Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Hearing protection act vote March 17

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Hearing protection act vote March 17

    I know this might not reach enough people in enough time but we need as many people as possible to contact their legislators on the hearing protection act coming up for a vote on March 17. The NRA-ILA makes it easy for you with their automated e-mail system. Read the article and click the "Take Action" button on that page:
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...ed-to-tomorrow

    It is irresponsible for the Iowa legislature to keep safety equipment like report suppressors from us, let them know this can not be tolerated any longer.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    The Hearing Protection Act passed in the Senate with a 46-4 vote. Those that voted against it, Joe Bolkcom, Bob Dvorsky, Rob Hogg, and Herman Quirmbach, need to be removed from office. I'm quite sure those same four senators have been holding up Second Amendment protections for a very long time.

    Since there was an amendment to the bill during it's time in the Senate it goes back to the House for a concurrence vote, which if what I've read is true this is quite likely to happen. Still, it would be a good idea to contact your representative and state your support for this bill.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    I forgot to link to the NRA-ILA news page in the post above.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...al-senate-vote

    Read the article and then click the "Take Action" button to contact your representative. As I recall the session will come to a close soon, I'd expect the House could vote on this as soon as tomorrow.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Suppressors? Safety related or not, I don't see any issue with having them. Covered under our natural rights.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Hearing Protection Act is now law. It went into effect upon being signed, a nice touch I thought. It also includes a duty to certify provision so that a CLEO cannot simply sit on a transfer application to prevent people from obtaining a hearing protection device.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    Hearing Protection Act is now law. It went into effect upon being signed, a nice touch I thought. It also includes a duty to certify provision so that a CLEO cannot simply sit on a transfer application to prevent people from obtaining a hearing protection device.
    Do you have a link to the actual statute?

    Congratulations to all involved - good job.

    Now on to the next challenge - keep the ball rolling.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Do you have a link to the actual statute? [ ... ]
    Apparently the on-line code is not yet ATM updated.

    Here is the Act as HF2279 enrolled.
    http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-I...6&hbill=HF2279

    Here's the Chapter that the Act amends
    https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/724.pdf
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-02-2016 at 07:06 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Do you have a link to the actual statute?

    Congratulations to all involved - good job.

    Now on to the next challenge - keep the ball rolling.
    Looks nice ... but the old Libertarian in me .... does not see this in a good light ..

    support the passing of a law = acknowledging that they can reverse it and outlaw it -- bummer

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot
    Do you have a link to the actual statute?

    Congratulations to all involved - good job.

    Now on to the next challenge - keep the ball rolling.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Looks nice ... but the old Libertarian in me .... does not see this in a good light ..

    support the passing of a law = acknowledging that they can reverse it and outlaw it -- bummer
    Well shame on me - here I thought this was reversing/correcting an existing restrictive/bad law........wait a minute, It is
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    I am also confused on how this is a bad thing. I have to ask, if this law is a bad idea then what would be a better one?

    If we got a court ruling that this prohibition on suppressors was unconstitutional then one might conclude that this ruling/opinion/finding could be reversed by a future ruling/opinion/finding. If we had a constitutional amendment to uphold the right to possess and use suppressors then we could conclude a future amendment could revoke it. What iron clad means exists to ensure the right to keep and bear suppressors could exist?

    What we might see is a Tenth Amendment type of law, court opinion, or executive policy that claims even federal restrictions on suppressors do not apply in Iowa. This is not without precedent, states have legalized marijuana possession while federal prohibitions exist. What separates the two?

    A marijuana plant is at least something with a scent that is largely unique to it, a drug dog or sniffer device could seek them out. Marijuana is a plant and like all plants they take time to grow, need clean water, light, fertilizers, etc. An oil can suppressor is a piece of metal that can be milled out by a hobby machinist in minutes (perhaps seconds) and can be mass produced at an incredible rate by someone with minimal machining knowledge and less than $1000 in tools. Perhaps I just found my answer, marijuana can be tracked more easily than anything related to firearms.

    I think the difference is more subtle. Marijuana is seen as relatively harmless by many in the public and in the political realm. We've seen high school kids getting high on TV, raid the cupboards, and then sleeping it off. Suppressors are something seen used in movies only by bad guys that want to avoid being caught by the police. Policy flows from culture.

Posting Permissions

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