Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    See item 10...
    Forgot to mention 14-288.8.(b)(5):

    (b)This section does not apply to any of the following:

    (5) Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, §§ 5801-5871. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon.
    In other words, NC law doesn't need to change. Silencers are legal in NC and will remain legal in NC. A person in illegal possession of a silencer still could be charged with possession of a weapon of mass destruction though.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    . . .

    Meanwhile, the anti-silencer propaganda machine is already in full swing: Washington Post Misrepresented YouTube Video Showcasing .22 LR Rifle Suppressors, which refers to the original WaPo article: Gun silencers are hard to buy. Donald Trump Jr. and silencer makers want to change that.

    Apparently, according to WaPo "journalist" Michael S. Rosenwald, a 40 grain 22 lr CCI Quiet bullet traveling at 710 feet/second at the muzzle and having 45 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle is considered "high power".

    Thanks for sharing this. :)

  4. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Forgot to mention 14-288.8.(b)(5):



    In other words, NC law doesn't need to change. Silencers are legal in NC and will remain legal in NC. A person in illegal possession of a silencer still could be charged with possession of a weapon of mass destruction though.
    Thanks. So confusing...

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    I think you are missing my point, current law already says silencers are firearms. They go in the ATF 4473 form as "other firearm". The new law isn't changing this. That's my complaint.
    Okay. I don't disagree with that. But you were specifically referencing the title of the bill by saying "Silencers are simply not firearms", as if the bill was claiming they were. That's what I was responding to. But I think we've beat this horse enough.
    .
    I'd like to echo Reba and thank you for the video. I like your signature line too.
    .
    Since the titles are identical, I'm guessing the text might also be identical to H.R. 3799 that was introduced during the last congressional session. That might also explain why so many are expressing their support for a bill they haven't read yet.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    This might be of interest too.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    The text of the bill is available now. As I suspected might be the case, the bill does not equate silencers to firearms at all. It simply removes the restrictions on silencers. The title as written can be, and obviously has been, misleading. As a really nice touch, it also includes preemption. They were obviously thinking ahead.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    The text of the bill is available now. As I suspected might be the case, the bill does not equate silencers to firearms at all. It simply removes the restrictions on silencers. The title as written can be, and obviously has been, misleading. As a really nice touch, it also includes preemption. They were obviously thinking ahead.
    The bill eliminates the tax and registration requirements under the NFA, and preempts sates from enforcing their own taxes and registration requirements. 18 U.S. Code § 921 (a) (3) remains intact:

    (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
    Therefore silencers will still be treated like firearms.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Okay. I don't disagree with that. But you were specifically referencing the title of the bill by saying "Silencers are simply not firearms", as if the bill was claiming they were. That's what I was responding to. But I think we've beat this horse enough.
    .
    Well, apparently not....

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    The text of the bill is available now. As I suspected might be the case, the bill does not equate silencers to firearms at all. It simply removes the restrictions on silencers. The title as written can be, and obviously has been, misleading. As a really nice touch, it also includes preemption. They were obviously thinking ahead.
    If NFA34 treats suppressors as "firearms," then keeping that language intact while simply changing what that means as far as licensing/taxing means the federal government is still treating suppressors as firearms.

    You're obviously not done beating that dead horse, but that doesn't justify you suggesting that the title of thread was purposely misleading when the plain fact is, it isn't misleading at all. The horse is just dead, so it can't tell you that it's not misleading.



    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    ...Therefore silencers will still be treated like firearms.
    Treated like. Exactly. But they aren't firearms, as was being claimed in the OP. That's why context is so important, especially when the title is misleading about the actual content of the bill itself.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    .
    Well, apparently not....
    LOL! Point taken. But I was referring to the "silencers are firearms" claim that was made earlier being beat to death. I thought that was obvious but I apologize if I wasn't clear.
    .
    If NFA34 treats suppressors as "firearms," then keeping that language intact while simply changing what that means as far as licensing/taxing means the federal government is still treating suppressors as firearms.
    Yes, that's what I said. They are being treated the same in that the requirements are the same, which is different from silencers actually being firearms.
    .
    You're obviously not done beating that dead horse, but that doesn't justify you suggesting that the title of thread was purposely misleading when the plain fact is, it isn't misleading at all. The horse is just dead, so it can't tell you that it's not misleading.
    I'm more than done beating that dead horse. You're just talking about a different horse now. I was speaking of the title of the bill, not the title of the thread. See posts #2 and #4. Again, apologies if that wasn't obvious.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Treated like. Exactly. But they aren't firearms, as was being claimed in the OP. That's why context is so important, especially when the title is misleading about the actual content of the bill itself..
    I already explained my position in the OP and in posts #3, #5 and #17.

    As I explained to you now numerous times, the existing law treats silencers like firearms and the new law treats silencers like firearms. The new law just removes the NFA provisions of needing to register silencers and pay the NFA tax for it. My outrage is about the fact that silencers are simply not firearms and therefore should not be treated as firearms by the law. The law defines a silencer to be a firearm, so it can be treated as such. A dictionary, however, does not define a silencer to be a firearm, as this would make no sense. The current law and the new law make no sense. WTF, silencers are simply not firearms, stop treating them as such under the law.

    I guess, reading comprehension is not your fortune.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast