Valid point. I'm getting started on two more cans at the end of the week. I can't see this becoming a reality by the time I get the go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
Printable View
Valid point. I'm getting started on two more cans at the end of the week. I can't see this becoming a reality by the time I get the go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
Bill has been reintroduced as of 1/9/2017
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ion-act-hr-367
I will happily eat crow if this passes. Finger crossed.
I would too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
Here's a blurb by SilencerCo on the reintro of the HPA:
HPA REINTRODUCED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday was a momentous occasion for Second Amendment supporters across the country: the Hearing Protection Act was reintroduced to the 115th Congress as H.R. 367. Originally introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) in 2015, this historic piece of legislation is now sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) and Rep. John Carter (TX-31), and a long list of co-sponsors. Along with H.R. 367, a companion bill (S.59) has been introduced by Senator Mike Crapo (ID) to the Senate.
The HPA seeks to remove suppressors from the NFA and instead have their purchase and transfer treated the same as a long gun - no more $200 tax or extensive waiting period - customers will now undergo an instantaneous NICS background check. Also included in the bill language is a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased a suppressor after October 22, 2015 - the original date of introduction.
SilencerCo, along with many like-minded members of Congress, believes that citizens should not be taxed for trying to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights. Even though the House, Senate, and Presidency will be controlled by sympathetic advocates for the Second Amendment, bills take time to become law. Although we are optimistic about the Hearing Protection Act, it will take time. Between now and the passage of this bill, we encourage our customers to continue to support the industry and to take advantage of the $200 tax refund provision.
What can you do to help?
Go to fightthenoise.org and take action to write your Representative and Senators and tell them you support the Hearing Protection Act.
By tomorrow I'll be at 6 months waiting.... The government doesn't need to regulate suppressors. The long wait time for approval is an utterly shameful display of government arrogance and inefficiency. The background check also is excessive but that could go away in time if the trend of the expansion of 2A rights continues.
I've sent emails to both Senators and my Representative. I didn't see any of their names on the list. Hopefully they'll respond favorably. Enzi and Barrasso had cosponsored the previous HPA, and Liz Cheney is new so I'm not sure where she stands on suppressors. She did just cosponsor the concealed carry reciprocity bill.
The thing to remember is the NFA was enacted to discourage ownership not facilitate it , it was never about anything other than making the process as painful and cost prohibitive as possible .
I give the bill slim to no chance of passing , the government never lets go once they have their fingers in something .
But have you contacted your congressmen to voice stance on the matter? Or are you just going to sit on your pessimism and do nothing?
The NFA was enacted by idiots who used scare tactics, and fake statistics to get it passed. The laws can be reversed. It happened with prohibition.
Yeah, but the asshats who would do so cannot have someone else drink for them; they can have someone else use a machine gun on our families though and have no need to do it themselves -- no need for us to have solid protection and ability to fight back.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmg8550
Done more than my fair share . But I also understand reality as well , and part of that reality is the ASA are the people that opened the ATF's eyes to how people were using trusts and brought about the changes to how they are handled now . Which in turn caused all the panic buying that jacked the wait times up again .
If the bill passes suppressor availability is going to get worse because all the panic buyers are going to buy up all the available stock and then the manufacturers will have to catch up with demand . The other thing is the cost of quality products will only marginally change because the forms to manufacture and transfer dealer to dealer are free and the SOT costs and now the added ITAR stuff is not going to change . Yes you will get some new companies that will make low cost stuff but it will be louder and less durable than the quality stuff . The American suppressor market is what it is because for the most part a suppressor is a forever purchase and not something that is easily or cheaply repaired or upgraded .
It's a pipe dream to think the government will deregulate the suppressor industry which is what it would take to significantly reduce the cost to the end user .
Just look at all the company's that started building AR's when the insanity was going on , how are they doing now that the bottom has fallen out of it .
Easy way to contact representatives.
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/...Id=273153&lp=0
Got a mail out from Lamborn w/ a detachable post card. In the extra comments section I mentioned this bill.
It will pass. Its the best thing and the least amount of work to shut up the pro 2nd amendment crowd.
I see it as a good step toward restoring our constitutional right.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
It won't shut us up, it will just make us quieter.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Bu-dump-bump-ch
Here is another piece of reality for you , suppressors are considered dangerous weapons under Colorado law ,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/...R.S.+18-12-101
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/...R.S.+18-12-102
and the NFA transfer is considered an affirmative defense which allows the possession of them , no NFA equals no affirmative defense and suppressors are now prohibited . Ain't reality grand .
https://youtu.be/g9MoCyr4-F0
There is a part at 1:10 that says it would remove a tax and record keeping from states. That might be a start to removing it as a dangerous weapon.
Nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
There is no tax or record keeping at the state level in Co and there is no preemption clause in the bill , the law will have to change at the state and local level also .
The state will have to change the law and then deal with all the law suits from the municipalities because of the state level preemption law that is on the books here . What do you think are the chances of Denver and most of the metro area not throwing a fit about suppressors being non regulated , they don't like it the way it is now .
The concept behind the bill is good but the execution is crap . And the end result here is be careful what you wish for when you don't do the research and may end up worse than when you started . So take it with a grain of salt when your representative says they support this because you can be certain they know what the CRS says and the end result of the bill passing .
Link to contact your representatives and Senator about this very important issue.
http://www.fightthenoise.org/take-ac...eid=ce1cf56aea
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Jeez Chuck, you're killin my buzz [gohome]
I though I might actually show up at a match with a can if this passes...
Bust out the Visa and get busy .Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
I'd like nothing better than to ring Shane up and get a new can when ever I liked but this is easy political capitol for these idiots to bargain with , if they bargain it away for something else there is no loss or gain with leaving things the way they are .
The thing that worries me most is if this passes and suppressors come off the NFA does that mean the previous transfers are null and void in the eyes of Colo and the affirmative defense for people that have them go away and instant criminal status happens ?
Is there a precedent for a federal law being no longer applied to an item and then States using existing laws, or creating laws to ban the private, otherwise legal ownership of said items?Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
If current legal NFA ownership is currently overiding Colorado view of suppressors as dangerous weapons, then wouldn't the Feds view of suppressors as nothing more than the purchase of a handgun, or long gun wouldn't that also preempt Colorado law?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
You mean kind of like how federal law doesn't restrict owning a magazine with a capacity greater than 15 rounds but Colorado does?Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
Aside from the AWB there was never a federal ban on magazine capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
Err "restriction on magazine capacity"
But I get your point, makes sense.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
NFA items are approved / allowed under state laws. As CA, NY and other states do not allow any or specific ones. WA last year passed a law prohibiting Form 1's . It's the fed's that approve one's application, the states allow ownership.
The pot shops in Co are a perfect example of conflict between state and federal laws .
The thing with an " affirmative defense " in Co law does not mean so much as to assume it is legal but that it is an acceptable excuse . Both Aurora and Denver in the past have seized Legally transferred and possessed NFA items that people had to go to court to get returned .
The problem with the bill is there is no preemption clause in it and that means state law would come in , Like the multiple states now that prohibit NFA items all together .
What needs to happen is that the NFA/GCA/etc. need to be repealed in their entirety (not just unconstitutional, but unlike most of the bogus Nazi claims being thrown around in the media lately, my understanding is that the NFA can be directly tied to Nazi-era Germany's gun laws), and at the same time, a replacement law enacted to explicitly prohibit any other Federal OR State level restrictions (for law abiding citizens with no violent/DV related felonies) on any firearms, destructive devices, or related items which are in common use by any Military branch. A side benefit of this would likely reinvigorate small-arms development in the private sector beyond just basic and/or cosmetic enhancements to existing platforms.
This would also be fully consistent amd defensible with regard to both the letter and intent of the Constitution/BoR, from multiple points and perspectives, and could completely nullify any State-level bullshit. Fuck them and their utterly unconstitutional "dangerous/deadly weapon" bullshit....
Also, I get that some folks have made a significant investment in Pre-86' items no longer available (and thus vastily and artificially inflated in value due to laws of supply and demand), and I'm sure this only applies to a small subset of those individuals, but holy shit, they need to be willing to take one for the fucking team and stop lobbying to keep those laws in place just to keep the prices/value high for those items. I mean, file an insurance/loss claim, write it off for tax purposes (not 100% sure if thats possible), but damn, there's only one "right" side on this issue, the alterative is utterly hypocritical and the antithesis of adherence to constitutional & American principles....
ETA: Just to qualify that last statement, I think folks from all walks can agree that there's a metric shit-ton of BS laws on the books at all levels (I'll refrain from quoting "Dr. Ferris"), but if someone has no affinity towards, or respect for the bedrock laws and charter of our nation, which incidentally define the entirety of the foundational structure of our government and upon which all other laws are based (and thus provides them with legitimacy - both laws and the legislators themselves), then those individuals can either get themselves right in the head, or can GTFO and go somewhere more in line with their world view...
The National Firearms Act of 1934 has nothing to do with Nazi's and everything to do with prohibition and the shity economy of the late 20's and early 30's right here in the USA .
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ms+Act+of+1934
And the supreme court has already seen a case and ruled on the constitutionality of the law in 1939 ,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
Gun control laws in the US have always been a knee jerk reaction by politicians to a perceived problem that they just have to do something about not some grand Nazi conspiracy . Is there a financial interest by some to remove the NFA , maybe but the buyers and sellers of 50 K plus collectable full auto's are a minuscule part of the gun owning public . Did the NFA and more importantly the 86 ban on newly constructed full auto kill private small arms development in the US , absolutely . The thing here is people knowing how the government operates and them never releasing control of something once they get their fingers in it and only continually making things worse even when saying they will make it all better , look at the health care debacle that went from repeal to repeal and replace .
It is always funny to me where you get all the people thumping their chests about states rights and how the founding fathers put that in the constitution for a reason , which I whole heartily agree with , just look at any of the pot threads on here for many examples of this but as soon as it goes the other way and state law is the hang up its the job of the feds to remedy it with federal law . This is how we got in this place to begin with and the goal should be to eliminate the federal laws beyond the constitutional reach of the government not make it larger .
And the supreme court has already seen a case and ruled on the constitutionality of the law in 1939
While it may never happen in the next few years. The Supreme Court was my reason for voting Trump. There's 1 to possibly 2-3 nominations waiting for the incoming president. Having a 5-4 is nice, having a 6-3 would be ideal for gun owners, Hopefully for states like CA & NY, as laws become more restrictive for those who follow the law.
The court case was almost a slam dunk that would have struck down the law . The defendant , a depression era moonshiner arrested for a short barreled shotgun was a no show and a default judgment was found against him . There are many legal historians that have looked at the case and pretty much all agree that if he would have showed up the NFA of 34 would have been struck down .
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by DireWolf
Well, it depends. Turns out that the Nazi weapon law was used as a template for the gun control act of 1968. JPFO did an excellent job of translating the Nazi weapon law and placing it side-by-side with GCA68, even includes the untranslated version for those doubting thomas' that can read german.Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
Turns out that even the Library of Congress was in on the act, translating the german for then Senator Dodd -- all fully documented.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/gateway.htm
O2
Just because the GCA68 is vastly similar to the Nazi era stuff does not make a Nazi conspiracy , all the nations that restrict firearms have vastly similar laws , look at most of Europe where some of these laws were in place for decades before WW2 .
I agree to a point, and think that prohibition in general is a bit ridiculous; That said, there's somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison there, as there are no constitutional protections that I'm aware of which cover the "Right" to get inebriated (although if getting smashed makes you happy, there might be a viable argument there as long as it doesn't nullify the rights of anyone else...), whereas the RTKBA is explicitly codified.Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
It's not about "remediating" social issues, and I agree that we have way too many laws on the books as it is - this would be something simple to explicitly prevent subversion of the restrictions put into place by the BoR, and to directly provide for swift & harsh punative action against ANYONE (legislators, judges, etc.) acting to deliberately subvert those protections.
This is why I believe it's doable with the proper SC makeup. I also think (non-attorney opinion, so I may be missing something) that any American citizen would have proper standing to bring action against this without needing to be a criminal defendant, simply because it directly affects and inhibits our rights which have been codified in the BoR.Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
Thank you. I knew it was in there somewhere, but must have been mis-remembering (I'm more of a "hobby scholar" and by no means a legal expert)Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
I don't think there's any "Nazi Conspiracy" as such, but evil begets evil, and in my opinion completely delegitimizes any derivatives - "fruits from the poison tree", as it were....Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
For example, kiri-sute gomen existed long before Nazis, Communism, etc., but that doesn't mean we should be willing to accept as law anything which is similar or derivative of that, as that would be about as antithetical as I can possibly imagine to the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness....
Guess you missed the "well depends" part of the sentence. Appears that it was used to help write GCA68.Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
O2
The example of the pot threads was about the states rights provisions in the constitution not about dope being legal or not , don't care one way or the other there . The point is you can't have it both ways either the feds are in your business or there not , I prefer not .
To get the case before the supreme court there will need to be another agreaved party and the process started all over again . And now even the conservative justice's are more liberal than what was in place in 1939 .
Government is about power and control and with ours turning from public service as originally designed to a career path is why we're sliding down this path
Untill that changes we're pretty well screwed . The apathy of the general public and the free shit army that have figured out they can vote themselves other people's money are going to be hard to change .
Chuck, Did see your new title? Fucking classic. Must be Hoser...
Yes I did and yes he did .
Agreed. It was extremely important to not give the Dems a chance to replace Scalia with another Sotomayor or Kagan. Getting to replace Ginsberg or Kennedy with someone like Scalia or Alito would restore balance and be a Godsend. I repeat -- RESTORE balance. Obama's and Clinton's appointments threw the Court off-balance in the first place and the Bush appointments haven't helped offset that as hoped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo