Hearing Protection Act

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

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.

---

you mean re-writing the .gov's argument instead of simply ruling on it? Roberts should be tried for treason and hung til dead.

Give me the job. I would be a great SCJ. I will have the Racist Sotomayer and gun grabber Kagen shooting three gun competition with in a year.

Some more reality for you , https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...o7d9qim9lI&s=1 , even the ASA says the HPA is a non starter untill at best after the mid terms in 2018 .

Because politicians are cowards and only care about protecting their jobs, not our hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

Because politicians are cowards and only care about protecting their jobs, not our hearing.

---

They don't care about saving us money either. We are just sheep that need watched until they need us slaughtered.

I originally supported the HPA because I misunderstood what it actually would do -- probably because the proposed law is so utterly vague and doesn't address state consequences. As seen on page 3 or 4 of this thread, I provided quotes from the sponsor's General Counsel on the legal ramifications of its passing which dig into those consequential concerns. The end result is that it will effectively place NO Federal backstops against a state level ban, and only shifts the blame of unconstitutional banning and/or taxation, permitting, etc. into the state's control.

Some states already ban. CO doesn't, but I believe that's because it hasn't been a whack-a-mole issue due to the backstop of Federal regulation.

I foresee a ban in CO if the HPA passes, or at the very least a state-level version of the federal headache we now experience. As such, I wholeheartedly disavow all support for the HPA. and would encourage everyone here to do the same, until there is placed in it a provision which keeps states from taking adverse action against suppressors.

It's utterly retarded and legally ignorant (not to mention philosophically daft) to clamor for a Federal deregulation under the guise of Constitutionality, and then just shift that into State violation with a grin on one's face. If it passes as is, it would not only be a Pyrrhic victory, it would be a real life version of the devil you don't know.

And it will be just as big a headache as buying a muffler for your prius. I don't see how removing any regulation on any level of Government can have a negative effect let alone be the beginning the Apocalypse.

Gov never gets smaller.. just sayin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

And it will be just as big a headache as buying a muffler for your prius. I don't see how removing any regulation on any level of Government can have a negative effect let alone be the beginning the Apocalypse.

---

It's the devil you know. Given the political climate of Colorado, it would be a bit naive to think that the devil we don't know would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

And it will be just as big a headache as buying a muffler for your prius. I don't see how removing any regulation on any level of Government can have a negative effect let alone be the beginning the Apocalypse.

---

Reference post # 57 in this thread . Suppressors are ILLEGAL in Co with an affirmative defense of having a " permit " for them being used to make them legal , the NFA being that permit .

Pretty simple after that no NFA no suppressors .