H.R.152 - Hearing Protection Act (2023)

[Freudianfloyd]

The problem is the government will NEVER give rights or privilege's back. They only take. They all spend all day sitting around thinking of ways to take from the citizens and stay in office while blowing smoke up our skirts telling us they are working for us.

 

[dogtown tom]

The problem is the government will NEVER give rights or privilege's back. They only take. They all spend all day sitting around thinking of ways to take from the citizens and stay in office while blowing smoke up our skirts telling us they are working for us.

Yet for ten years they did.
From 1934 until 2013 ATF held that attaching anything to a pistol enabling it to be shoulder fired was making an SBR.
That first determination letter changed that opinion.

Your premise isn't really accurate as there are many examples of things that were once prohibited, that are now a right:
-alcoholic beverages
-women and minority voting rights
-Interracial marriage
-shopping on Sunday
-birth control pills
- and bestest of all...........................assault weapons.

 

[Middletown]

Am I wrong to worry that this could come back to haunt us with regulations for firearms that are not suppressed and exceed a regulated noise level.

 

[Freudianfloyd]

Yet for ten years they did.
From 1934 until 2013 ATF held that attaching anything to a pistol enabling it to be shoulder fired was making an SBR.
That first determination letter changed that opinion.

Your premise isn't really accurate as there are many examples of things that were once prohibited, that are now a right:
-alcoholic beverages
-women and minority voting rights
-Interracial marriage
-shopping on Sunday
-birth control pills
- and bestest of all...........................assault weapons.

Are any gun owners willing to do what it takes to get those rights back? The way everybody on these forums seemed to bend over and take the SBR ruling without anywhere near as much outrage as should be makes me question that they would.

-speakeasies, rampant bootlegging, major loss of revenue for the government
-Lots of demonstrations, their contribution during the war, opportunity for lots of votes that previously politicians did not have, and I'm sure the husbands caved just like they do now whenever women want something.
-Lynching's, being chased out of town, being thrown in jail, etc.
-most likely businesses lining politicians pockets to get an extra day of sales.
-as for assault weapons, they didn't give any rights back, they just didn't take them a second time when the AWB expired but have been trying to ever since.

What I am saying is these rights were not given back willingly. They gave them back because their hands were either tied, too much bad publicity, or they benefited from them. They did not pass them because they actually wanted these to be rights for anybody. And unfortunately, the media is not on our side.

 

[dogtown tom]

Are any gun owners willing to do what it takes to get those rights back? The way everybody on these forums seemed to bend over and take the SBR ruling without anywhere near as much outrage as should be makes me question that they would.

You know how we know you don't visit THR very often? its not your join date or post count.....it's that question you just asked.
Spend fifteen minutes reading THR and you'll see dozens of posts regarding lawsuits, fundraisers and political action. Ain't no one here laying down.
If you want OMG the sky is falling! there's plenty of that too.

-speakeasies, rampant bootlegging, major loss of revenue for the government
-Lots of demonstrations, their contribution during the war, opportunity for lots of votes that previously politicians did not have, and I'm sure the husbands caved just like they do now whenever women want something.
-Lynching's, being chased out of town, being thrown in jail, etc.
-most likely businesses lining politicians pockets to get an extra day of sales.
-as for assault weapons, they didn't give any rights back, they just didn't take them a second time when the AWB expired but have been trying to ever since.

I have no idea what you are trying to convey. I was responding to you writing "the government will NEVER give rights or privilege's back." and provided examples.

What I am saying is these rights were not given back willingly.
They gave them back because their hands were either tied, too much bad publicity, or they benefited from them. They did not pass them because they actually wanted these to be rights for anybody.

What other form of government would you prefer?
There's a lot of other countries with better systems of government than this one. Can't recall any names but you could probable Google it.

 

[TTv2]

This is pandering plain and simple. They didn't pass it when we help both houses and the oval office, they sure as heck ain't going to pass it now. But it garners votes from gun owners because, hey look, we tried a thing. They have no real intentions of ever passing this. But maybe I'm just cynical...

I dont want to say that the House wouldn't pass it, they did pass HPA or some other suppressor bill in 2017, but then Scalise got shot and Speaker Paul RINO Ryan ran over to the Senate to yank the bill, not that it would ever get 60 votes in the Senate.

So, the problem with Congress and pro 2A bills isn't the House when it's held by the GOP, it's the Senate and the GOP will never get 60 people in that body and even if they did at least 10 would vote against it.

These realities lead me to understand that the only way forward with rolling back provisions of the NFA is thru the judiciary and hope the judges don't take the Bloomberg bribe money.

 

[TTv2]

Robert is exactly correct. Send a check. God forbid that Scotus wiped out the most obnoxious gun laws. There goes the funding raising issue. The NRA become some bullseye and guys shooting ducks and mooses.

As a somewhat political note, the GOP House had no problem passing endless attacks on Obama care to set the stage for a Senate vote (which of course failed and that is not the issue whether you like Obama care). However, they will not set the stage for gun rights. Mitch kept gun bills from consideration. There was a proposed bill that would have voided AWBs (SAGA act) and it never got out of committee.

BTW, there are a fair number of legal scholars who think Kavanaugh and Roberts are very weak on gun rights and that might have kept Scotus from making strong, clear decisions instead of the historical meanderings of Bruen. It was a Kennedy/Steven situation that led to weakness in Heller which is being replayed today.

What decision did you want SCOTUS to make in Bruen? Several people here have told you before that they can't take a case dealing with concealed carry and rule on AWB stuff.

The Bruen decision was about as good as we were going to get, minus nationwide constitutional carry.

With that, I give NY another 10 yrs of their anti conceal carry stuff until Thomas, on his deathbed, slaps them down and makes it and every state Constitutional Carry.

 

[TTv2]

I remember when the same was said of "if ever Colt brings back the Python!". While they have sold, I never saw the flood gates open like was expressed on gun forums. Yes, there will be those folks that put a suppressor on every firearm they own, and some folks will buy one, "just because they can!" now, but I also believe that the use of sub-sonic ammo, is not in the cards for everyone that uses a firearm, nor are they practical for many applications. Still, having the option, without the hassle, is what most of us would like to see.

I would buy one for .45 and .22, but that's about it. I would have to think what centerfire rifles I'd put a can on, I don't think a subsonic .223 is any better than a subsonic .22 or .32 or 7.62.

So, yes, we would probably see a huge demand early on, but after a few months it would die down.

 

[Bfh_auto]

The Democrats of that time waited for years until they had FDR in office and a mid term election. The crime waves from Prohibition violence and Depression Era gangsters was headline news in the 20s and 30s and local police were legitimately outgunned, so there was support back then for greater restrictions on machine guns, but I doubt there was much support for making short barrel stuff and suppressors regulated.

I want to say there's growing support for removing suppressors because in other firearm restrictive countries suppressors are not restricted, but I have no faith in the Congress to ever pass any bill that is pro gun and whenever the Congress comes close to removing something from the NFA some wind up toy gets let loose in a church or a hotel full of guns and bump stocks is discovered in Las Vegas.

Kind of strange isn't it?

 

[Bfh_auto]

I would buy one for .45 and .22, but that's about it. I would have to think what centerfire rifles I'd put a can on, I don't think a subsonic .223 is any better than a subsonic .22 or .32 or 7.62.

So, yes, we would probably see a huge demand early on, but after a few months it would die down.

I don't want one for subsonic use. I want one for my oppressively loud rifles.
22 lr would be nice too.

 

[Tinman357]

Personally, I have never felt the need for a supressor but always supported the effort of others to have them.

Until I used one. I'd like one on my HD pistol as well as making target practice much more pleasant and much less damaging to what little hearing I have left.

I would have several if I could without the wait and expense. Some other countries REQUIRE the use of suppressed arms for all recreational shooting.

Go figure

 

[herrwalther]

Didn't go anywhere when Republicans were in control of both Congressional houses and the White House. I don't see it even getting to Biden's desk. I'll write my Congress critters, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[dogtown tom]

I dont want to say that the House wouldn't pass it, they did pass HPA or some other suppressor bill in 2017, but then Scalise got shot and Speaker Paul RINO Ryan ran over to the Senate to yank the bill, not that it would ever get 60 votes in the Senate.

The HPA 2017 never got out of committee in the House, much less coming to a full vote of the House.

So, the problem with Congress and pro 2A bills isn't the House when it's held by the GOP, it's the Senate and the GOP will never get 60 people in that body and even if they did at least 10 would vote against it.

If the problem isn't the House, why has any annual version of the HPA never even been voted out of a House committee?

 

[old lady new shooter]

A show of support certainly has better potential benefit than abandonment, which shows we lack the will to resist. Let your legislators know your position and keep hope alive.

^^^^^^^
This.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Any district with an anti gun majority, their representative would face political suicide if they voted for it.

Representative: “But it’s to keep shooters from going deaf”.

Constituents: “They’ll go deaf from shooting guns? Good!”

How many districts have an anti-gun majority?

 

[Speedo66]

How many districts have an anti-gun majority?

Probably most big cities on both coasts, a fairly large percentage of the population.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Probably most big cities on both coasts, a fairly large percentage of the population.

A fairly large percentage of the population, but do their representatives make up the same percentage of the House?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Spend fifteen minutes reading THR and you'll see dozens of posts regarding lawsuits, fundraisers and political action. Ain't no one here laying down.

I saw a headline earlier stating that donations to the 2A organizations in connection with this matter already exceed what ATF spent putting the rule together.

 

[Speedo66]

A fairly large percentage of the population, but do their representatives make up the same percentage of the House?

The number of congressional districts is determined by population.

 

[GEM]

Folks want to keep the threat of gun control active for the "Send A Check" hysterical notices you get. It's that simple. Also, the elites of the GOP and Democrats together do form a deeper ruling class and don't really buy into having firearms as a reservoir of average citizen power against a possible government tyranny.

Would the religious police in Iran be beating the women in the streets if the majority of the population was armed?

 

[gifbohane]

For this to become a reality the story about the snowball in hell comes to mind.

 

[dogtown tom]

A fairly large percentage of the population, but do their representatives make up the same percentage of the House?

Almost never.

What are Congressional Districts?
Congressional districts are the 435 areas from which members are elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. After the apportionment of congressional seats among the states, which is based on decennial census population counts, each state with multiple seats is responsible for establishing congressional districts for the purpose of electing representatives. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in a state as practicable. The boundaries and numbers shown for the congressional districts are those specified in the state laws or court orders establishing the districts within each state.

How those district boundaries are drawn is the nasty business known as gerrymandering and can dilute one parties representation while making your parties representation stronger:

 

[dogtown tom]

The number of congressional districts is determined by population.

The number stays at 435 seats.
The distribution of those seats is changed every decade based on the population of your state. Thats why its important to respond to your Census form.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The number of congressional districts is determined by population.

So how did the R's win control of the House?

 

[dogtown tom]

So how did the R's win control of the House?

Uhhhh.........by winning a majority of the seats.

Serious question....how long have you lived in the US?