• 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.

Proposed Hearing Protection Act

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151022/nra-backs-hearing-protection-act

Holy crap, the NRA does something good for a change!

Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.
While I don't agree with the NICS part, the rest of it is awesome.

http://americansuppressorassociatio...ct-a-bill-to-remove-suppressors-from-the-nfa/

The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Griz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
308
Location
, ,
perhaps this could help bring the price of suppressors down?
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
There are lies behind the current regulations on suppressors. It will take years for this legislation to pass, if it ever does. There are no lies or even an attempt at excusing the regulations on SBR's, the anti's can't think of a reason really. So for the life of me I can't see why they don't add SBR's to the hearing protection act. The SBR thing goes back to when they were trying to ban handguns.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,277
Location
northern wis
While I don't agree with the NICS part, the rest of it is awesome.



Most likely only from dealers they are not hard to make. parts kits might need a bit of work like 80 percent receivers just easier.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,277
Location
northern wis
There are lies behind the current regulations on suppressors. It will take years for this legislation to pass, if it ever does. There are no lies or even an attempt at excusing the regulations on SBR's, the anti's can't think of a reason really. So for the life of me I can't see why they don't add SBR's to the hearing protection act. The SBR thing goes back to when they were trying to ban handguns.
Well have to start some place
 

exelci

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
140
Location
, ,
H.R.3799 - Hearing Protection Act of 2015

Hi all,

I was just watching a video on youtube https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O6seyqPU_F0 about this new bill that a "pro gun group" is trying to pass. Im wondering what you all think about the possibility of it passing. Should be a good topic up for debate.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...n-act-steamline-purchase-firearm-suppressors/

On October 22 Representative Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ)88%
(R-AZ-5) announced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), a bill aimed at removing suppressors from National Firearms Act oversight so Americans can more easily acquire them for hearing protection while target shooting or hunting.
 
Last edited:

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
603
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
There is no legitimate reason for noise suppressors to be regulated to the point that they are.

I think it is a great idea.


Sent from my Sony Xperia using Tapatalk 4
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
The current regs are so onerous that even suppressors for air rifles fall under the same rules. In the air rifle world, sometimes they are referred to as LDCs (lead dust collectors).
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
A suppressor would make my pistol longer. ;)
Physically yes, legally no...you pistol would still have the same length (unless you welded it on).


In respect to the law...I cannot support it ..... as supporting it would acknowledge that they can regulate ... which I do not support.

Two ways ways (but not only) to address illegal laws that never could have been passed is through:
1) Jury nullification
2) Law enforcement just never enforces the illegal law

Court opinions? Who cares .. public officials cannot vote on my natural rights one way or the other.
 
Last edited:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
A suppressor seems quite contrary to the idea of a self-defense pistol. I won't fire until I am in extremis and an unsuppressed report is better than calling out 'help help call 911.'
Have you ever fired your pistol in a house? One shot could result in permanent hearing loss for you, your spouse, or your child. But the bigger point is that there is probably no compelling public interest to regulate suppressors and there should never be a law that is not based on a compelling need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Have you ever fired your pistol in a house? One shot could result in permanent hearing loss for you, your spouse, or your child. But the bigger point is that there is probably no compelling public interest to regulate suppressors and there should never be a law that is not based on a compelling need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It can make a .22 somewhat quite ... but its not like in the movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2NeBWYeZLM

^^ one for the ol' oil filter suppressor. Technically, in this suppressor design every time you change the filter would require a new suppressor tax.

But if you made the design so that an exterior holder for the filter is used, making the filter disposable part of the suppressor I would wonder if the disposable part being replaced would then require a new tax to be paid is a question.
Any thoughts?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
I have practiced in a shoot-house. I have never worn eye or hearing protection. If I were to fire in the presence of a loved one, deafness would be the least risk.

I did not mention regulation and resent your tagging a hypothetical to my response.
Well, you can sleep with these in ...

http://g01.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1aD2i...Reusable-Hearing-Protection-Ear-Protector.jpg

View attachment 12842

Just have some light to wake you to intruders (or the wifey poking up awake) .. then pew pew pew away while protecting your hearing.
 
Top