gregp74
Member
There was a buzz about this time last year, but I don't think I ever heard any more about the attempt to get suppressors removed from the NFA. Did the bill die or is it still being pursued?
What ever happened with the Hearing Protection Act?
- Thread starter gregp74
- Start date
- Status
Taurus 617 CCW
Member
Not sure. I was wondering the same myself. I suppose since we haven't heard much about it that it didn't go anywhere.
Red Wind
Member
I read it has a few more co sponsors. Maybe early in 2017 it can get some legs.
All GOP in January. We need action this time around.
All GOP in January. We need action this time around.
This was going nowhere but it might have a better chance these days. Hard to tell given the dynamics of national politics on such things. I don't think Trump's election is likely to change that much as far as federal gun law goes, although it is unlikely to get any worse.
OP
OP
gregp74
Member
Well perhaps now with the new look in Washington things will get done.
dastardly-D
Member
...and that house mouse Ryan better get with the Trump bandwagon !
Twiki357
Member
I’ve never been able to understand congressional procedures, but I think it would have to be re-introduced after the new congress is sworn in after 1/20/17.
wingmasterjr11
Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2015
- Messages
- 1
I read today that the bill had purposely gotten tabled because Obama would veto it. The speculation is that it will be brought forward in 2017 and will be passed now the Republicans control the Presidency, Senate and House.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Was H.R. 3799. Likely to be reintroduced next year.
That's just it. The NRA-backed Trump Admin is unlikely to put up roadblocks to gun-reform legislation - which removing ("de-listing") suppressors as a defined type of Class 3 "firearm" under the NFA to promote auditory health ("hearing safety") surely would be.
Without a veto threat, as was the case under Obama, the real question is: do de-listing advocates have enough votes to pass this legislation in the House, and then in the Senate, to get it to Trump's desk for signature?
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
I'll be more than happy to contact my Congresscritters and tell them to vote YES on the Hearing Protection Act bill(s).
vito
Member
The key to this legislation, and other pro-gun bills as well, is whether or not Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is more beholden to the American people than to the elite club of the U.S. Senate. While Harry Reid said openly that if Hilary Clinton were elected and the Dems took control of the Senate he would eliminate the filibuster rule, allowing Supreme Court nominees and other matters to be passed by a simple majority vote. Will McConnell be willing to do the same? If he does there is virtually no limit as to the good laws that can be passed immediately upon President Trump being inaugurated. If McConnell tries to hide behind Senate traditions and refuses to act, the Democrat minority will be able to stymie every move by Trump and the Republicans since the Republicans cannot ever get 60 votes in the Senate without it being part of the Democrat agenda.
Since the liberal media will go ballistic at ANY pro-gun bill passed and signed into law, my feeling is that a bunch of pro-gun laws should be pushed through immediately and let the critics howl and then they will get over it. My priority is the national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, allowing us to remain U.S. citizens even when traveling to the Peoples Republics of NY, NJ, MD, RI, MA, CT, HI, CA and maybe a few other anti-gun states. Legalizing suppressors would be great, as would improving the NICS system to add mental illness and make it truly instant with no waiting periods permitted to be added to the process by the States. Then open carry being legalized nationally. That's about as far as I thought about so far.
Since the liberal media will go ballistic at ANY pro-gun bill passed and signed into law, my feeling is that a bunch of pro-gun laws should be pushed through immediately and let the critics howl and then they will get over it. My priority is the national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, allowing us to remain U.S. citizens even when traveling to the Peoples Republics of NY, NJ, MD, RI, MA, CT, HI, CA and maybe a few other anti-gun states. Legalizing suppressors would be great, as would improving the NICS system to add mental illness and make it truly instant with no waiting periods permitted to be added to the process by the States. Then open carry being legalized nationally. That's about as far as I thought about so far.
HankB
Member
If the Democrats filibuster anything, McConnell should make them do their filibuster in the traditional manner - in other words, they stand up and talk until they can't talk any more. (See the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington for an example.)
And in the back room, away from the press, the GOP leadership should tell the DEM leadership that if they make a habit of filibustering - they can kiss goodbye ANY legislation they favor. Including earmarks in the budget.
As for the Hearing Protection Act, I saw on another website that they expect it will come up within a couple of months of the inauguration; Trump probably won't actively campaign for it, but if and when it hits his desk, he's very likely to sign it.
And in the back room, away from the press, the GOP leadership should tell the DEM leadership that if they make a habit of filibustering - they can kiss goodbye ANY legislation they favor. Including earmarks in the budget.
As for the Hearing Protection Act, I saw on another website that they expect it will come up within a couple of months of the inauguration; Trump probably won't actively campaign for it, but if and when it hits his desk, he's very likely to sign it.
SwaneeSR
Member
Politics aside, supressors are just a safety device. What is the big deal? they are in use in Europe. I have ringing in my ears, I would like the option in using the devices hunting and at the range.
If it wasn't for the movies, they wouldn't be on the naughty list.
If it wasn't for the movies, they wouldn't be on the naughty list.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Toss in a few million in pork to equip our basic troops & guardsmen with silencers, and I'll bet it'll sail right on through with a Republican president. As it is, it'll be too easy for a showboating Democrat to filibuster it (also too tempting), and I doubt there's sixty votes to override them (nor enough political will to press the issue at that point; silencers are still a very niche thing to a subset of a subset of Americans)
JN01
Member
I believe that is only because the red tape and $200 tax stamp drive the cost above what most people are willing to pay. Eliminate those barriers, the supply will increase, prices will fall, and many more people will be using them.
Suppressors are hearing protection devices, just like ear plugs. However, they protect the hearing of everyone, not just the shooter. It's like putting plugs on everyone in the vicinity. This would help mitigate one of the complaints hurled by people when they live near a current or proposed shooting range. This might help us gain more shooting ranges, which increases proficiency, exposure to the sport, safety, 2A advocacy, etc.
One question I have is, if HPA becomes law, what happens to all those existing tax stamps? Can people discard them and treat existing tax-stamped suppressors as "over the counter"?
One question I have is, if HPA becomes law, what happens to all those existing tax stamps? Can people discard them and treat existing tax-stamped suppressors as "over the counter"?
Cannibul
Member
Yep.
Most people would be surprised how many suppressors there are out there. Somewhere around 800,000 plus.
If one can just walk into the LGS and buy one, even if it involves a 4473 and check then you'll see a lot more out there. Prices will drop. Most suppressor companies are pretty small shops. When Ruger, Remington, Savage, Mossberg Smith &Wesson, and everyone else is free to make them the supply will be much greater and prices will be in free fall.
Exactly!
That's similar to the situation in the UK. We have less of a suppressor market, but the prices are way lower than the US.
I am doing research on suppressors for .22LR, and if I had to pay US prices I wouldn't have the 13 cans I own currently. Sure, they are licensed in the UK, but to put 10 of them on license I paid an admin fee of £26 and waited less than a month. After that I had freedom to buy whichever ones I wanted...
Crowcifier666
Member
They already do.
From what I've heard, and this is unconfirmed at the moment, the HPA and National Carry have a very real chance of being passed early next year. If so that would be awesome. I doubt we'll ever see the NFA done away with but opening it to new registrations would be nice too.
AlexanderA
Member
The NFA, at root, is a tax law. Therefore, any changes to the scope of the NFA (for example, removing suppressors from it) would have budgetary implications. NFA reform could be included as part of the "budget reconciliation" process, which is not subject to filibuster. That is, if there is the political will to do so. The NRA has to take the lead on this, and push it hard, both in the Trump administration and in the Republican congress. (While we're at it, we could repeal the Hughes Amendment as well.)
- Status
