Hearing Protection Act

[gravedancer]

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.

[jfwright1955]

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.

[Snurd]

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. Unfortunately I think that's only one for us.


Sent from iSnurd

[jfwright1955]

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. 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.

[Snurd]

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. 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.

Or the diaper fund.


Sent from iSnurd

[jfwright1955]

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. 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.

Or the diaper fund.


Sent from iSnurd

[Karl]

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.

[Snurd]

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

[ingfam03]

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

[bagpiper]

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

[Snurd]

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