Hearing Protection Act - will it pass?

[TXAZ]

I've tried to keep up with the Hearing Protection Act (H.R.367 - 115th Congress (2017-2018), but it appears to gain interest, then lose interest, someone does something stupid wiith a weapon that endangers it, it gets a boost from someone, etc.

Hearing Protection Act Congressional site

If you're keeping up with it, or have good contacts in the area, what say you?
An anonymous poll is attached.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I wanna believe.

I know It would really boost the sales of them I wouldn't mind owning a few but have avoided them due to the loops and money.

And Honestly it should be considered a safety device not some super dangerous regulated item.

But that's too logical.. and I bet it goes no where If I had put money on it.
I know we would see more guns coming with factory threaded barrels.. right now it's fairly rare.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not 60 votes in the Senate, so it will get filibustered and die there should it pass the House. At this point, this appears to be more of a symbolic effort than a serious one. However, if it makes it out of the House committee (extremely iffy IMO), it will pass the House since a recorded floor vote on an NRA priority is going to pass the current House easily.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IMHO, we will see no proactive firearms legislation in the foreseeable future. The GOP leadership is distracted or not interested. The bills are put forward as fund raising bait and switch for contributors and sops to the NRA to support its funding raising.

Sorry to be a downer but that's the way I see it. Bart is correct that it may not make it out of committee. That's a way to keep it from a floor vote and then a stall in the Senate. That would be evidence that all the hype and promises of gun heaven arriving are empty.

The NRA magazines are admitting this on the Supreme Court. They acknowledge the court is a flop on gun cases but try to make a victory out of Gorsuch being on it and his dissents. True, but he just keeps steady state.

So staying in place is seen as a victory. I got an funding raising e-mail that the UN Treaty is coming again - SEND MONEY. Yawn.

 

[JoeSixpack]

With republicans in power if we're ever gonna see progress the time is now.
That's not to say all democrats are anti gun or all republicans are pro gun.

But if standing still under these circumstances is a victory we maybe in for a very dark future in 4-8.. maybe sooner depending on how the midterms go.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Standing still is a victory for some because:

1. It doesn't demonstrate that you are an overt political and/or organizational failure. You did your best.

2. It keeps hope alive in those who buy the bait and switch to keep sending in money.

If one saw an organizational statement that said that their beloved elected leaders better pass something proactive or kiss the bucks good bye, you might see some action.

However, then the cry would be if you don't support the do nothings, the do something bad folks will get in.

One problem for gun rights is the strict identification of gun rights with one party and its baggage. In the past you can find strong support for gun rights from both parties when the parties didn't dichotomize in two sets of extreme nuts.

 

[DaleA]

I do NOT have any inside information on this but am very glad folks are pushing for it and keeping up the interest in the issue.

I do see more guns with threaded barrels and I thought the manufacturers were pushing hard to repeal the restrictions. Ruger is the main one I am thinking of but others are doing it too. I still hope this is the case and that the manufacturers will bring some pressure to bear.

And Honestly it should be considered a safety device not some super dangerous regulated item.

I think JoeSixpack nailed the "technical" side of the issue but I guess the political side is probably what will count most.

Still, I never thought I'd see the day Minnesota had allowable concealed carry and we've had it now for several years. So maybe things might get better.

 

[steve4102]

I thought it was attached to a Sprtsmans omnibus bill called the SHARE Act.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2017/06/13/hearing-protection-act-loaded-onto-omnibus/

 

[carguychris]

I thought it was attached to a Sprtsmans omnibus bill called the SHARE Act.

Perhaps, but as one of the commentators on the linked website sagely phrased it:

Sincere question: Will an Omnibus bill have a better chance of passage than any of its sub-provisions would have individually? If not, pessimist-me thinks it could be the place where nice ideas go to die.

This summarizes my thoughts as well.

Pessimist-me will get my hopes up when the bill is attached to a major omnibus bill that is NOT concerned primarily with gun and hunting stuff—something like a defense appropriations bill. This is how potentially controversial legislation usually gets rammed through when there are not enough votes in the Senate to get it through on its own merits. This gives opposing senators some political cover. ("I didn't like X, but I had to vote for it because the USAF base and Army fort in my state need funding, and that foul and nasty opposition party slipped X into the bill. I will be heading up an effort to repeal X in my next term, so make sure you contribute to my campaign...")

 

[brian33x51]

The GOP has proven itself totally incompetent this cycle (like any other cycle). I truly believe the vast majority in congress are more interested in getting reelected than actually doing anything, and for some stupid reason look to the mainstream media for their policy guidance.

Paul Ryan looks to be an anti-gunner worst case, and totally indifferent otherwise. McConnell? Well there's isn't much to say about him.

If the congress was serious and had a clue they would be spending all their time and effort striking stupid laws from the books, not making new ones. That felony for firearms possession 1000ft from a school is a screaming example.

 

[ATN082268]

IMHO, we will see no proactive firearms legislation in the foreseeable future. The GOP leadership is distracted or not interested. The bills are put forward as fund raising bait and switch for contributors and sops to the NRA to support its funding raising.

Unfortunately that is probably true. Hopefully there won't be any backsliding by the bureaucracies and the courts...

 

[rickyrick]

Anything that's a political talking point will not get completely solved. Basically the puck will get passed back and forth, pushed here or there but never across the goal line. The representatives only want to get elected and re-elected not solve issues. Problem solvers get shown the door on Election Day.

Keeping social issues alive keeps political figures in the game. Staying in government office makes them multimillionaires. Really they try to keep the balance of fence sitters in their favor; making drastic changes will alienate some fence sitting voters.

Hardcore republicans didn't elect our current cadre of officials, fence sitting moderates made the difference.

 

[dogtown tom]

No option for: "It was dead before the Steve Scalise shooting".

No one in Congress really cares about silencers. It's such a tiny percentage of firearm sales that even the NSSF doesn't give it more than a casual glance.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Dogtown, True, But don't you think the overall cost and paperwork hassle is part of why they're not more popular? It's a catch 22.

If it was legal without the legal hassle sells would go up, prices would come down.
You could make your own if you wanted.

Commonality would increase.

Same thing for "machine guns" can't argue common use cause they're expensive so ownership is low, But if they reopened the registry, I don't mean abolished but just reopened it you would see so much money flow thru the gun market and companies trying to get their product over here it would be embarrassing.

 

[TXAZ]

Joe,
you left out "it's a Federal Jobs Program".

 

[JoeSixpack]

Sure you're right, That was just a quick draft I'll work that into the next revision

 

[dogtown tom]

JoeSixpack Dogtown, True, But don't you think the overall cost and paperwork hassle is part of why they're not more popular? It's a catch 22.

Sure, drop $200 from the cost of any firearm and you'll almost always increase sales. But the lack of popularity of NFA firearms is the result of the decades old myth that such firearms are illegal. In 1934 the $200 tax was intended to be prohibitively expensive, effectively stopping the average gun owner from buying. How many people would buy a silencer today if the ATF tax stamp was $3,653? That's what it would be if the tax stamp kept pace with inflation.

Not a day goes by that I don't get a call about silencers, at least 1 in 4 says "I thought they were illegal but a friend/relative/coworker has one".

Sadly, there is a not so insignificant segment of gun owners that view NFA firearms as guns only criminals would use. This owner has never used a silencer and neither did his father, grandfather or great grandfather.....so why should he? When a guy only hunts ducks or doves or shoots sporting clays he doesn't see the need for silencers, AR15's, 30 round magazines, concealed carry or any other 2nd Amendment right. That's sad and shortsighted.

If it was legal without the legal hassle sells would go up, prices would come down.

The tax stamp has nothing to do with the price of a silencer. There already is a competitive market. Manufacturers, distributors and dealers don't pay a tax stamp for each silencer......only the end buyer does.

The regulatory oversight by ATF for a manufacturer/distributor/dealer of NFA firearms is the same as for Title I guns.

All that is required to manufacture a silencer is an 07FFL, Special Occupational Tax and ITAR registration.....less than $3,000 per year.

You could make your own if you wanted.

Already can.

Commonality would increase.

I don't know what this means, sorry.

Same thing for "machine guns" can't argue common use cause they're expensive so ownership is low, But if they reopened the registry, I don't mean abolished but just reopened it you would see so much money flow thru the gun market and companies trying to get their product over here it would be embarrassing.

Machine guns are only expensive because the registry for "fully transferrables" closed in 1986. If the registry was reopened a machine gun would likely cost the same as a semi auto of the same model.

 

[rickyrick]

I think that the difficulty in owning one directly relates to the price. If legal and unfettered, every person with a lathe in their garage would be turning them out and the price would go down. I don't see anything about them that brings such a handsome price in these current times. If the price was still high but the suppressor were unrestricted, I'd buy one. I just don't feel like giving the Feds any of my money for something that shouldn't be restricted in the first place.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Sure, drop $200 from the cost of any firearm and you'll almost always increase sales. But the lack of popularity of NFA firearms is the result of the decades old myth that such firearms are illegal. In 1934 the $200 tax was intended to be prohibitively expensive,

I guess I can only speak for my self when I say the hassle of the paper work, the wait, and ya 200 dollars is still a tidy sum for me on top of 100's for the suppressor it self is the reason I don't own any.

The tax stamp has nothing to do with the price of a silencer. There already is a competitive market. Manufacturers, distributors and dealers don't pay a tax stamp for each silencer......only the end buyer does.

Sure it does, the smaller the market the more niche the item the higher the unit cost. economics of scale.. google it.

If they was deregulated market would expand, production would go up, unit price would come down.

Already can.

Not without paper work and fee.. I mean unless you wanna goto prison.

I don't know what this means, sorry.

It means if it was more accessible more would own one.

Machine guns are only expensive because the registry for "fully transferrables" closed in 1986. If the registry was reopened a machine gun would likely cost the same as a semi auto of the same model.

That was sort of my point, You don't need the registry reopened if you're ok with stuff made before 86 and are willing to pay wads of cash.
But that's a limited market, there is no "new" supply to meet demand.

Even if the they just reopened, the registry how many people would jump at the chance to pony up that 200 dollars, do the paperwork, and wait so they could land that full auto?

What do you think would happen if the registry was reopened?
Run your scenario out and see how far it is from what I already said.

 

[rwilson452]

I don't know if it will ever get to be law. I do think it will not happen in this session of congress. As to price, If it does become law, prices will not drop for some time as demand will rise. Manufacturers will take some time to ramp up to demand. As the demand will will be greater than supply, prices will not go down and may even rise.