Eliminating tax/wait on short barrel rifle/shot gun

Calling it a "jobs bill" is silly.

Oh, I don't know...

What do you call it that keeps a bunch of federal agents working when its clear there is no significant amount of tax to collect??

Yes, it was sold to the public as a crime control measure, all gun control laws have been. Although, considering the tiny amount of crime, like the small amount of revenue collected, I have to suspect the people who pushed the law had something other than the publically stated purposes in mind.
 
On a brighter note, with the new President, the Hearing Protection Act may get passed. That would get one item off the NFA list.
 
. On a brighter note, with the new President, the Hearing Protection Act may get passed. That would get one item off the NFA list.



And hopefully the price of cans will come down a bit, which i think they would, given that the market for them would be huge
 
While I have not (yet) looked at the actual text, from just the title, I can see that there is a risk (slight, but present) to it.

Using "safety" as a basis for easing restrictions is a double edge blade, without hand protection.

The risk is that the govt MAY, in the future decide that "silencers" are NEEDED (for safety), and COULD restrict guns that DON'T HAVE THEM.

And, in fact, the anti gun forces might push for this, if it is clear that they are "stuck" with having to allow us un-or less restricted access to silencers.

They won't like it much, but I think they would try, because everything that "gets guns off the streets" is a plus for their agenda.

This is their reasoning behind pushing smart gun tech. Sure, the CLAIM is safety, only authorized users can shoot the gun, cuts down on stolen guns being able to be used in crimes, etc., but I don't for a moment believe that they give a rodent's posterior about making shooters "safer".

What they really want is to make smart gun tech the ONLY legal standard, so that all "dumb" guns can be classed as "unsafe" or not safe enough, and because they aren't safe, restricted, or even banned.

So, I see a small potential risk to the reasoning of using hearing protection as the argument for relaxing the restrictions on silencers.

I grant you, that the hearing protection argument is the only one that has a chance of actually WORKING, getting enough support to pass, but its not the best argument. The best argument is our fundamental rights, but history has shown that the rest of the country really doesn't care much about OUR constitutional rights, the majority only cares about things that are, or could be an issue in their personal lives.

Yes, there are those (on all sides of every issue) that care about the principles, and they can be very effective advocates, but numerically those people are a tiny fraction of the whole.
 
Back
Top