locked
US silencer taxes
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
LAR-15
L
Back
Top