Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress

  1. Even with the $200 tax, and even using a trust to hold title, I still have to complete a Form 4473 to receive delivery of a suppressor.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
    Even with the $200 tax, and even using a trust to hold title, I still have to complete a Form 4473 to receive delivery of a suppressor.
    I don't think there would be a need for a trust anymore, as the bill clearly states that a person possessing a silencer shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act. A silencer would be as transferable as any long gun (, hence the title of the bill). When purchasing a silencer from a dealer, you would need to complete the ATF Form 4473 and pass a background check (, for some reason).

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    I already explained my position in the OP and in posts #3, #5 and #17...

    ...I guess, reading comprehension is not your fortune.
    Yes, and I acknowledged that in post #14. Now what was that about reading comprehension?
    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

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Yes, and I acknowledged that in post #14. Now what was that about reading comprehension?
    So, then what was this about:

    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..

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    From TTAG | Layoffs Reported at SilencerCo, Lagging Sales Due to Hearing Protection Act Indicated:

    Reports are coming into TTAG headquarters that there has been a round of layoffs at SilencerCo with around a hundred employees impacted. The layoffs alone are news, but the reason being cited by some who are now in search of a new job is more interesting: flagging sales due to the pending Hearing Protection Act.

    One thing holding up most people from adding a can to their collection is the paperwork and the wait involved with the current National Firearms Act regulations surrounding those items. Itís a gigantic pain in the rear end, taking over six months.

    The pending Hearing Protection Act would, by any reasonable expectation, be a huge boon to suppressor sales. But while the billís prospects appear to be good, it has buyers waiting to see what happens. According to people Iíve spoken to, customers seem content to wait a few months to see how the process shakes out, hopeful that it will mean much less pain time consuming if the hoped for changes come to pass.

    While they wait, though, silencer sales wait with them. It sounds like SilencerCo has finally been hit hard enough by the unwillingness of the American public to shell out for new cans with this level of uncertainty that they canít support their current staffing levels and are throttling back.

    We reached out to SilencerCo for comment, but have not received a response.
    Certainly an interesting side effect of a pending bill that we don't even know yet if it will go though.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    So, then what was this about:
    It was five posts later, post 19. I'm sorry. Maybe you really ARE having troubles with comprehension. I thought you were just making rude remarks. Maybe I should give a synopsis.

    Post 1: You said "WTF: Silencers are simply not firearms.", contending that the title of the bill was saying silencers WERE firearms. But it didn't say that. The title of the bill, The "Hearing Protection Act of 2017", made no mention whatsoever of firearms or silencers

    Post 2: I pointed out that the title of the bill did NOT say silencers were firearms. I also pointed out that the context we needed

    Post 3: "As I said, silencers are simply not firearms. Silencers are currently considered firearms..." You again claiming that the bill was saying silencers WERE firearms, when it did not.

    Post 5: You said current law already says silencers are firearms because they go in the ATF 4473 form as "other firearm". You complained the new law wasn't changing this, even though you had no clue whether it did or not since the text of the bill hadn't been released yet. To be fair though, we were receiving reports about the contents from people who presumably had actually seen the bill.

    Post 14: I said I didn't disagree with your points on the law changing because, like you, I hadn't seen the text of the bill yet. I also reiterated a point I had made before, that treating silencers like firearms doesn't mean they are firearms.

    Post 17: You made very specific statements about the bill eliminating the tax and registration requirements and that it does nothing to alter 18 U.S. Code ß 921(a)(3), even though you couldn't know what it would do because the text still hadn't been released. You also stated "Therefore silencers will still be treated like firearms." I considered that a breakthrough of sorts because you were making a differentiation between treating silencer transactions like firearm transactions instead of saying they were firearms.

    Post 19: I agreed with you that the bill, as we were being told, would change how silencers were treated the same as a firearm. This was another acknowledgment of your position by me, even better than the one in post 14. I thought we had finally resolved the source of contention at that point.

    So what was post 19 about? It was about acknowledging your statement that silencer transactions would be treated like firearms transactions. Unfortunately you went back to the old 'silencers are firearms are firearms' argument in the very next post. I have no clue as to why you're apparently trying to claim that post 19 was some kind of reversal. On the contrary, it acknowledged you point about silencers and firearms being treated the same way even more than post 14 did. So I have no clue what your problem is with that post.
    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. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    It was five posts later, post 19. I'm sorry. Maybe you really ARE having troubles with comprehension. I thought you were just making rude remarks. Maybe I should give a synopsis.

    Post 1: You said "WTF: Silencers are simply not firearms.", contending that the title of the bill was saying silencers WERE firearms. But it didn't say that. The title of the bill, The "Hearing Protection Act of 2017", made no mention whatsoever of firearms or silencers

    Post 2: I pointed out that the title of the bill did NOT say silencers were firearms. I also pointed out that the context we needed

    Post 3: "As I said, silencers are simply not firearms. Silencers are currently considered firearms..." You again claiming that the bill was saying silencers WERE firearms, when it did not.

    Post 5: You said current law already says silencers are firearms because they go in the ATF 4473 form as "other firearm". You complained the new law wasn't changing this, even though you had no clue whether it did or not since the text of the bill hadn't been released yet. To be fair though, we were receiving reports about the contents from people who presumably had actually seen the bill.

    Post 14: I said I didn't disagree with your points on the law changing because, like you, I hadn't seen the text of the bill yet. I also reiterated a point I had made before, that treating silencers like firearms doesn't mean they are firearms.

    Post 17: You made very specific statements about the bill eliminating the tax and registration requirements and that it does nothing to alter 18 U.S. Code ß 921(a)(3), even though you couldn't know what it would do because the text still hadn't been released. You also stated "Therefore silencers will still be treated like firearms." I considered that a breakthrough of sorts because you were making a differentiation between treating silencer transactions like firearm transactions instead of saying they were firearms.

    Post 19: I agreed with you that the bill, as we were being told, would change how silencers were treated the same as a firearm. This was another acknowledgment of your position by me, even better than the one in post 14. I thought we had finally resolved the source of contention at that point.

    So what was post 19 about? It was about acknowledging your statement that silencer transactions would be treated like firearms transactions. Unfortunately you went back to the old 'silencers are firearms are firearms' argument in the very next post. I have no clue as to why you're apparently trying to claim that post 19 was some kind of reversal. On the contrary, it acknowledged you point about silencers and firearms being treated the same way even more than post 14 did. So I have no clue what your problem is with that post.
    Your post 19 said:

    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.
    About that part in bold: I really believe that you just got my OP wrong from the very beginning. The only additional information available at that point from the posted bill was "To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns". That's why I said, "WTF: Silencers are simply not firearms.", because I don't want "silencers be treated the same as long guns". It that so difficult to understand?

    We both agree that silencers are not firearms, but current and the proposed law treats them as such, right?

  9. #28
    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
    Post 3: "As I said, silencers are simply not firearms. Silencers are currently considered firearms..." You again claiming that the bill was saying silencers WERE firearms, when it did not.
    That was never what he was claiming. He was correctly claiming that the new bill does nothing to alter the status of silencers being treated as firearms in the old bill. He's explained it multiple times. I've explained once before this time. Why are you hanging onto such a meaningless, but nonetheless incorrect, point of contention?
    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. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Your post 19 said:

    About that part in bold: I really believe that you just got my OP wrong from the very beginning. The only additional information available at that point from the posted bill was "To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns". That's why I said, "WTF: Silencers are simply not firearms.", because I don't want "silencers be treated the same as long guns". It that so difficult to understand?
    No, it's not difficult at all. Especially since that's what I've been saying all along.

    We both agree that silencers are not firearms, but current and the proposed law treats them as such, right?
    I've been saying that all along too. So yes, we agree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    That was never what he was claiming. He was correctly claiming that the new bill does nothing to alter the status of silencers being treated as firearms in the old bill.
    Really? "Silencers are currently considered firearms" (post 3). "current law already says silencers are firearms" (post 5). And when someone puts "Silencers are simply not firearms" in bold print as a response to a bill title, it's obvious they think the bill is claiming that.

    He's explained it multiple times. I've explained once before this time.
    You don't need to explain what I first said that in post 4, and have been saying all along. I said treating silencer transactions the same as a transaction for a firearm doesn't mean they are firearms, as absolutely was claimed, and claimed more than once. Now you and he are acting as if I refuse to acknowledge a point that I originally expressed, and have been supporting all along. Please read what I say before trying to fault me for it.

    Why are you hanging onto such a meaningless, but nonetheless incorrect, point of contention?
    All I said was that we only had the title of the bill to go on at first, and the title didn't give enough information to jump to that conclusion, or to any other conclusion for that matter. All the contention came in the response to me saying that. You may consider this topic meaningless, but I don't. All kinds of bad things can come from incorrectly interpreting what our lawmakers are doing, or not doing. But now that we're all in agreement, and we've apparently cleared up any misunderstandings there may have been, I would love to see the 'hanging on' come to a stop.
    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. #30
    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
    No, it's not difficult at all. Especially since that's what I've been saying all along.

    I've been saying that all along too. So yes, we agree on that.

    Really? "Silencers are currently considered firearms" (post 3). "current law already says silencers are firearms" (post 5). And when someone puts "Silencers are simply not firearms" in bold print as a response to a bill title, it's obvious they think the bill is claiming that.

    You don't need to explain what I first said that in post 4, and have been saying all along. I said treating silencer transactions the same as a transaction for a firearm doesn't mean they are firearms, as absolutely was claimed, and claimed more than once. Now you and he are acting as if I refuse to acknowledge a point that I originally expressed, and have been supporting all along. Please read what I say before trying to fault me for it.

    All I said was that we only had the title of the bill to go on at first, and the title didn't give enough information to jump to that conclusion, or to any other conclusion for that matter. All the contention came in the response to me saying that. You may consider this topic meaningless, but I don't. All kinds of bad things can come from incorrectly interpreting what our lawmakers are doing, or not doing. But now that we're all in agreement, and we've apparently cleared up any misunderstandings there may have been, I would love to see the 'hanging on' come to a stop.
















    Full circle again.
    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...

Page 3 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