Hearing Protection Act - will it pass?

What do you believe will happen with the Hearing Protection Act

  • It will pass this calendar year

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • It will pass within the next 12 months

    Votes: 10 16.7%

  • Not dead but on life support

    Votes: 38 63.3%

  • It's dead after the Steve Scaliese incident

    Votes: 13 21.7%
  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/trump-las-vegas-shooting-leadership-243393?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.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...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.
Click to expand...
+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.
 
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Speaker Ryan says SHARE Act shelved indefinitely.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
2damnold4this said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about adding rapid-fire devices like bumpfire stocks to the NFA?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Bartholemew Roberts said:
Speaker Ryan says SHARE Act shelved indefinitely. No floor vote scheduled (last week they were discussing a floor vote for today).
Click to expand...

Since it wasn't actually scheduled for a vote, what does "shelving" it mean except that Ryan removed it rhetorically from conversation?

Glenn E Meyer said:
Regulating bump fire type gadgets might not be practical to oppose. Do folks want to fight over that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
You are not going to be able to trade anything for anything.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
Since it wasn't actually scheduled for a vote, what does "shelving" it mean except that Ryan removed it rhetorically from conversation?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Regulating bump fire type gadgets might not be practical to oppose.
Click to expand...

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.
 
5whisky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top