Post by: CP on January 15, 2017, 08:32:47 AM
H.R.367 - To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns. :tup:
Write to your Congressman a Senators and tell them to support this
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 15, 2017, 09:17:47 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 15, 2017, 09:23:23 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 15, 2017, 09:57:29 AM
Quote
A Democrat's guide to why firearm sound suppressors ("silencers") should be made easier to obtain.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/405370/-
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/Suppressors.pdf
Post by: Seahawk12 on February 21, 2017, 09:07:06 AM
Post by: garrett89 on February 28, 2017, 12:49:25 PM
Post by: Stein on February 28, 2017, 12:52:25 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on March 01, 2017, 09:34:59 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wudrI7LA_YQ
We have a opportunity to make a difference.
Post by: csaaphill on March 02, 2017, 01:25:42 AM
I read the text but doesn't say much so not sure what all this is supposed to do.
If it make it legal to own where there was none then I guess but I sure as heck don't want to go through a background check to own one.
Any better info on what this actually does?
Also I read it said is subject to registration and all that crap? so?????
If this removes silencers off the NFA list then hell yeah, but if not then ?
Post by: Scvette on March 02, 2017, 02:05:30 AM
My first reaction is no for that means background checks for these as well correct? Are they legal to own now? If not they should be but should not have to get a back ground check to own.
I read the text but doesn't say much so not sure what all this is supposed to do.
If it make it legal to own where there was none then I guess but I sure as heck don't want to go through a background check to own one.
Any better info on what this actually does?
Also I read it said is subject to registration and all that crap? so?????
If this removes silencers off the NFA list then hell yeah, but if not then ?
From what I understand,and I've been wrong before. It will be just like buying a firearm,fill out the 4473 and that's it. I hope that's all it is. I know if it passes my wife won't be happy,I need/want about 5 different ones.
Post by: CP on May 23, 2017, 01:30:02 PM
Still stuck in the Judiciary and Ways & Means committees but the bill now has 141 sponsors including 2 from Washington State.
I’m writing to Rick again to encourage him to show true Democratic leadership and co-sponsor this bill.
Post by: CP on June 14, 2017, 07:11:20 AM
Included in the legislation is Title XVII, a strengthened version of the Hearing Protection Act.
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_--_share_act.pdf
Post by: Fl0und3rz on June 14, 2017, 07:39:22 AM
Post by: lokidog on June 14, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
Post by: csaaphill on June 20, 2017, 12:58:02 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on June 20, 2017, 09:57:34 AM
I'd like to see the NFA done away with, and remove the ban on making Machine guns in America.
That might be a step too far.
Nope.
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2017, 09:58:36 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on June 20, 2017, 10:08:56 AM
Baby steps.. that is how the left wins.
Agreed. We could learn a lot from their tactics and adopt our own set of Saul Alinsky's "Rule's for Radicals".
Post by: csaaphill on June 20, 2017, 09:48:46 PM
Baby steps.. that is how the left wins.:yeah:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: csaaphill on June 22, 2017, 10:51:26 PM
Post by: CP on September 14, 2017, 09:56:36 AM
Published September 13, 2017
Lawmakers on Tuesday debated the merits of a Republican-backed bill that would make it easier for individuals to buy gun silencers.
Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., introduced the measure in the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, the Hill reported. The provision calls for a less extensive and instant background check.
Duncan’s bill is reportedly dubbed the Hearing Protection Act. The debate was reportedly delayed after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., in June in a park in Arlington, Va.
Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., reportedly said it seems that sportsmen “have to choose between damaging their hearing and being able to hunt, shoot, target practice.”
Democrats said the bill is dangerous, and would make it more difficult to determine where shots are being fired in an active-shooter situation.
“We should not make it easier for anyone to obtain these weapons of war,” Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., said, according to the report.
David Chipman, a senior policy adviser of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun control group, was invited to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing, the Hill reported.
Chipman said the bill “would make silencers more readily available to criminals because for the first time in 80 years private parties could sell these guns without background checks on the internet and in gun shows and this has never been the case before.
The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm supports the measures, saying suppressors are “harmless and very rarely used in crime” and that the joint bill would end the “cumbersome and lengthy application process.”
A similar measure failed in 2015. But supporters are optimistic this time with President Donald Trump in office.
The GOP lawmakers say the bill aims to “cut through the red tape” of owning a suppressor and, if passed, would remove the accessory from the scope of the National Firearms Act. They also say it would replace the “outdated” federal application process with the “instantaneous” National Instant Criminal Background Check.
Critics point to a February 2013 situation in which fired Los Angeles police Officer Christopher Dorner killed four people in a series of attacks over 10 days that targeted law enforcement officials. They argue the fatal attacks might have been stopped earlier had Dorner not been using silencers.
“There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” Kristin Brown, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. “There is evidence of a public health crisis from gun violence, and we think that’s where legislative efforts should be directed.”
Post by: Gringo31 on September 14, 2017, 10:03:40 AM
Post by: CP on September 14, 2017, 10:13:48 AM
Anyone have a best guess on what this means, timelines or chance of passing?
The best chance of passing is in the tack-on to the SHARE act, which is headed to the House floor now.
See:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,218111.0.html
Post by: Gringo31 on September 14, 2017, 11:54:50 AM