• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hearing protection act vote March 17

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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/20160316/iowa-hearing-protection-act-vote-postponed-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.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
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.
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 :exclaim:
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
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.
 
Top