TW200 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Easy way to send a letter to your representatives via form:
Support the Hearing Protection Act

In 2011, the American Suppressor Association formed with one primary goal in mind: remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act. For years, we have quietly worked behind the scenes in Washington, D.C. to set the stage for Rep. Salmon’s Hearing Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 3799).

As we fight for our right to shoot quietly, we need your help to make sure our voice is heard loud and clear on Capitol Hill. Please take the time to fill out the form below so that you can send an email to your Representatives and Senators to let them know that you support the Hearing Protection Act.
The path to victory will not be easy, but if we work together and make our voices heard, we will ultimately prevail. We look forward to the day when we are no longer taxed to protect our hearing while exercising our Second Amendment rights at the range, and in the field. Together, we can ensure that future generations of sportsmen and women will no longer have to sacrifice their hearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
As much as I agree with this, I feel that it will not go through (PLEASE let me be wrong).

In urban areas, great expense has been made for systems that can triangulate the report from gunshots. The systems can differentiate between backfiring motorcycles and different types of firearms. I assume between pistol and rifle. They are pinpoint accurate as all heck, too.

With systems like this in place, I doubt there would be much foothold for this Act.

However.... I would welcome the ability to shoot suppressed subsonic 9mm.

EDIT..... Took Action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,605 Posts
You don't know how much fun shooting can be until you've gone suppressed full auto plinking.
I've done this without the watermelons outside of BATF jurisdiction so don't send any agents my way. Sure burns through the 9mm ammo, enough to sink a canoe. ( remember qwerty's canoe?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I also question if this will get pushed through this session. I'd lay odds that it would have a better chance being signed after our new president takes office.

There are several areas in Europe where a suppressor must be used while hunting. It is viewed as a "kinder to your neighbors" way to hunt. I'm not a hunter but I wouldn't mind having one for when I'm at the range shooting targets. I'd imagine that the folks living up the road from the range wouldn't mind the quieter reports either. The club I belong to has been at its current location for 50+ years while the area's population has been growing. They were all aware of the range as houses were being built up around us. As good neighbors I think using a suppressor would enhance our being viewed as ambassadors of the shooting sports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
So... this might not be as good as it seems.

Here's my email exchange with them. (me regular font, them italics)

Hi,


My thanks for your efforts to rid the NFA list of suppressors. As a trustee in possession of a suppressor, I'm a supporter of your efforts in theory. However, in the following thread, it was brought up that this may actually worsen the situation in Colorado:

https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-...Protection-Act


My username on there is CavSct1983. As you can see on page 2 of the above link, username XC700116 brought up the fact that this could actually harm suppressor ownership in Colorado due to their definition as a "dangerous weapon".


I'm sure that virtually every other state that doesn't outright ban suppressors have similar laws. So I have three questions:


1) How does your organization and the HPA address the potential of an effective national ban of suppressors via the states?


2) Does the HPA, if passed, entirely supersede the state laws in effect for suppressors?


3) If it then places it in the hands of the states, what foreseeable protections might suppressor owners have, i.e., couldn't this outright cause more problems?


Thanks,

<redacted>
----

Thanks for the email. We are aware of several states, including Colorado, that have specific references in their state code to registration within the NFA and other verbiage that would be affected by the passage of the Hearing Protection Act. We have been careful to review and hopefully address those issues within the HPA, but I am forwarding your message to our General Counsel to get a definitive answer to your questions.

General Counsel reply:
Thank you for reaching out <redacted>. Section 3 of the HPA was crafted with exactly these problems in mind, as many states have similar provisions. See the text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/3799/text

Best,
<redacted>

-----

<redacted>,

Just to be clear, are you stating that suppressors would then be simply subject to the same process as purchasing a firearm?

If so, what protections are in place for places like CO which may decide to then ban suppressors altogether as there would then be no NFA backstop for the preference of registration/licensing/etc.? Or, if they do not ban them altogether, enact a similar registration/de facto tax stamp like in the case with Concealed Carry?

In CO, unless one has it registered under NFA, it is considered a "dangerous weapon"; so I ask again, "Does the HPA, if passed, entirely supersede the state laws in effect for suppressors?"

Regards,
<redacted>

-----

You are correct that once the HPA passes, suppressors would be purchased just like long guns. And like long guns, states could if they chose impose new restrictions on them through legislation. However, such a decision would be met with backlash from voters and citizens, and would be something we actively fight against.

To your final point, section 3 of the HPA states that suppressors would be treated as if they are registered under the NFA, so they would not be treated as dangerous weapons under current Colorado law. But no, the HPA does not supersede state laws.

All CO would have to do is reclassify them or outright ban. That there would be voter backlash is not a great argument given our asinine mag restrictions and the repeal of ability to do face to face sales sans FFL involvement.

I'm now torn. Prima facie, the HPA seems pretty cool. But with these answers, I'd almost rather have the hassle of a wait and $200 than cast my lot with the jackasses in Denver.

Not sure how other states would handle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
If it were possible to re classify them to be AOW's ($5 stamp) they would still be under NFA jurisdiction but no longer as difficult to obtain or transfer. in effect loosen the grip....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
If it were possible to re classify them to be AOW's ($5 stamp) they would still be under NFA jurisdiction but no longer as difficult to obtain or transfer. in effect loosen the grip....
If $150 difference is a game changer for a person, I'd say they need to reconsider their hobbies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,605 Posts
My Senator sent be back a nice generic response. Sending in these forms is a way for legislators to sense which way the wind is blowing with their constituency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
If $150 difference is a game changer for a person, I'd say they need to reconsider their hobbies.
Maybe motorcycles would be a more affordable hobby?

Why should the govt. put a means test on anyones hobby or sport. The $195 difference starts adding up quickly just getting into your basic calibers .22, 5.56, .30, .45 add to that the different sizes that work better on rifles and handguns and, having more than one of the same, can be nice as they tend to get rather hot and can burn your little fingers when switching platforms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Maybe motorcycles would be a more affordable hobby?

Why should the govt. put a means test on anyones hobby or sport. The $195 difference starts adding up quickly just getting into your basic calibers .22, 5.56, .30, .45 add to that the different sizes that work better on rifles and handguns and, having more than one of the same, can be nice as they tend to get rather hot and can burn your little fingers when switching platforms.
You're right, 195. Gah. Could not math today.

Anyway, I don't disagree that it shouldn't even be so costly -- I think the .gov is stupid for making a muffler "evil" and so hard to get. However, since the NFA was passed, the $200 tax stamp has never been raised. Inflation has actually brought it down to an affordable level. The entire point was an ipso facto ban for all but the rich. While a reduction of $195 is a big deal over a larger number, for most people it would be maybe one or two. I use my .30 cal can on my .308, 5.56, and .22. For the last two I bought thread converters to match the ID pitch of the can.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top