Hearing Protection Act - will it pass?
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
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.
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
5W noed:
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.
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.
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.
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...
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:
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...
carguychris
New member
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).
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
One of the House sponsors of concealed carry reciprocity reports that Ryan and McConnell are blocking a floor vote on all the pro-2A bills because they "don't think the timing is right."
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/ry...y-congressman-tells-armed-american-radio/amp/
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/ry...y-congressman-tells-armed-american-radio/amp/
Unconventional
New member
Not true. SilencerCo has an entire Compliance department that is tasked in part with interfacing with the ATF et al. to ensure compliance with regulations.
Also, consider that from the time that SilencerCo puts a planned suppressor on their books for construction, they have to have a piece of material with a serial number on it to show that they can account for the item. This is even before actual construction/assembly of the suppressor itself has begun! This means that there is considerable extra labor and material involved in stamping/laser engraving a piece of metal that will never even comprise part of the suppressor when it is finished.
I'm sorry, but this statement is so far off the mark as to be laughable.
REGULATIONS have SOMETHING to do with the COST of every business IN THE WORLD!!!!!
prove me wrong!
Pick ANY business, anywhere, there are licenses, fees, permits, involved. There are costs created by laws (and regulations) about everything, from the cost of workers, to the fact that you need a govt permit to let water run down hill.
There are labor regulations, environmental regulations, marketing regulations, taxes and fees, etc. Different businesses bear different levels of regulation, (and manufacturers are particularly hard hit in the US) but EVERY legal business has regulations they have to meet, and that costs money. Don't think otherwise for a minute. Just because the consumer USUALLY doesn't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
In fact, even the black market costs are driven by govt. regulations. The black market EXISTS because of govt regulations, taxes and fees.
In fact, at least one nation came into existence because of people's reaction to what they felt were excessive taxes, regulations, and fees.....
OURS.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I can't prove you wrong because you aren't wrong. You're absolutely correct. And anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand how businesses operate -- especially in a heavily regulated environment.44 AMP said:
Regulations require that businesses incur expenses for record keeping, accountants and auditors to monitor compliance and to be able to assure both management and regulators that the business is complying with applicable regulations. Among other things, if there are compliance lapses management better know about them and take corrective action before the regulator discovers the problems and takes punitive action.
A regulated business must hire compliance officers, accountants, IT staff, and lawyers to review business practices, prepare policy and procedure manuals, and to assure implementation of business practices and policies and procedures that are in compliance and to develop and install information systems that can facilitate compliance.
When the HIPAA medical privacy regulations were being promulgated, the medical care industry and the medical insurance industry spent billions on compliance efforts.
And I made a lot of my money helping business comply with government regulations.
Uncle Frank 
noted:
The overseas price of a high end security phone from a company you'd recognize is ~double the US domestic price. (Same basic device) The paperwork to be allowed to sell the phone overseas is ~ a million. The paperwork on both ends of *each* sale adds to the rest. The math says if you're not going to sell 10s of thousands don't export the phone.
We made a lot of Uncle Frank's colleagues very well off.
noted:The overseas price of a high end security phone from a company you'd recognize is ~double the US domestic price. (Same basic device) The paperwork to be allowed to sell the phone overseas is ~ a million. The paperwork on both ends of *each* sale adds to the rest. The math says if you're not going to sell 10s of thousands don't export the phone.
We made a lot of Uncle Frank's colleagues very well off.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The timing will never be right as they don't support expanding gun rights. The only time the timing would be right would be if pressure rose NOT to support candidates and send money to them.
Then they will argue, if you do that then antigunners get in and they are worse. So stick with us do-nothings.
As stated, let's keep the issue as a fund raiser and a threat. During GWB days, whenever he got in trouble, they took us to Condition Orange and started to babble about constitutional amendments that had no chance but appealed to proportion of the base. I'll pass on mentioning the topics.
Then they will argue, if you do that then antigunners get in and they are worse. So stick with us do-nothings.
As stated, let's keep the issue as a fund raiser and a threat. During GWB days, whenever he got in trouble, they took us to Condition Orange and started to babble about constitutional amendments that had no chance but appealed to proportion of the base. I'll pass on mentioning the topics.
I think you're in little danger by calling a politician's bluff on this as they only care about election and re-election.
Ok to be completely fair, though it is not specified in this one quote, I was referring to regulations of a suppressor manufacturer when compared to regulations governing a firearms manufacturer. Both are regulation heavy, especially for the manufacturer. The ultimate point there was silencerco doesn't have any significant added regulation costs when compared to Glock, Ruger, et al. Maybe it wasn't properly spelled out, but I did not intend to imply that regulations do not add cost to production. I believe if you re-read that entire post as a whole you will understand the context.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
How would you know? Are you an accountant? Have you evaluated and compared the regulatory compliance requirements for a manufacturer of Title I weapons with those of a manufacturer of Title II weapons or devices? Have you examined the books of a manufacturer of suppressors and determined the costs of its NFA compliance activities? Do manufacturers of suppressors pay a SOT, and what are the costs associated with accounting for and paying a SOT?5whiskey said:
People need to stop pretending that they know things that they don't really know.
Here's the text of the SHARE ACT.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3668/text
It would open up the ACOE lands to concealed carry AND includes the Hearing Act!
Here's an article about as well:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/09/11/hearing-protection-act-folded-hunting-fishing-rights-bill/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3668/text
It would open up the ACOE lands to concealed carry AND includes the Hearing Act!
Here's an article about as well:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/09/11/hearing-protection-act-folded-hunting-fishing-rights-bill/