The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

View Poll Results: What do you believe will happen with the Hearing Protection Act
It will pass this calendar year 1 1.67%
It will pass within the next 12 months 10 16.67%
Not dead but on life support 38 63.33%
It's dead after the Steve Scaliese incident 13 21.67%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 29, 2017, 10:38 PM   #26
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
JoeSixpack Rwilson but for how long? with the increased demand there would not just be the existing mfg's but new ones coming into the market to compete.
There are new silencer manufacturers entering the market every month. Some lose their shirt and leave. Competition with AAC, Dead Air, Silencerco, Rugged, Gemtech? They try, but then they have to cut corners. Evey heard of Huntertown? Makes inexpensive silencers with the worst customer service in the industry. That alone makes paying for one of the big boys cans a bargain.


Quote:
I grant you could find a lot of OOS and jacked up prices as the market expands and demand explodes but it would not last, not without some sort of collusion.
Collusion?
The manufacturers/distributors/dealers will charge what the market will bear......that's capitalism. It will last until demand subsides.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old August 30, 2017, 11:43 AM   #27
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
The tax stamp has nothing to do with the price of a silencer. There already is a competitive market.
The tax stamp has everything to do with the price. I would bet that fewer than 25% of gun enthusiasts (people who shoot frequently, own numerous firearms, and are a member of gun forums) are willing to actually go through the paperwork hassle of a suppressor. Gun enthusiasts themselves, as defined in above, are a fairly small percentage of the population in general. BUT... if it was so much easier to purchase through de-regulation so that virtually all gun enthusiasts would buy one or more, you open up your market by nearly 400%. Don't forget you may also attract a significant number of casual firearms owners to the market.

Quote:
If you think the price will go down when there are hundreds if not thousands of silencer manufacturers.........then why do Glocks cost the same as they did fifteen years ago? When S&W, Walther, Sig, etc came in with polymer framed pistols did Glock suddenly drop their price? No, they didn't.
That's actually quite easy to explain... volume. Glocks in the US alone probably outnumber all the suppressors in existence in the world by a 2 to 1 margin. The same was probably true 15 years ago. Glock sells so many firearms that making just $50.00 a pistol after all expenses justifies their existence. Lower volume companies must make a greater final profit to keep in business, but none-the less it's an apples to oranges comparison. A better way to explain it is this: Pistols in the US never have been burdened with the same cumbersome regulations that Suppressors have. You can just go out, fill out a form 4473, and go home with it. If they were added as an NFA item tomorrow, the price on a Glock (and all pistols) would skyrocket. Why? Because far fewer people would jump through the hoops to purchase one, and Gaston Glock would need to make $500.00 per pistol instead of $50.00 to justify his business. Another great example is the AOW tax stamp. It's only $5.00, but you don't see huge volumes of those items because folks simply would rather do without than fill out the ATF paperwork.

Glocks, with complex moving parts and rifled barrels (a feat in machining, BTW), currently cost less than almost all suppressors on the market. A crude but effective suppressor could be made with a welder, grinder, drill press, and less than $20.00 worth of steel. A Glock can not be made in a similar manner. The regulations do, in fact, inflate the price of suppressors by a good bit.

Quote:
Several manufacturers have warned dealers and distributors of this. If the HPA passes, you'll see a run on factory made silencers that will deplete inventories for as much as two years. With limited supply prices will skyrocket. If you really want the latest and best technology then expect to pay through the nose.

And no, the Form 1 home made silencer will have little effect on the market. Just like the homemade 80% guns have little real impact on the gun market now.
Both statements here are absolutely true. If it passes, you will see the prices likely double in short order because of low supplies. But ramping up production would not be that difficult either... it just would take a little time. And once production increase, companies would start competing over price, and once their production volume has increased by 1000% they can afford to make only $50.00 per suppressor instead of several hundred. I also don't believe the homemade market will truly impact manufacturers market share.

Last edited by 5whiskey; August 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM.
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 30, 2017, 04:26 PM   #28
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
5whiskey
Quote:
Quote:
The tax stamp has nothing to do with the price of a silencer. There already is a competitive market
.

The tax stamp has everything to do with the price.
No, it doesn't.
The manufacturer decides what price point to charge for his silencers. The manufacturer takes the cost of labor, raw materials, equipment, etc into consideration and doesn't for one single second think about that tax stamp....because he doesn't collect that tax or remit it to the government.
Like many, you confuse "price" with what a consumer pays in total.
In fact not a single silencer manufacturer advertises their products with the $200 tax stamp cost included.






Quote:
I would bet that fewer than 25% of gun enthusiasts (people who shoot frequently, own numerous firearms, and are a member of gun forums) are willing to actually go through the paperwork hassle of a suppressor. Gun enthusiasts themselves, as defined in above, are a fairly small percentage of the population in general. BUT... if it was so much easier to purchase through de-regulation so that virtually all gun enthusiasts would buy one or more, you open up your market by nearly 400%. Don't forget you may also attract a significant number of casual firearms owners to the market.
Again, "ease of purchase" has absolutely nothing to do with the cost to manufacture a silencer. If you don't think the silencer market is already competitive you really need to do some research.

More buyers may mean more silencer manufacturers ....but that doesn't necessarily equal cheaper silencers. Cost of labor, materials and equipment won't go down if more manufacturers enter the market. More manufacturers also means greater demand for raw materials......and increasing the cost to manufacture.





Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you think the price will go down when there are hundreds if not thousands of silencer manufacturers.........then why do Glocks cost the same as they did fifteen years ago? When S&W, Walther, Sig, etc came in with polymer framed pistols did Glock suddenly drop their price? No, they didn't.
That's actually quite easy to explain... volume. Glocks in the US alone probably outnumber all the suppressors in existence in the world by a 2 to 1 margin. The same was probably true 15 years ago. Glock sells so many firearms that making just $50.00 a pistol after all expenses justifies their existence. Lower volume companies must make a greater final profit to keep in business, but none-the less it's an apples to oranges comparison.
That's funny, you think S&W doesn't have "volume"? Good grief. Research....you need to do it.




Quote:
A better way to explain it is this: Pistols in the US never have been burdened with the same cumbersome regulations that Suppressors have.
The "cumbersome regulations" to manufacture a silencer are exactly the same as manufacturing any other firearm.


Quote:
You can just go out, fill out a form 4473, and go home with it.
Which has NOTHING to do with the cost of manufacturing.



Quote:
If they were added as an NFA item tomorrow, the price on a Glock (and all pistols) would skyrocket. Why? Because far fewer people would jump through the hoops to purchase one, and Gaston Glock would need to make $500.00 per pistol instead of $50.00 to justify his business.
Nonsense.
What you might see is manufacturers getting out of the business completely if handguns were added to the NFA.
There are states (California for example) where the purchase of a firearm entails additional paperwork, fees, waiting periods etc. that are no less onerous than a Form 4...............yet Glock, Inc doesn't charge CA dealers any more than they do dealers in Texas.





Quote:
Another great example is the AOW tax stamp. It's only $5.00, but you don't see huge volumes of those items because folks simply would rather do without than fill out the ATF paperwork.
Ever stop to think that's because no one really wants those types of firearms? I don't have any use for a Serbu Shorty, I prefer an 870 SBS. I don't need a pen gun, a cane gun or a gun disguised as a watermelon either. That's why there are so few AOW transfers.



Quote:
Glocks, with complex moving parts and rifled barrels (a feat in machining, BTW), currently cost less than almost all suppressors on the market.
Your lack of research and knowledge of the firearms industry is showing, not to mention merchandising and marketing.

The actual retail price of any item is exactly what the manufacturer wishes to charge. It matters not one bit that it costs $87 to make and retails for $500........that's called capitalism. Don't like it don't buy it or buy a Hi Point.



Quote:
A crude but effective suppressor could be made with a welder, grinder, drill press, and less than $20.00 worth of steel.
And a crude zip gun could be made for less without needing a welder, drill press and grinder. Just a nail and a piece of lead pipe..........what's your point?

If you think a market exists for a $20 "crude but effective suppressor"......go for it. How many do you think you will need to sell to cover your liability insurance? Your rent? Your utilities? Your employees dental plan? How much will it cost you to ship that $20 silencer?

Good grief....if it's so easy a cave man could do it.........then do it and get back to us.



Quote:
A Glock can not be made in a similar manner.
Of course not. Again what's your point?



Quote:
The regulations do, in fact, inflate the price of suppressors by a good bit.
Again, no they don't. Rebel Silencers makes a $99 rimfire silencer, yet has the same regulatory oversight as AAC, Silencerco, Q, Sig, Gemtech, etc.........why do you think those companies charge 2.5-5 times as much as Rebel? It's not regulations my friend.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

Last edited by dogtown tom; August 30, 2017 at 04:32 PM.
dogtown tom is offline  
Old August 30, 2017, 08:55 PM   #29
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
If you think a market exists for a $20 "crude but effective suppressor"......go for it. How many do you think you will need to sell to cover your liability insurance? Your rent? Your utilities? Your employees dental plan? How much will it cost you to ship that $20 silencer?
No one spoke of selling $20 suppressors. You do understand the difference between material per unit production cost and retail (or wholesale actually) price per unit right? If I have 20 bucks in materials and a hundred bucks in labor and overhead (we're beyond crude at this point), I can double that and sell my suppressors for 240 bucks wholesale. Dealers will then sell them for 350ish. That's a might cheaper than 1k. Now, if the market is opened up to the point where 2 million people are in the market for suppressors, I'm making good money and living large. If only a few hundred thousand people are in the market, and they have to plan their purchase 6 months in advance, then I'm not so much living large. At that point I raise my wholesale price because volume will not let me make the money I want, so I have to do that through a price increase.

As for the bold, selling 1000 units at a 100 dollar profit is the same as selling 100 at a 1000 dollar profit. I make the same money, but the consumer benefits from lower prices. That's my entire point.

Quote:
Your lack of research and knowledge of the firearms industry is showing, not to mention merchandising and marketing.
While not going on a diatribe or chastising you, I will just say that your lack of knowledge in the machining and manufacturing industry is showing, along with some economic principles. You preach of capitalism but do not appear to understand its economic principles. FWIW, I have experience with helping create integral suppressors for a family member who has a manufacturing license. My experience goes beyond interactions with a suppressor sales rep or working in retail.
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 30, 2017, 09:43 PM   #30
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
5whiskey ......No one spoke of selling $20 suppressors.
Then why bring a $20 silencer into the conversation? If it was to show how "regulation" affect silencer prices you didn't do that.




Quote:
You do understand the difference between material per unit production cost and retail (or wholesale actually) price per unit right? If I have 20 bucks in materials and a hundred bucks in labor and overhead (we're beyond crude at this point), I can double that and sell my suppressors for 240 bucks wholesale. Dealers will then sell them for 350ish.
Then what is stopping you?
Again I'll ask.........Rebel Silencers makes a $99 rimfire silencer, yet has the same regulatory oversight as AAC, Silencerco, Q, Sig, Gemtech, etc.........why do you think those companies charge 2.5-5 times as much as Rebel? It's not regulations my friend.

Please answer that. With your experience that should be easy.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 09:25 AM   #31
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Then why bring a $20 silencer into the conversation?
I didn't, you did. The $20.00 in my example was RAW MATERIAL COST, not finished product cost.

Quote:
It's not regulations my friend.
You are missing the point entirely. I am not saying that regulations have increased the price of raw materials, or production methods, of a suppressor manufacturer. On the manufacturer side, it is regulated much the same way that pistols are. Regulations have nothing to do with the overhead, labor, raw material, or distribution cost of Silencerco.

What I AM saying is that the market for suppressors is less than 10% than what the market is for a pistol. I would actually lay money down saying it's less than 2%, but 10% is a conservative estimate. Because the DEMAND is much more specialized (niche market), manufacturers are not producing a volume that allows economy of scale to influence prices. This DEMAND environment is artificially created by government regulation. Small manufacturers can still make money making suppressors one at a time with a very small mill, because they can charge $600.00+ for something that has less material cost than a cheap brake rotor. Were the DEMAND to increase and the market were to open up, companies could start affording to try and undercut one another. Why? Because they're selling 4 times the product, they can afford to make less money per unit. They will start aiming at market share by trying to undercut prices of other manufacturers. Small shops will have to lower prices, automate, and increase production or go out of business once they start losing market share.

Quote:
Again I'll ask.........Rebel Silencers makes a $99 rimfire silencer, yet has the same regulatory oversight as AAC, Silencerco, Q, Sig, Gemtech, etc.........why do you think those companies charge 2.5-5 times as much as Rebel?
Rebel actually proves my point that suppressors can be made much cheaper with the company still making a profit. Rebel is trying to acquire market share by undercutting Silencerco and company. Obtaining this market share will increase their volume. The issue is they are doing this in a niche market, and their volume will still only allow for only so small of a profit margin per unit. A rimfire suppressor is quite easy to get right as you can get away with using aluminum. It will be both light weight and durable enough. Why do the others charge 2.5 times as much for a rimfire can? R&D spent in noise reduction, better materials for lighter weight and greater durability, LOWER VOLUME and a need to make more profit per unit, and marketing are some of the possible answers. This is conjecture on my part.
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 09:47 AM   #32
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Then what is stopping you?
I already thoroughly explained it here...

Quote:
If only a few hundred thousand people are in the market, and they have to plan their purchase 6 months in advance, then I'm not so much living large. At that point I raise my wholesale price because volume will not let me make the money I want, so I have to do that through a price increase.
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 05:25 PM   #33
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whisky
Because the DEMAND is much more specialized (niche market), manufacturers are not producing a volume that allows economy of scale to influence prices. This DEMAND environment is artificially created by government regulation. Small manufacturers can still make money making suppressors one at a time with a very small mill, because they can charge $600.00+ for something that has less material cost than a cheap brake rotor. Were the DEMAND to increase and the market were to open up, companies could start affording to try and undercut one another. Why? Because they're selling 4 times the product, they can afford to make less money per unit. They will start aiming at market share by trying to undercut prices of other manufacturers. Small shops will have to lower prices, automate, and increase production or go out of business once they start losing market share.
Well put.

Asserting that a $200 and delay are a market barrier should not be controversial. How the current government barrier distorts the market may not be entirely understood until it is removed.

Of course, the barrier increases the cost of the transaction. That the dealer doesn't get the stamp cost doesn't mean that it isn't a cost of the transaction; that's pertinent to the buyer.

That barrier also serves to screen out the most price sensitive buyers. The remaining ones are all people with at least a spare $200. That's a population more likely to tolerate $1000 suppressors. Remove that barrier and the buying population is both larger and different. It is unlikely that new producers wouldn't arise to address that larger and different demand. I believe there will always be a market for excellent suppressors made from exotic materials. However, that isn't the only kind of suppressor.

$3 oil filters are repurposed as suppressors. Somehow oil filter manufacturers are able to cover their rent and utilities. Current suppressor buyers will have scant interest in a $3 suppressor that takes a year of waiting and a $200 stamp. A wider population might be quite happy to stop by Walmart to pick up a simple $50 item on the way to a range.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 31, 2017, 10:53 PM   #34
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Zukuphile there will always be a high end market. Even the high end market prices will come down a good bit though. Steel, or should I say the right kind of steel, is good enough for even heavy caliber suppressors. The problem. Is steel is heavier than other equally durable materials (titanium being one). So you could still have a reasonably priced durable suppressor, bit it will be heavy.

At any rate, you will still get many thousands of rounds out of a cheap aluminum suppressor on a pistol. It could easily be sold for 200 bucks, with the manufacturer making good money. At that price, most folks won't be upset if it only lasts half as long as the 600 dollar suppressors of our current time (600 plus tax stamp price actually...).

Which brings up another point. Because buying a suppressor is such a pain, they are made to very well last, because if you have to replace it then you start your atf paperwork all over. If you could buy one like you could a glock, it wouldn't be a big deal to replace a 150 to 200 dollar can that was made a little cheaper.
5whiskey is offline  
Old September 1, 2017, 07:45 AM   #35
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,113
Bingo. Given the difficulty and expense in purchasing a suppressor, it makes sense to for them to be manufactured at an heirloom-grade quality.

If you could buy one stamp-free on a 4473 in 10 minutes, there would be a place for $50 rimfire suppressors and $100 pistol suppressors, even if they needed a new baffle stack (over the counter) in a few thousand rounds.

Also, I don't think the HPA was seriously intended. I think it was intended to be symbolic only, as NFA reform is a nuclear hot potato.

And that's really a shame. Turk's leaked white papers suggest that even the ATF would be willing to play nice.
kozak6 is offline  
Old September 1, 2017, 09:24 PM   #36
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Several manufacturers have warned dealers and distributors of this.
Yes they have. In fact, I have gotten emails for several months now about the pending shortage looming just over the horizon and how I should buy any suppressors I may want or need NOW while they are still available. Nothing like "Chicken Little" marketing. You would think HPA should have passed back in February the way the manufacturers were talking. Of course, they faced and have now dealt with layoffs because demand dropped so much after Trump was elected. The general public isn't in fear anymore that a Democratic is about to be in office and legislate future sales into oblivion.

Quote:
If the HPA passes, you'll see a run on factory made silencers that will deplete inventories for as much as two years. With limited supply prices will skyrocket. If you really want the latest and best technology then expect to pay through the nose.
I don't think this is the case at all. I think once it passes, you are going maybe see a shortage from some of the current name brand makers and only in the short term, but then you are going to see countless machine shops and other such business blossoming in states where suppressors are allowed. Competition is going to be stiff and it will happen fast because suppressors are not exactly highly complicated machinery. Prices will fall quickly. There will be innovation with competition.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old September 2, 2017, 02:27 AM   #37
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
I feel it is a dead issue and MIGHT be half heartedly brought back up next year, with even less fanfare and chance of success.
armoredman is offline  
Old September 3, 2017, 02:21 PM   #38
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
Silencers. Just another victim of prohibition.

Chance of being removed from NFA - "0".
dajowi is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 01:06 AM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Of course it's a dead issue.

The Republicans don't need us, (our votes) until the mid term elections, and they aren't going to push it.

Bills will get introduced, but when it comes to passing one, or even getting it to floor vote, expect nothing but lame excuses and little or no real action.

We are in a very poor position, with one political party actively working against our rights, and the other being able to take our support essentially for granted, because, after all, where else are we gonna go?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 08:10 AM   #40
muzzleblast...
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2015
Location: Obwat, TN
Posts: 285
I do not think it will ever happen. The only experience the vast majority of people have with suppressors is from Hollywood movie "silencers." IMO there simply isn't enough advocacy to overcome resistance.
muzzleblast... is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 10:13 AM   #41
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
Everyone thinks you screw your rifle together right before the crime.

Besides there's plenty of pro-2nd pro-gun types that think you don't have a legitimate need for one, and there's no use for an AR15.
No positive federal developments will occur on gun issues.
rickyrick is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 12:38 PM   #42
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
That's the truth. Gun issues are not an important part of pandering to the 'base' for the Pres. or Congress. With all the 'base' invocations for this or that, never one for gun rights priority.

There's money to be made in not having gun rights really being strengthened.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 09:26 PM   #43
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
There's money to be made in not having gun rights really being strengthened.
Oh yes, not to mention future votes to pander for. Republicans are quite happy to introduce a bill that will go no where. During mid terms they will say "we tried but there is more work to do, we need more votes." Not going to delve deep into politics, but this is all a product of the two party system that I now abhore. There are lies sold that says if you desire to protect the environment you have to be a democrat, or that if you are pro 2nd amendment you must be republican. Meanwhile, most elected officials in Washington (and state legislatures) don't really care about either issue except for how they can exploit them.

Rant off. Sorry but I couldn't help myself. At least it was non (or bi?) partisan
5whiskey is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 09:42 PM   #44
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
5W noed:
Quote:
Oh yes, not to mention future votes to pander for.
Years ago I worked for the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He noted that sometimes 'you just have to look like you're doing something'.
I'm pretty sure nothing has changed. Too bad that and lying to the American public isn't a serious crime.

But the question here is specifically the Hearing Protection Act, and if you see a chance that it may pass, and why or why not.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old September 4, 2017, 10:13 PM   #45
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
But the question here is specifically the Hearing Protection Act, and if you see a chance that it may pass, and why or why not.
And to personally answer it, I think it has approximately the same chance as national ccw reciprocity... Which is somewhere less than a snowballs chance in hell. Why? Because one political party absolutely will not go along with it, and they still have filibuster power in the senate. And because the other party, as noted and agreed with by someone who has worked for a politician, doesn't actually care (as a whole, yes some do) about improving 2a rights. They just want to exploit the "crisis" that sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts have felt the last 10 years as a result of politics.
5whiskey is offline  
Old September 5, 2017, 10:14 AM   #46
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
I think it has approximately the same chance as national ccw reciprocity... Which is somewhere less than a snowballs chance in hell.
While as a practical matter, I think you are correct, what it interesting is that the Hearing Protection act is LEGALLY MUCH SIMPLER to pass, as it ONLY concerns the Federal government, and the 1934 NFA.

national ccw involves not just the Federal govt, but the states as well, and that, as they say is an entirely different kettle of fish.

When the wackjobs currently controlling the Democratic party made gun control one of the party "planks" (whether they wrote it exactly that way, or not) they sot only slapped all gun owning Americans in the face, they stabbed gun owning members of their own party in the back!

Until/unless that changes, NO pro gun law has much chance, on the Federal level, even if the Republicans actually worked at passing one, which, they don't...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 5, 2017, 12:21 PM   #47
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
While as a practical matter, I think you are correct, what it interesting is that the Hearing Protection act is LEGALLY MUCH SIMPLER to pass, as it ONLY concerns the Federal government, and the 1934 NFA.
Not just legally simpler, but politically simpler too. I am not a ccw opponent, but some people surely are. They might not prefer to have someone from out of state, subject to a qualification they don't control, walking around armed.

Who opposes firearms being less cripplingly noisy?

Last edited by zukiphile; September 5, 2017 at 01:11 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 5, 2017, 03:58 PM   #48
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
Who opposes firearms being less cripplingly noisy?
People who hate us, and hate that we find firearms anything other than loathsome instruments of death, and take pleasure in anything that causes us injury or inconvenience.

They just cloak their true feelings in rhetoric about crime and public safety.

after all, we are naught but a basket of deplorables clinging to our guns and religion....

or so I've heard...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 6, 2017, 12:45 PM   #49
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
IMHO one of the central ironies to 44 AMP's last post is that—should the HPA pass—I predict that those same folks will fall all over themselves to pass local laws requiring ALL sport shooting to be done with silencers, to cut down on the sound of gunfire in rural areas (which will be their stated purpose), and to make it more expensive to participate in the shooting sports (which they'll coyly deny but we'll know better).
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old September 6, 2017, 04:22 PM   #50
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
IMHO one of the central ironies to 44 AMP's last post is that—should the HPA pass—I predict that those same folks will fall all over themselves to pass local laws requiring ALL sport shooting to be done with silencers, to cut down on the sound of gunfire in rural areas
I can really see this happening!

There seems to be no end to the hypocrisy some folk are capable of.
DaleA is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.19125 seconds with 9 queries