Hearing Protection Act

We will try to post current legislative bills that relate to Gun Control issues in this Forum. This includes bills in the Utah Legislature and U.S. Congress.

Hearing Protection Act

Postby gravedancer » Sat 14 Jan 2017 2:23 pm

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017 ... ll-dnt.cnn

Scant details in the video, but it sounds like its an attempt to undo the NFA and the accompanying regulation on suppressors.
Image
http://bit.ly/2vHUiug will get you around the auto filtering of the domain on this site
gravedancer
Sniper
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2011 1:46 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby jfwright1955 » Sat 14 Jan 2017 2:52 pm

An article on The Washington Free Beacon website "Republicans Introduce Bill to Reform Silencer Laws to Both Houses of Congress" seems to suggestion the same. About time suppressors came off the list. Let's hope it's the first of a few more goodies to come off over the next 4-8 years.
John
NRA RSO
No one should make decisions for us when it comes to guns and gun carry. If we do things we're not comfortable with because someone told us it's 'right' it becomes a distraction in an event where clarity and simplicity is needed.
User avatar
jfwright1955
Sniper
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun 13 Jan 2013 9:15 am
Location: Marana, AZ

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby Snurd » Sat 14 Jan 2017 5:50 pm

It's being put out there again. I believe it was introduced in October of 2015. If it passes this time, anyone who bought a suppressor after the bill was first introduced will get the $200 back for each suppressor purchased. :D Unfortunately I think that's only one for us.


Sent from iSnurd
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby jfwright1955 » Sat 14 Jan 2017 6:46 pm

Snurd wrote:If it passes this time, anyone who bought a suppressor after the bill was first introduced will get the $200 back for each suppressor purchased. :D Unfortunately I think that's only one for us.
Sent from iSnurd

Well, that's $200 to go toward a new toy. Oh, wait. You've got a little one now. I guess it goes to the college fund instead. :lol:
John
NRA RSO
No one should make decisions for us when it comes to guns and gun carry. If we do things we're not comfortable with because someone told us it's 'right' it becomes a distraction in an event where clarity and simplicity is needed.
User avatar
jfwright1955
Sniper
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun 13 Jan 2013 9:15 am
Location: Marana, AZ

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby Snurd » Sat 14 Jan 2017 6:47 pm

jfwright1955 wrote:
Snurd wrote:If it passes this time, anyone who bought a suppressor after the bill was first introduced will get the $200 back for each suppressor purchased. :D Unfortunately I think that's only one for us.
Sent from iSnurd

Well, that's $200 to go toward a new toy. Oh, wait. You've got a little one now. I guess it goes to the college fund instead. :lol:

Or the diaper fund. :shock:


Sent from iSnurd
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby jfwright1955 » Sat 14 Jan 2017 6:50 pm

Snurd wrote:
jfwright1955 wrote:
Snurd wrote:If it passes this time, anyone who bought a suppressor after the bill was first introduced will get the $200 back for each suppressor purchased. :D Unfortunately I think that's only one for us.
Sent from iSnurd

Well, that's $200 to go toward a new toy. Oh, wait. You've got a little one now. I guess it goes to the college fund instead. :lol:

Or the diaper fund. :shock:


Sent from iSnurd

:spit:
John
NRA RSO
No one should make decisions for us when it comes to guns and gun carry. If we do things we're not comfortable with because someone told us it's 'right' it becomes a distraction in an event where clarity and simplicity is needed.
User avatar
jfwright1955
Sniper
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun 13 Jan 2013 9:15 am
Location: Marana, AZ

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby Karl » Sun 15 Jan 2017 4:24 am

It will be funny to hear what Schumer and Pelosi have to say about this. They will probably think the dam has burst with the GOP take-over of The White House as well. Serves them right -- too many gun control attempts in the past -- and now the pendulum is swinging completely the other way legislatively.

I would like to see a Federally imposed reciprocity bill, which states that if you have a CFP in any state, then it must be honored in each of the other 49 states and DC. The justification being that since your State did such a thorough job of vetting you, therefore you deserve to have full 2nd Amendment "keep AND bear" rights everywhere you go.

I don't care if Californians or New Yorkers are not permitted to carry in public. I do care that if I need to visit there that I get to carry in public. Those are two of the worst crime rat holes in the Nation.

Sound suppressors and flash suppressors are small potatoes compared with national reciprocity. National reciprocity could save your life.

Even so, a $200.00 tax refund would buy a big box of ammo for your pistol or your carbine. Good luck with that.
Karl
Marksman
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu 06 Oct 2016 12:45 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby Snurd » Sun 15 Jan 2017 9:34 am

Here is a link to make it easy to write to your legislators. At the bottom of the page it asks for your info, and it will automatically find your legislators and write a letter. You can change or add/subtract what you want. Please sign this and send the letters asking for the HPA to be supported.

http://www.fightthenoise.org/take-action/


Sent from iSnurd
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby ingfam03 » Sun 15 Jan 2017 8:48 pm

I have been thinking about this ever sents I heard about this act. Before I get into this I ever body on on this forum, to know that I want supresors to be treated just like any other accessories.

Ok, so hear goes, is it just me or does any body else see, the government taking advantage of this act and making supresors mandatory. The government never seems to miss a chance to take control where ever they can. I think a mandatory supresor law would be equally as bad as what we have now.

So am I just being paranoid? Or just old enough, and seen enough to be concerned? Remember the old saying be careful what you wish for.

Just my two cents

Morgan
ingfam03
Marksman
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed 09 Jan 2013 9:18 am
Location: Brigham City, Utah

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby bagpiper » Sun 15 Jan 2017 10:14 pm

Of course, the great advantage to getting surpressors off the NFA list is not the $200 tax stamp.

The big advantage, over than the principled improvement in respect for our rights, is reducing the paperwork and waiting time, along with the red tape, storage and liability requirements, and so on. With an increased market for surpressors, we might well expect to see an increase number of manufacturers with subsequent drop in prices.

I doubt they will be mandatory. But they might well become standard. I'm told--haven't confirmed-that in England, the rare folks who do have guns legally are kind of expected to use surpressors as a matter of courtesy. After all, we all like classic hot rods, but why would a civilized person drive one around without a muffler?

I hate to admit it, but I haven't read the bill yet. Can anyone tell me, does it treat surpressors like accessors that can be bought on-line? Or does it treat them like regular, non-NFA guns that still have to go through an FFL?

I expect this will pass this year or next and become law in some form.

Who would have thought or hoped for such back in '94 as entire groups of guns and normal sized magazines were being outlawed?

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Hearing Protection Act

Postby Snurd » Mon 16 Jan 2017 2:57 am

bagpiper wrote:
I hate to admit it, but I haven't read the bill yet. Can anyone tell me, does it treat surpressors like accessors that can be bought on-line? Or does it treat them like regular, non-NFA guns that still have to go through an FFL?


Charles


I can't find the bill's text for 2017. It may be that they are using the same wording of the 2015 bill. Maybe my Google-fu is lacking this early in the morning. But the previous wording says they want silencers treated like long guns.


Sent from iSnurd
Snurd
Posse
 
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2008 10:24 am
Location: SLC


Return to Utah & Federal Bills For or Against Gun Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron