Republicans push gun silencer bill

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Midwest, Sep 13, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,569
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Here is an news article on the progress of 'Hearing Protection Act' , well it looks like this is getting a hearing unlike the reciprocity bill. This act will replace the "outdated" federal process with the instant NCIC.

    As one would expect there is opposition against it from the usual players including the 'Brady Bunch" and of course from the minority side. But it is making the mainstream news now, and lets hope this passes and gets signed into law.

    Republicans push gun silencer bill; Democrats fire back

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/13/republicans-push-gun-silencer-bill-Democrats-fire-back.html

    "The GOP lawmakers say the bill aims to “cut through the red tape” of owning a suppressor and, if passed, would remove the accessory from the scope of the National Firearms Act. They also say it would replace the “outdated” federal application process with the “instantaneous” National Instant Criminal Background Check."
     
  2. Dexter Winslett

    Dexter Winslett Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Leeds Alabama
    If I had bought them way back..... I would hear better this day. I did finally buy one last year, the wait is too long. Hope it passes.
     
    DoubleMag, JeffG and Midwest like this.
  3. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    I think it will go through. When the time comes for it to hit the floor enough people will write their reps to urge them to support it and not enough people on the other side care enough to do the same (in the same number of people I mean).
     
  4. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    The SHARE Act which is pro 2A legislature intended to provide more rights when traveling between states with different gun laws, allows more liberties on federal lands, and calls for suppressors to be purchased in the same manner as title 1 firearms made it out of committee this past week. The next step is a vote by Congress which may take play in as little as 2-3 weeks. The time to write to reps in now! Hopefully, this will pave the way for more pro 2A legislation. Write to your reps!
     
  5. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,120
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Should have no problem in the House.
    But, will face a rocky road in the Senate, where far too many (r)s are RINOs.

    Against that, SHARE has some carve-outs specifically aimed at shooters in the 2% & 3% (which encompasses our political class).

    I want it to happen. My Congressman and Senators want it to happen; but, will still take tough sledding.

    Particularly so that it's not a "victory" for "our side" like FOPA was (where all "we" got was elimination of the requirement to log ammo sales in a a Bound Book).
     
  6. bnolsen

    bnolsen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    473
    Location:
    Colorado
    There's no such thing as silencers, only suppressors. If fox is advertising this as a silencer bill that could be serious trouble.
     
  7. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    Good grief. Can we PLEASE stop saying this stuff? Hiram Maxim called them SILENCERS when he invented them. The exact degree of silencing isn't what matters. Stop apologizing to the anti-gun crowd by telling them, essentially, "Oh don't worry, these things don't really WORK!" :scrutiny:

    maximsilpic.jpg
    (Borrowed from Ian's site at Forgotten Weapons, hopefully with his approval!)
     
    Cowhide Cliff, v35, s76 and 3 others like this.
  8. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    We need to call them Brady checks; makes it harder for them to claim NICS is too inadequate if their name is attached.

    TCB
     
    Theohazard likes this.
  9. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    ...as though NFRTR is somehow more capable. A buddy went to register a bare receiver on Form 1 for a build, finds out it had been registered by the original manufacturer about a decade ago & never transferred on Form 3/etc subsequently. As far as owners, I understand the ATF sees the same stuff as NICS, it just takes them a year to run the instant check because of an intentionally antiquated paper-based system.

    TCB
     
  10. Corpral_Agarn

    Corpral_Agarn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,301
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Fingers and toes crossed
     
  11. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,582
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    "(Gun control advocate) Chipman said the bill “would make silencers more readily available to criminals because for the first time in 80 years private parties could sell these guns without background checks on the internet and in gun shows and this has never been the case before."

    So now a silencer/suppressor is a gun?

    Looks like the bill would still require a background form. Wonder how this will shake out for homemade ones?

    “There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” Kristin Brown, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year." Really? I'd love her to stand next to me when I fire off a .357 and hear her quote then.
     
  12. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,547
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Don't worry about it or make issues about the details. Get something passed now! improve it later.
     
  13. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Bingo Wally! Let's take what we can get because you know the gun grabbers will take every single thing they can.

    I would imagine if it passes, silencers could also be constructed under the same provisions as title I firearms. However, I'll worry about that if Christmas comes and the it passes.
     
  14. v35

    v35 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    everydefense likes this.
  15. Theohazard

    Theohazard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,849
    Location:
    Western PA
    Well, to be fair, they are firearms under federal law. But yeah, I know what you mean here.

    To me, my silencers are simply accessories, so I sometimes find myself forgetting that they're legally firearms. And being Title II firearms, they're even more regulated than normal Title I firearms are.

    Man, I hope this law gets passed. I'm not holding my breath, though...
     
    everydefense likes this.
  16. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,120
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    You stand on one side, and I'll stand on the other with an LE6920 with plain-jane 55gr fmj (total sound impulse is actually higher than a .44mag).

    She also probably has no idea how much hearing loss she already has from concerts and headphones and the like.
     
    Theohazard likes this.
  17. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    17,425
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    I think there's a lot of room between calling them ineffective and letting the uninitiated believe that Hollywood's representation is accurate.

    I explain that they generally make the weapon hearing safe and far more pleasant to shoot, but that .22 rimfire aside, you'll absolutely hear a suppressed firearm discharge from a decent distance, including within a structure.

    I had some family out a couple of weeks ago from NY, NY. My uncle had shot many, many years ago, but his wife and my cousin never. I had cans on just about everything, and they were rather shocked out how loud a gun still is, especially rifles. They were expecting the movie quiet whisper. It definitively removed their impression of being able to stealthily execute someone in the next room or a restaurant booth with nobody hearing the shot. I also had one of our shop post sample M16s with us and was able to demonstrate that full auto from shoulder fired weapon in real life is quite different from the silver screen depictions.
     
  18. ScrapMetalSlug

    ScrapMetalSlug Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Flyover Country
    I hope this passes, its hard to say if it has a chance or not. Bills get introduced all the time for show and go nowhere. Id love to have a 22 supressor for dispatching squirrels and vermin without ear plugs, and without bothering the neighbors. It isnt worth a $200 tax to me, but if i could just buy one with an ncis check, id do it in a heartbeat.
     
    everydefense likes this.
  19. Klint Beastwood

    Klint Beastwood member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2017
    Messages:
    622
    I don't feel that strongly about the semantics one way or another, but legally arent they just a class 3 item that happens to be a firearm accessory? That would be like saying a class 5 item.. ie C4 is a firearm. Everyone knows class 5 items are explosives. Title 2 should be renamed as NFA Firearms AND ACCESSORIES or something to the effect.
    However I dont really care one way or another.
     
  20. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    Huh?

    The "Class" thing has to do with the Special Occupational Tax which a dealer or manufacturer has to pay in order to register to sell or make those items.

    Hence a firearms importer (Type 8 or 11) can pay the Special Occupational Tax Class 1 to import machine guns and such.
    An FFL type 1 or 2 dealer can pay the SOT Class 3 and then sell National Firearms Act (or GCA Title II if you prefer) items.
    A licensed manufacturer (FFL Type 7 or 10) can pay the SOT Class 2 in order to make NFA items.

    There are no "Class 3" guns, though lots of guys mistakenly call them that. There are "Title II" firearms, which is just another way of saying NFA stuff like SBR, SBS, and machine guns.

    I don't know where the concept of "Class 5" came from or that it would cover explosives. I've not heard that before.

    Explosives like hand grenades are NFA items under the heading of "Destructive Devices." They can be made Type 20 FFLs (high explosives) who've also paid their SOT Class 2 tax. And sold by licensed explosives dealers who also pay the SOT 3 tax as an NFA dealer.
     
  21. Theohazard

    Theohazard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,849
    Location:
    Western PA
    No, legally they're firearms. Here's the definition of "firearm" under federal law (emphasis added):

    18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(3):

    "The term 'firearm' means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  22. Theohazard

    Theohazard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,849
    Location:
    Western PA
    Actually, explosives are firearms under federal law. Explosives are classified by federal law as destructive devices, and destructive devices are considered firearms.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

    And like Sam, I've also never heard of a "Class 5" item. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing in federal firearms law. If I'm wrong and federal firearms laws mention "Class 5" firearms anywhere, I'd be curious to see a link.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  23. Klint Beastwood

    Klint Beastwood member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2017
    Messages:
    622
    Haha no you guys are right.
    When i said class 5 i was thinking of the military's classification for them, not NFA items...id just got done with some expenditure reports so, it was on my head. I didn't think to clarify or that it wasnt common knowledge to the crowd. My bad guys.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_supply
    Nothing to do with the convo, and nothing to really do with federal law although there are some (a lot) ATF guidelines.

    Besides that, for sure. I'm not disputing the litigation of what suppressors, or even explosives are considered. I'm just saying, that "I", a nobody, thinks that its silly because, say a suppressor, is an all actuality a accessory and not an actual a firearm. What I was saying in the beginning was basically saying that it doesn't "bother me" that they are classified as such, but maybe they could have...reinvented the classification a little differently. Maybe.
     
  24. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    Yeah...it is nonsensical from any physical understanding. Only in the sense of legal terms of art does it halfway make sense. However, changing the law to align the legal terms with physical reality is probably too large a hill to climb, relative to the benefits even we would get out of it. At least for now, the government isn't going to give up the ability to regulate silencers, and to make them NOT "firearms" would require building a new regulatory scheme for an item that isn't a firearm, and it's just easier to go with the status quo.
     
    Klint Beastwood likes this.
  25. GunnyUSMC

    GunnyUSMC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    8,809
    Location:
    Denham Springs LA
    I have some money sitting on the side just in case the bill passes. I know two Manufactures here in LA. and will most likely get a great deal from one or both of them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice