The Accurate Reloading Forums
ASA ANNOUNCES HEARING PROTECTION ACT: A BILL TO REMOVE SUPPRESSORS FROM THE NFA
23 October 2015, 16:31
jeffeossoASA ANNOUNCES HEARING PROTECTION ACT: A BILL TO REMOVE SUPPRESSORS FROM THE NFA
ASA ANNOUNCES HEARING PROTECTION ACT: A BILL TO REMOVE SUPPRESSORS FROM THE NFA
http://americansuppressorassoc...essors-from-the-nfa/25 October 2015, 02:02
Matt NormanLike the idea but the chances of it passing are slim and none. Our broke-dick Washington politicians from either side of the aisle are too busy worrying about politics, elections, campaign donations, polls, in-fighting, etc to do anything that makes sense.
27 October 2015, 01:49
JTEXI like it as well. Posing this as a "health/safety" issue is great. We have all kind of Govt imposed health and safety regulations imposed on us continuously, it would seem hypocritical to not RECOMMEND moderators.
.
28 October 2015, 05:38
Matt NormanMight the 'health/safety' angle be a pandora's box? I'm sure the antis would look at that as a potential back door form of gun control; shooting any gun is unsafe without more gubmint regulation. Got to have a moderator and oh by the way that costs several hundred dollars and several months with several more bureaucrats involved in the process.
Like mandatory gun locks. Like some states requiring empty shell cases registered at the time of manufacture. I'm sure they are looking at the idea of mandatory/inspected gun storage capabilities within our homes.
Do we really want more gubmint regulations/involvement?
02 November 2015, 20:15
rcastoquote:
Do we really want more gubmint regulations/involvement?
I know what you are saying, however,
due to the current regulations, they are already involved a lot.
RC
Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
26 January 2016, 08:35
Idaho SharpshooterThis is a good start, and especially during an election year. Make it a roll call vote and see in any Dems want to take a stand that could hurt/end their re-election chances...
Rich
I would think suppressor prices might fall to $200 or less if more builders would enter the market.
28 January 2016, 19:26
ranb40Seeing as how most Americans can't care less about gun politics and most American gun owners don't give a crap about silencers, there isn't a single Congressperson who has anything to fear from his or her position on this bill.
______________________________
In my opinion the best accessory to put on a rifle is a silencer.
31 January 2016, 21:04
SamRan, I agree this bill doesn't amount to much but if you think most Americans can't care less about gun politics you have missed a lot of what is going on. Politcally, there are more pro gun voters than gun control voters and more money spent by gun control proponents than pro gun organizations. Even with gun control activists pointing to surveys indicating less gun owners and fewer homes with guns they also admit more gun owners are either saying no or no comment. To demonstrate one candidate's flip flopping on guns, Hillary stood hard on guns up to her last campaign and after the anti gun Democrats lost elections it was decided to play up her shooting with family members and hunting advocacy. Since she "lost" to Obama in that cycle she has decided to go back to her original anti 2nd Amendment views.
To use a local example, Bloomberg funneled at least $5 million dollars into Virginia to support anti gun Democrats in order to change our General Assembly from Republican to Democrat in order to support McAuliffe's agenda and aspiration to a VP nomination. They failed.
The Democrat's are desperate enough that they have even commented on the " unsafe gun handling" of a Republican candidate in the media.
A bad day at the range is better than a good day at work.
31 January 2016, 21:09
SamRich, a cheap suppressor may make it to $200, aluminum tube stamped steel baffles. I will agree that quality suppressors would drop in price with more sales and marketing. Depending on whose model you are looking at there is more than $200 in materials and machine time.
A bad day at the range is better than a good day at work.
H&S is the general way of things here, i don't own a rifle which hasn't got a suppressor on it. I never wear hearing protection except at the range where others are not using muzzle cans.
09 May 2016, 05:34
jeffeossoquote:
Originally posted by Sam:
Rich, a cheap suppressor may make it to $200, aluminum tube stamped steel baffles. I will agree that quality suppressors would drop in price with more sales and marketing. Depending on whose model you are looking at there is more than $200 in materials and machine time.
actually, i think $99 will be an import price point - if they aren't regulated anymore
11 June 2016, 10:52
Idaho SharpshooterAgreed. If suppressors can be made by any gunsmith, $99 will buy a very high quality model.
There is a video on utube that shows them being made and the builder says about $50 in parts if they are made in quantity, and less than two hours time.
type in solvent tubes sometime on Wikipedia.
12 June 2016, 22:08
Brian CanadaRich, Solvent Tubes! You are certainly the "go to" man around here, for esoteric information. I appreciate it very much. Cheers, Brian
IHMSA BC Provincial Champion and Perfect 40 Score, Unlimited Category, AAA Class.
16 June 2016, 23:12
Joe HendersonI really wish they could be taken of the NFA list but I don't see the government giving up any revenue or control. It would certainly bring competition up and prices down.
Joe
06 September 2016, 02:54
Woodrow SOnce the government has the power, it will never give it up, especially when there is significant money in fee's involved. No way.
12 November 2016, 07:30
460 wby shooterWe may actually see this happen now.
Its also time to appeal the Hughes amendment.
23 November 2016, 08:15
p dog shooterWhy do some gun owners always want to give up before the fight begins.
When we fight we win the time is ripe to attack.
Not to worry we might lose.
23 November 2016, 16:33
jeffeossoquote:
Originally posted by Woodrow S:
Once the government has the power, it will never give it up, especially when there is significant money in fee's involved. No way.
which is why alcohol is still illegal --
oh, wait
25 November 2016, 07:03
rcastoquote:
Originally posted by 460 wby shooter:
We may actually see this happen now.
Its also time to appeal the Hughes amendment.
Right on
My tag Line!
RC
Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
25 November 2016, 18:16
460 wby shooterquote:
Originally posted by rcasto:
quote:
Originally posted by 460 wby shooter:
We may actually see this happen now.
Its also time to appeal the Hughes amendment.
Right on
My tag Line!
28 November 2016, 04:32
mstarlingAm certainly a proponent of reducing the range of things covered by the NFA and rescinding the Hughes Amendment.
I think we would see a huge growth in the suppressor market with an emphasis on less expensive designs. Is likely that the most robust designs using exotic materials such as stellite and inconel will still be relatively expensive but will come down some in price.
Mike
--------------
DRSS, Womper's Club, NRA Life Member/Charter Member NRA Golden Eagles ...
Knifemaker,
http://www.mstarling.com 11 February 2017, 00:03
packrattusnongratusAny new word on the HPA?
11 February 2017, 04:30
GeorgeSNo hearings have been scheduled yet.
George
24 February 2017, 01:30
JTEXFrom the TSRA
quote:
Lawmakers working to silence regulations on suppressors
0
COMMENTS
John McAdams
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Share this article
Lawmakers working to silence regulations on suppressors
As predicted in November, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, combined with the fact that Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress, means that we're likely to see some pro-Second Amendment legislation passed at the federal level. So far, lawmakers have put their money where their mouths are.
On the first day Congress was in session, Rep. Hudson (R-N.C.) introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. A few days later, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced the Hearing Protection Act of 2017, which would dramatically simplify the process of legally purchasing suppressors.
Introduced by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) in January, H.R.367 and S.59 — both known as the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 — are duplicate bills introduced simultaneously in the House and Senate that would remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The bills are identical to the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 that (now retired) Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ) introduced back in October 2015. You can learn more about the details of the original bill here. In short, this bill would permit law-abiding citizens to purchase a suppressor after merely passing a background check and would eliminate all the current hoops people must jump through with the ATF to purchase a suppressor.
Even though Republicans controlled both houses of Congress when Rep. Salmon introduced the legislation, the bill went nowhere. Understandably, Republican leaders in Congress probably did not want to spend political capitol working to pass a bill that President Barack Obama was virtually guaranteed to veto.
However, the political landscape now is radically different from 2015. Trump's son, Donald Jr., signaled the potential for support for such a measure in a Trump White House during a recent interview with SilencerCo (I'm sure the location of the interview was no accident).
With this in mind, legislators in both houses of Congress seem to be more motivated to pass this legislation, and both bills already have significantly more co-sponsors (100 in the House and seven in the Senate at the time of publication) than the original Hearing Protection Act accumulated in 2015 and 2016.
Not surprisingly, many gun control advocates (most of whom clearly have no idea how suppressors work) oppose the bill and are arguing that it will make it easier for criminals to acquire suppressors. However, their arguments are pretty weak, and it's not clear that they'll be able to stop this legislation.
A white paper recently published by ATF Associate Deputy Director Ronald B. Turk also advocated (among other things) removing suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Basically, he argued that the ATF spends a tremendous amount of time, energy and money processing suppressor applications for little or no public safety benefit.
For instance, Turk stated that since suppressors are so rarely used in crimes that the ATF only recommended prosecution for an average of 44 cases a year for suppressor-related offenses. For this reason, he argues the ATF's resources would be better utilized in other areas.
Looking at it this way, it's difficult to disagree with him.
Even though there aren't many strong arguments against the Hearing Protection Act, you can bet anti-gun groups are going to put up a heck of a fight against this bill. Nothing is guaranteed either way, but the odds of passing legislation have never been as good as they are now.
Make sure your voice is heard. Contact your representatives in Washington, D.C., today to urge them to vote for H.R. 367 or S.59.
I'm sure if this happens before my stamp gets processed (July 2016) they'll gladly refund my payment
09 June 2019, 22:08
packrattusnongratusAnyone have a cheerful update? Be Well. Packy
Trump said he does not like silencers!