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 September 18, 2017, 10:51 AM   #76
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Here's the typical blather why the bill is dangerous as it will lead to silenced gangs of terror:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/o...-congress.html

I was watching a show about cheese, Cheese Slices. The host goes to different places that make fancy cheese to see how it's made, etc.

In one episode, he went to a farm in the UK and they went rabbit hunting for lunch. The shooter had a upscale bolt action rifle with a truly expensive scope and a suppressor. It was to not annoy the neighbors. No one blinked about it. It was just a nice, idea.

To cut to the chase, anything that changes gun ownership in a way that loosens up restrictions must be opposed.

It will be a shame though if the HPA (which is really trivial) in the greater RKBA scheme is the only thing that is passed as compared to reciprocity (granted that is debatable as to implementation) or the SAGA act which would wipe out state bans on mags and gun types. I'm sure if the HPA passes it will be proclaimed as a great achievement. Then some organizations can go back to selling insurance and wine.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 18, 2017, 01:34 PM   #77
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumWill
It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially when the discussion is to be had that... suppressors are a common firearm accessory in Europe
Almost all of those countries have much more stringent gun-purchasing requirements than the U.S. does. Among antis, this talking point inevitably leads to the conclusion that the U.S. should adopt such regulations as well.

From the NYT article linked by Glenn, my emphasis in boldface:
Quote:
You can still get a silencer if you want one and you’re not, say, a criminal. It just takes a while, since there’s a fee, fingerprinting and a background check. And you can’t do an end-run around the rules by buying one at a gun show or on the internet. The silencer law, in fact, is exactly what the gun purchase law would be in a rational system.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old September 19, 2017, 02:51 PM   #78
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
HPA is now attached to the SHARE Act - and the SHARE Act has a lot more at stake than just the HPA. If it managed to somehow make it past the Senate (unlikely), that would be a massive win for gun rights - on par with Heller or the end of the 1994 AWB at least.

Because among other things, the SHARE Act also does away with the "sporting purposes" nonsense that is behind so many gun regulations.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 2, 2017, 09:19 PM   #79
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Someone needs to go back and add an "It's dead after Las Vegas" choice to this poll.

Although early reports* indicate that the shooter had at least one full-auto weapon, and most of us realize that almost all commercial silencers will turn into useless red-hot putty if subjected to sustained rapid fire, prominent antis are already exploiting the incident to argue that silencers will make mass shootings more deadly.

I suspect that this bill will be moribund until (if!) DJT is reelected.

*With the understanding of the general rule that 30%± of the "facts" that the press reports within the first 24 hours of an incident like this will prove to be flat-out wrong or at least highly exaggerated.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; October 2, 2017 at 09:25 PM. Reason: disclaimer, typo
carguychris is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 06:45 AM   #80
danco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 196
It's certainly dead now, after Vegas, along with national right-to-carry reciprocity...
danco is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 08:58 AM   #81
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...43393?lo=ap_b1

An article that says it is screwed and implies Trump may be against it as it is a fairly minor issue (sorry, if it's played up as the big deal) and he can make some kind of statement and move on.

IMHO - legislation and court cases are sunk for the time being. The NRA made a mistake for playing all fan boy with Trump in the beginning. Their magazines drooled over him as the 2nd coming. They never truly threatened the GOP to make gun rights a first priority. A tin foil view would be that they do not want true legislative victories as that removes an issue for membership and funding raising drives.

Folks will say - but where can we go? The Democrats hate guns - true for the most part of their primary voting base.

However, one could tell the GOP that unless positive gun laws become primary when an administration takes office, don't count on support and in primaries the old do nothing toots will not be supported unless they pledge to make positive gun laws a first priority.

However, they won't. The other problem is many of their standard candidates don't really care about the issue. They were and are more concerned with Obamacare and birthday cakes. So we get weird candidates who supported the RKBA but are nuts on other issues, making folks having to hold their noses to vote for them. We get total incompetence over health care.

As gun folks, we have to stress that support comes from the gun issue and they can screw around over the death tax, birthday cakes and Obamacare AFTER they do something to reasonably support gun rights.

But that won't happen and the well is poisoned. You can forget ever changing the NFA rules. The mantra that no crimes have been committed with fully auto guns since blah, blah - is now vapor.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 11:21 AM   #82
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
...the well is poisoned. You can forget ever changing the NFA rules. The mantra that no crimes have been committed with fully auto guns since blah, blah - is now vapor.
+1, and I believe that any positive amendment to the NFA will now almost certainly be accompanied by negative ones; what was previously a moderate risk has now become a very strong one.

IMHO the gun community is lucky that there have never been any negative changes to the NFA other than the Hughes Amendment; thanks to the once-prohibitive $200 tax and the deep-bureaucracy obscurity of the tax-stamp process in the pre-Internet age, the NFA was shielded for decades by ignorance and neglect. That is no longer true. Any subsequent attempt at change risks opening Pandora's box.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; October 3, 2017 at 11:27 AM. Reason: minor reword
carguychris is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 11:58 AM   #83
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Speaker Ryan says SHARE Act shelved indefinitely. No floor vote scheduled (last week they were discussing a floor vote for today).
Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...003-story.html
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 07:43 PM   #84
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
Speaker Ryan says SHARE Act shelved indefinitely.
I think we're going to be stuck in a holding pattern for the near future. We're going to see Feinstein's AWB 2.0 and Schumer's background check bill (re)presented as novel legislation, and they'll stand a chance at passage. They've got celebrities and pundits trained on the talking points this time around, and we can bet they've learned valuable lessons from their post-Newtown failure.

Sooner rather than later is a good time to contact your elected officials, folks.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 08:27 PM   #85
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
Offer putting bumpfire stocks and other devices designed to increase the rate of fire for semi-autos in exchange for taking suppressors off the NFA and treating them as firearms.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 08:37 PM   #86
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
Agreed it's dead, Nothing is going to happen at the federal level one way or the other.. worse we'll see is a ban on bump stock and similar.. that might pass... nothing else has a snow balls chance imo.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 10:33 PM   #87
CalmerThanYou
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2017
Posts: 323
I may need to change my vote.
CalmerThanYou is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 08:30 AM   #88
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2damnold4this
Offer putting bumpfire stocks and other devices designed to increase the rate of fire for semi-autos in exchange for taking suppressors off the NFA and treating them as firearms.
Are you talking about adding rapid-fire devices like bumpfire stocks to the NFA?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; October 4, 2017 at 01:25 PM. Reason: Second question removed, answered in another thread
carguychris is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 08:54 AM   #89
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
You are not going to be able to trade anything for anything. The best folks can do is circle the wagons and hold off on any new draconian laws that ban specific items. Regulating bump fire type gadgets might not be practical to oppose. Do folks want to fight over that?

I've said before, opportunities for decent changes were lost when the GOP and Trump went off into Obamacare, birthday cake, death tax 'agenda' items. The RKBA was never really a priority. It was all the usual bait and switch for the election. The NRA plays into it. God forbid we got some decisive legislation or SCOTUS decision - politicans and lobbyists and organizations would be out of business.

The crucial issues from a true RKBA as a civil rights priority were:

1. Making all states shall issue without draconian requirements.
2. Pushing for reciprocity - state to state deals or federal (I know the caveats).
3. Legislation forbidding federal and state AWB, mag bans and the like

Silencers, hunting ammo and the NFA registry were really trivial sops to a small slice of the gun owning population as compared to enhancing the RKBA for its true purpose of self-defense and defense against tyranny.

The GOP never really cared at the leadership level.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 09:13 AM   #90
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
We all know that new laws are just another step toward complete bans. A bump stock may increase the rate of fire but it reduces accuracy at the same time. It's a lousy trade-off for marksmanship.
One more person used a gun illegally and then killed himself. Now we need to ban the tool he used in case someone else wants to do the same thing. We don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with violence. Rather than banning the tool we should be treating the cause.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 09:25 AM   #91
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholemew Roberts
Speaker Ryan says SHARE Act shelved indefinitely. No floor vote scheduled (last week they were discussing a floor vote for today).
Since it wasn't actually scheduled for a vote, what does "shelving" it mean except that Ryan removed it rhetorically from conversation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Regulating bump fire type gadgets might not be practical to oppose. Do folks want to fight over that?
Do people really want to contest the principles under which their behavior is regulated and curtailed? Certainly.


It is natural to overestimate the significance of proximate events over the long term. One might have anticipated some ugly legislation after the ugliness of Newtown, but in addition to dems overplaying their position repubs also held the line ultimately.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 09:58 AM   #92
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Principle vs. pragmatic outcome is always a hard choice. If we are to fight, go for it with something like the SAGA act which voids the state bans. Put it out there for the full Congress to take a stand on these weapons type bans being unconstitutional.

Unless the pro-gun folks actually make it a priority to stand up, I'm not impressed. If they wanted to make bump fire an NFA item BUT void all the state bans that we see for EBRs, mags, etc. - I'm willing to let bump fans pay $200 for one.

However, I am convinced that the GOP leadership and the NRA really don't want to fight for that. I recall GWB and Mitt were in favor of the AWB.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 09:59 AM   #93
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
You are not going to be able to trade anything for anything.
What's to compromise? Not including (at least for now) even bigger infringements? Even if you mitigate the damage of a law which infringes on the 2nd Amendment, it is still a loss. The cumulative effect of all these infringements will be death of the 2nd Amendment via paper cuts.

Last edited by ATN082268; October 4, 2017 at 10:09 AM.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 10:06 AM   #94
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Actually, when I lived in Oregon we got shall issue carry along with some silly restrictions that did nothing but made antis happy. That was a reasonable compromise as the restrictions had no practical impact but carry was a great plus. I forget the restrictions as that was many years ago but they were trivial.

So I might trade no bayonet lugs for something else I want that has greater impact as an example.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 11:10 AM   #95
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Since it wasn't actually scheduled for a vote, what does "shelving" it mean except that Ryan removed it rhetorically from conversation?
Even before this, SHARE Act was DOA in the Senate. It removed the "sporting purposes" language that is the hingepin of a dozen regulations. It was unlikely to survive filibuster. The main point of SHARE was to get a record vote to pressure congressmen with before the 2018 elections and get the base revved up to target the vulnerable anti-gun senators who would have blocked it.

It appears Speaker Ryan feels that having the vote now might have the opposite effect. They'll wait for people to stop thinking emotionally and move on to the next Twitter mob and they'll bring it back - probably before November 2018. That will also be much better optics. Unlike the Brady Campaign who is hamhandedly trying to convince people to "honor the victims" by giving Brady money now. That's pretty ghoulish. Not to mention that with a good two decades since their last success at the federal level (both of which have already suffered some reversal), you'd be better off giving your money to random junkie panhandlers than Brady.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 11:52 AM   #96
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Regulating bump fire type gadgets might not be practical to oppose.
At this point I would agree... were congress to bring this up in any manner of immediate time frame. Should they hem and haw for months/years on it, the immediacy will be lost and I could see standing against it. But for Pro-2A groups to rally the troops and fight it tooth and nail were it to be seriously proposed next week? Sad as it is to say, I think it would be pragmatic to concede.

This is all a crying shame. I'm concerned for our 2A rights... but I feel bad talking about it while possibly hundreds of people are still in critical condition from a violent mass shooter and 59 families are mourning the loss of a relative. Like it or not, the weapons we enjoy can be used for evil means and I'm afraid there will be consequences for our freedom. Does that outweigh consequence of the 59 (thus far) killed and the 500+ wounded? Not necessarily as we have the 2nd amendment for a reason (a tyrannical government can kill millions)... but it's a tough position for us, at least for me, right now.
5whiskey is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 12:03 PM   #97
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
They’ve made it a race issue. I wish we could distance gun ownership from a certain political party.
rickyrick is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 12:06 PM   #98
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whisky
I'm concerned for our 2A rights... but I feel bad talking about it while possibly hundreds of people are still in critical condition from a violent mass shooter and 59 families are mourning the loss of a relative. Like it or not, the weapons we enjoy can be used for evil means and I'm afraid there will be consequences for our freedom. Does that outweigh consequence of the 59 (thus far) killed and the 500+ wounded? Not necessarily as we have the 2nd amendment for a reason (a tyrannical government can kill millions)... but it's a tough position for us, at least for me, right now.
The only way to prevent people from acting erroneously, in an evil way, is to remove their ability to decide how they will act. That true of rifle in Vegas and trucks in Nice and shuttered up homes in Cleveland (where a man kept women he abducted as children in order to abuse sexually). One consequence of liberty is that some will use that liberty terribly. If you begin to weigh lost lives against liberty, liberty will always lose simply because error, malice, harm and death are persistent and recurring. The balancing act is illusory; in practice it is a rachet that destroys the idea of choice.

Recoiling at the harm this man did is a sign of moral health, imo. However it is an error to formulate public policy or constitutional law according to emotional reactions.

Yes, that is all obvious, but also worth re-iterating when people are contemplating long term decisions on policy.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 12:08 PM   #99
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR
They’ve made it a race issue.
How?
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 12:14 PM   #100
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
I don't think Congress would touch bumpfire stocks with a ten foot pole. They might lean on ATF quietly to reconsider their regulatory ruling; but I'm having difficulty imagining any kind of gun control, even a bill strictly limited to bumpfire stocks, making it through committee and up for a floor vote at this point.

I'd guess if it is gun related and not already on the calendar, it is dead for this year.
Bartholomew Roberts 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 03:29 PM.


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 0.12340 seconds with 9 queries