Hearing Protection Act - will it pass?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The GOP has had the greatest success in the last 100 years by being perpetually offended and ineffective. Why would they wish to change that? We have very reasonable requests supported by NRA and yet the sponsor of the bill tells us House and Senate leadership won't let it out of committee

The GOP feels zero need to deliver for us because we are now a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to go. Considering the overlap between Trump voters in the Rust belt and the NRA, you'd think the Dems would exploit that wedge but they are too busy trying to out-Commie the next Dem nominee.

We have a good product and we can deliver the votes. The key is we need a bidding war because right now there is only one party at the auction.

 

[JimPage]

When studying accounting for my MBA I was told that for planning you can add 40% to the salary to find what a worker actually costs the employer.

 

[rickyrick]

It does seem when I vote (as far as gun thing go) I have the choice to vote for someone who is going support more gun control and restrictions or someone who will do nothing.

Granted, we have come a long way in recent years but I'd like to see more. Get rid of some of the laws that prohibit SBRs and suppressors. National reciprocity won't happen, but I don't think a person should receive anything more severe than a traffic citation if they are otherwise law abiding.

 

[zukiphile]

Skepticism about the motives of elected office holders is healthy; cynicism is less so. Metaphorically throwing one's hands up and declaring them all the same is a resignation of one's own position to irrelevence.

The GOP has had the greatest success in the last 100 years by being perpetually offended and ineffective. Why would they wish to change that?

Is that true? At a Congressional level, repubs were only marginally relevant in most sessions from the early 1930s to 1981. Since then they've reduced tax rates, enacted RFRA and NAFTA, stood uniformly in opposition to the ACA and kept open a seat so that Gorsuch could fill it. They've not done everything I want, but that doesn't translate to an absence of efficacy.

We have very reasonable requests supported by NRA and yet the sponsor of the bill tells us House and Senate leadership won't let it out of committee.

I'd like to know why. I don't expect to learn what the calculation was until after this term, but Id want to know the reasoning employed.

The GOP feels zero need to deliver for us because we are now a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to go. Considering the overlap between Trump voters in the Rust belt and the NRA, you'd think the Dems would exploit that wedge but they are too busy trying to out-Commie the next Dem nominee.

I concur with the sentiment that the dems at the national level are more ideologically cohesive than they have been for most of their history. That ideology doesn't allow a home for a number of fairly middle of the road positions, 2d Am. issues included. That's a strategic problem for them, but also a source of strength for their remaining elected members.

We have a good product and we can deliver the votes. The key is we need a bidding war because right now there is only one party at the auction.

A bidding war with whom?

I have never had the antipathy for McConnell that some of my federalist colleagues sometimes demonstrate. He stood against the Garland appointment when even some here were calling for the Senate to hold hearings and a vote. He doesn't employ a lot of over the top rhetoric, but in terms of content he has a a record in the senate on 1st and 2d Am. issues that few senators can match.

I understand frustration, yet I resist the impulse of political movements to eat their own.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you can't score when you are in the red zone, you aren't going to win many games. Gorsuch was a huge and unexpected win for us; but the party that claims to be pro-2A has a majority in the House and Senate and a friendly executive and we can't even get a bill out of committee. And that isn't just a story at the national level but one that gets retold at the state level frequently as well.

 

[zukiphile]

And that isn't just a story at the national level but one that gets retold at the state level frequently as well.

I don't disagree having endured a post election change of mind by a repub governor.

If you can't score when you are in the red zone, you aren't going to win many games. Gorsuch was a huge and unexpected win for us; but the party that claims to be pro-2A has a majority in the House and Senate and a friendly executive and we can't even get a bill out of committee.

The degree to which the party has an upper hand is limited by all of the following:

1. An unpredictable exec
2. A purely nominal majority in the Senate which leads a a strategic difficulty that any repub senator can show he is a "maverick" with an erratic sense of honor by voting against repubs.
3. More than one ball in the air. ACA and tax reform also matter, and how the process of forming voting majorities unfolds can influence whether voting majorities can be achieved for any of them.


Rep. Massie's recounting of Ryan's comment that the "timing isn't right" is specifically about the Scalise/recoprocity bill. It's Massie's observation that Ryan and McConnell are working contrary to their expressed positions. That strikes me as freedom caucus reductionism.

To conclude that despite their often stated public positions on 2d Am issues, the ACA or tax reform, Ryan and McConnell are actually working against those positions because it isn't done yet is the same kind of simplicity that had freedom caucus house members pushing ACA repeal votes to show us how they weren't making excuses, but doing what they were sent to do.

That's an admirable sentiment, but it was not effective in legislative operation.


Which legislator is more manipulative of voter desires, the one that demands a vote before having made provision for a successful vote, or the one who avoids that misstep?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, it appears the SHARE Act (which includes the Hearing Protection Act, though not reciprocity) has been passed out of committee and will get a full vote in the House. It will very likely pass the House, so the next big hurdle is now the Senate where we need 60 votes to beat the inevitable filibuster.

Maybe that's the "timing" issue. They want the bill to get shot down in the Senate at the right time to spur some outrage in 2018.

 

[zukiphile]

Well, it appears the SHARE Act (which includes the Hearing Protection Act, though not reciprocity) has been passed out of committee and will get a full vote in the House. It will very likely pass the House, so the next big hurdle is now the Senate where we need 60 votes to beat the inevitable filibuster.

Wouldn't there be 60 votes in the Senate?

I understand that there can be genuine misgivings about a federally enforced reciprocity, but with that removed I thought SHARE had fairly wide support.

Maybe that's the "timing" issue. They want the bill to get shot down in the Senate at the right time to spur some outrage in 2018.

I don't think there will be a shortage of remaining issues at the close of the current session. It seems as likely that incumbents would be looking for something to cite as an accomplishment.

 

[carguychris]

Wouldn't there be 60 votes in the Senate?

Given the deep divisions in the Republican Party and the POTUS's mercurial temperament, I think it's fair to say that nothing is guaranteed in the current political climate.

As stated earlier, IMHO if the strategy was to (more-or-less) guarantee passage, I believe that this bill would have been tacked on to some sort of omnibus "must-pass" spending bill. Recent natural disasters provide excellent political cover for this tactic.

Maybe that's the "timing" issue. They want the bill to get shot down in the Senate at the right time to spur some outrage in 2018.

+1. Betcha it's an "I Dare Ya To Vote Anti-Gun!" signal to vulnerable congress-critters.

As I've stated numerous times on and off this forum, IMHO the real political power of the NRA isn't the campaign contributions; it's the fact that they keep score and hold past anti-gun votes over the heads of politicians—forever.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Wouldn't there be 60 votes in the Senate?

There are 52 Republican Senators. Assuming no defections there (which is optimistic; but not unreasonably so), you need 8 Democrats or Independents to beat a filibuster attempt (which is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow in the East). Heitkamp and Manchin are both up for reelection in 2018 and at least passing friendly with NRA. If you can convince them to bear the wrath of Dem leadership, you've got 54; but then what?

The "gun control moderates" in the Dem party are a handful of people who see the NFA as something to expand, not shrink. The remainder just don't want you to have guns period. Where are six more votes?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Guns America reports that the Hearing Protection Act has cleared committee:

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/hearing-protection-act-gets-heard-capitol-hill-clears-committee/

 

[zukiphile]

Aguila B, thank you for the link.

I think my understanding of this incorporated an error: I thought that a device that served hearing safety would not encounter the same kind of arguments as an actual arm. I was wrong. From AB's linked article:

At Tuesday’s hearing, though, opponents of the measure wasted no time slamming it, arguing that removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act jeopardizes public safety.

“Silencers mask the sound of a gun, changing the sound into one not easily recognized as gunfire. As a result, ambush-style murders become easier, and bystanders may not know to alert first responders,” said David Chipman, a policy adviser for the pro-gun control organization Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Chipman, a former agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, was invited by the Democrats to testify.

“Congress must do more to make our communities safer, not put silencers in the hands of criminals, making it harder for people, including law enforcement, to identify the sound of gunfire, locate active shooters, and keep our communities safe,” continued Chipman.

"Don't make X legal, or criminals will use X" is an amazing structure.

Commendably, Chipman omitted "Won't someone think of the children!!!". However the argument he did make is as poor as the one I saw an ATF agent present to congress in the 1990s, that the only reason for a rifle to have a pistol grip is to make it easier to fire from the hip.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Chipman is a gun-grabbers' stooge. Agents such as Chipman are the reason the BATFE is so loathsome.

Legalizing "silencers" [sic] won't put them in the hands of criminals, it will put them in the hands of people who want to preserve their hearing. It ain't like there aren't back room shops who can crank out black market suppressors for the criminal element already. But a "silencer" [sic] doesn't help make a gun more concealable. As for masking the location of an active shooter? GIVE ... ME ... A ... BREAK. When the cops show up, they'll know -- just look in the direction everyone is running away from.

 

[DaleA]

Aguila Blanca---thank you for monitoring this and posting the link.

I looked for recent main stream media articles on this and only found the Huffington Post article on it. Major Spoiler Alert---the Huffington Post is NOT in favor of 'suppressors'/'silencers' becoming easier to get.

They seemed to delight in pointing out there is a 'Trump Slump' in gun sales.

Sigh.

I found the comments to the article to be interesting with a few
knowledgeable folk posting about the technology and many anti-gun folk just posting anti-gun stuff.

The anti-gun folk seem to be pushing several talking points ALL THE TIME and WHENEVER the topic of guns comes up:
1. If you have a gun your compensating for 'other' deficiencies-wink wink, nudge nudge, giggle giggle.
2. The government has NEVER been coming for your guns and NEVER will.
3. The NRA is just an arm of the gun industry trying to stir up paranoia to sell more guns.

The Huffington Post link is here. If you want to see the comments go to the left side of the screen and along with the Facebook/Tweet/Pininterest etc. icons there is the dialog bubble/balloon you can click on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-gun-silencers-bill_us_59b95c08e4b0edff97188620

 

[MagnumWill]

It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially when the discussion is to be had that...

A) suppressors are a common firearm accessory in Europe

B) a background check will still be required (defeating the whole "criminals have ready access", no, by definition they won't and criminals will still do whatever they want regardless)

and most interestingly...

C) Ronald Turk's white paper, directly indicating the suppressors are a great candidate for removal of ATF purview.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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/opinion/guns-silencers-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.

 

[carguychris]

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:

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.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

 

[carguychris]

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.

 

[danco]

It's certainly dead now, after Vegas, along with national right-to-carry reciprocity...