Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255

    Exclamation Hearing Protection Act introduced to new Congress

    H.R.367 was introduced to new Congress. According to Guns.com:

    The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act was delivered by GOP sponsors U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Rep. John Carter of Texas and aims to deregulate suppressors as a safety measure to help promote their use in protecting hearing.
    The actual bill is not available yet, but the title of H.R.367 is a little bit troubling: "To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns". WTF: Silencers are simply not firearms.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    The actual bill is not available yet, but the title of H.R.367 is a little bit troubling: "To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns". WTF: Silencers are simply not firearms.
    As always, context is critical. Without the text of the bill we are denied the benefit of context, which can and does allow the titles of bills to be woefully misconstrued at times. Reports from those who are apparently aware of the bill's contents indicate that it would "remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The bill would reduce the cost of purchasing a suppressor by removing the $200 transfer tax." In that context, making the requirements for purchase of suppressors the same as they are for long guns, the title doesn't appear to be nearly as potentially disturbing.
    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

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    As always, context is critical. Without the text of the bill we are denied the benefit of context, which can and does allow the titles of bills to be woefully misconstrued at times. Reports from those who are apparently aware of the bill's contents indicate that it would "remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The bill would reduce the cost of purchasing a suppressor by removing the $200 transfer tax." In that context, making the requirements for purchase of suppressors the same as they are for long guns, the title doesn't appear to be nearly as potentially disturbing.
    As I said, silencers are simply not firearms. Silencers are currently considered firearms and, like short-barreled rifles, require additional registration and taxing under the National Firearms Act. This bill seems to remove the tax and registration, but keeps all other regulations regarding silencers in place, i.e., they are still considered firearms despite the fact that they do not function as such. It will make things easier, but thanks to the Fudds in Congress, it is still not right.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    I think you missed my point. I didn't say silencers were firearms. I said it appears they were saying the transactions to buy one would be treated the same. In most places a shotgun purchase transaction is treated the same as a rifle purchase transaction, but that doesn't mean shotguns are rifles. It appears they were doing the same thing here with the bill title. Maybe they should have made the title "To provide that silencer purchases be treated the same as long gun purchases", but they probably never figured someone would take the title out of context without being able to read the test of the bill to provide that context. As far as whether the bill will go far enough in regulating silencers, I think you have good points. But I wasn't addressing that.
    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. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    I think you missed my point. I didn't say silencers were firearms. I said it appears they were saying the transactions to buy one would be treated the same. In most places a shotgun purchase transaction is treated the same as a rifle purchase transaction, but that doesn't mean shotguns are rifles. It appears they were doing the same thing here with the bill title. Maybe they should have made the title "To provide that silencer purchases be treated the same as long gun purchases", but they probably never figured someone would take the title out of context without being able to read the test of the bill to provide that context. As far as whether the bill will go far enough in regulating silencers, I think you have good points. But I wasn't addressing that.
    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.

  7. What are we looking at as far as a timeline for this?

  8. NC classifies them as weapons of mass destruction... I suspect they will have to change their law if this passes, but what if they don't?

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    This bill has nothing to do with state laws, unless a state law specifically refers to NFA items. Since this bill would remove silencers from the list of NFA items, any state law that refers to NFA items will not anymore refer to silencers in doing so. State laws referring to NFA registration requirements in the context of silencers would be unlawful in that regard. Otherwise, state laws regarding silencers remain in effect and do not change.

    As far as a timeline goes, who knows. Somewhere between soon and never. This is Congress we are talking about here. The text of the bill is still not published, but the bill has been referred to two committees: House Ways and Means and House Judiciary.

    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".


  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    NC classifies them as weapons of mass destruction... I suspect they will have to change their law if this passes, but what if they don't?
    What? Are people using them like clubs or something? Ridiculous.

    So what do they think of attached lasers or tactical lights?

    Crazy.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    What? Are people using them like clubs or something? Ridiculous.

    So what do they think of attached lasers or tactical lights?

    Crazy.
    See item 10...

    B. Weapons of Mass Destruction
    N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.8 provides that it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble, possess, store, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, offer to purchase, deliver, give to another, or acquire any weapon of mass death and destruction. A weapon of mass death and destruction includes:
    1. Bombs of all sorts;
    2. Grenades;
    3. Rockets having a propellant charge of more than four (4) ounces;
    4. A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter (1/4) ounce;
    5. Mines;
    6. Any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell of a type particularly suitable for sporting purposes) which will expel a projectile using an explosive or other propellant, and which has a barrel with a bore of more than one-half (1/2) inch in diameter;
    7. Any firearm capable of fully automatic fire;
    8. Any shotgun with a barrel length less than eighteen (18) inches or an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches;
    9. A rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen (16) inches or an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches;
    10.Any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and
    11.Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting a device into any weapon described above, and from which a weapon of mass death and destruction may readily be assembled.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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