Hearing Protection Act "Progress" Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

barnbwt

member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
7,340
It would appear this effort will be folded into a larger legislative work (no HR number at this time) which modifies a host of sporting issues law (fish/game regulations), and most importantly seeks to redefine the nature of "sporting purposes" as it applies to our various federal laws & regulations.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_--_share_act.pdf

Sportsmans Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act (feds can't seem to wipe their noses without making a back-ronymn for it)

As much as I dislike long omnibus bills because the Devil is in the details, I can understand how a rather small/simple issue like the reclassification of silencers as Title I (normal) firearms would rather be packaged with a bunch of other gun issue stuff. I'm not sure I care for the 'sportsman' window dressing that is the focus of the rest of the bill, but mostly because I've become accustomed to it being a smokescreen for the theft of our rights (as opposed to a smokescreen for reclaiming them for all reasons in addition to sport). The more I consider it, though, this may be a smart move; silencers need to be deregulated, and "sporting purposes" needs to be reigned in just as badly, but both are obscure (if still very significant if you consider the number of people effected) and simple enough to be line items in a broader effort. Maybe if the effort is a bit larger, it will attract the attention from public officials it deserves, yet still be manageable enough to actually pass (the HPA is currently no. 2 most viewed on congress.gov; we've done about as much as we can without pitchforks to get the word out and notify our reps)

It is impossible to understate the potential impact of the "sporting purpose" reclassification that is described in the bill. Practically every federal gun restriction that doesn't involve paying taxes or licensing is governed by an administration's interpretation of "sporting purpose." It has been abused over the years to arbitrarily ban certain 12ga shotguns on the basis of their bore being over 1/2" diameter (that's right, any 12ga can be banned at the drop of a hat), to arbitrarily restrict imports that are functionally or entirely identical to other foreign or domestic models, to ban factory original barrels for common rifles built from milsurp parts kits, and to ban affordable foreign surplus ammunition based upon broad views of armor-piercing classifications.

By changing "sporting purpose" to mean "lawful purpose" we can get, in one fell swoop;
-Readily imported silencers (in conjunction with silencer reclassification)
-No more banned imports, apart from specific circumstances (Daewoo, Valmet, but probably not Kalashnikov Proper or Norinco). Entirely possible we'd see SVT40's and Dragunov's, provided they aren't new production from sanctioned entities
-Freely importable ammo, no longer contingent on jacket or core materials (7.62x25, 5.45x39, 9mm +P will all flood the nation once more)
-Parts kits will gain about 1/3-1/2 their value, since barrels will no longer be needlessly destroyed upon importation (kits themselves will likely drop in price, too, since importers won't need to pay for the destruction either). Replacement barrels for rare/historical weapons in America will become available for the first time in decades.
-922r will be mooted entirely, in all likelihood
-State and local governments will find it very hard to argue their case, as far as justifying bans on "assault weapons" and "assault features" when the federal interpretation is they are no different than Fudd-friendly equivalents (doesn't help mag-bans, though)
-ATF will no longer be able to designate shotguns or rifles with large bores as Destructive Devices purely upon whim any longer (my guess is additional requirements, like explosives, will need to be met), so all the 12ga autos banned under Clinton will be normalized. Anti-material rifles and autocannon more powerful than 50BMG will become viable, and most likely, non-explosive ammunition for many military cannon will become importable
 
Money Shot:
TITLE XVII—HEARING PROTECTION
Sec. 1701. Short title. Sec. 1702. Equal treatment of silencers and firearms.
Sec. 1703. Treatment of certain silencers.
Sec. 1704. Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencers.
Sec. 1705. Destruction of records. Sec. 1706. Amendments to title 18, United States Code.
Sec. 1707. Imposition of tax on firearm silencers or firearm mufflers.
TITLE XVIII—LAWFUL PURPOSE AND SELF-DEFENSE
Sec. 1801. Short title.
Sec. 1802. Elimination of authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as ‘‘armor piercing ammunition’’.
Sec. 1803. Elimination of restrictions on importation of non-National Firearms Act firearm or ammunition that may otherwise be lawfully possessed and sold in the United States.
Sec. 1804. Protection of shotguns, shotgun shells, and large caliber rifles from arbitrary classification as ‘‘destructive devices’’.
Sec. 1805. Broadening of the temporary interstate transfer provision to allow temporary transfers for all lawful purposes rather than just for ‘‘sporting purposes’’.
 
I actually like it it fixes a whole bunch of stuff at the same time. Not entirely sure what the conservation of grizzly bears Act is about. It seems like it allows you to import grizzly bear parts from Canada. Not sure why that's important to anybody. Maybe there's something there not obvious.
 
IIRC, there's some weird/obnoxious import regs we have, that make it impossible to bring a trophy kill or its parts back to the US for taxidermy. Truly a niche issue, that frankly, has no business being considered along with truly important stuff like silencers, but like I said, it may grant the Fudd's Cloak of Invisibility to the more important aspects of the bill, and keep the but-heads* from voting against it.

It's kind of funny, that those two paragraphs I quoted are likely an order of magnitude (or more) of greater importance than the other 74 pages of pet issues & fluff in that bill. But maybe that's what it takes to get things done in congress; I wouldn't know. At least the language is fairly clear for the most part.

TCB
* "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..."
 
I would say fixing of fopa ranks pretty high up there. Might be the most important part of the bill.
 
By folding it into a larger "sportsman" bill, the chance of passage of the HPA just went from "none" to "slim." It still has to get past the filibuster in the Senate. The "sportsman" bill might pass that hurdle, but only if the pro-gun provisions get stripped out.
 
By folding it into a larger "sportsman" bill, the chance of passage of the HPA just went from "none" to "slim." It still has to get past the filibuster in the Senate. The "sportsman" bill might pass that hurdle, but only if the pro-gun provisions get stripped out.
That's my worry. We'll give it a week or so to see if the interest changes.
 
Some of the politicians that wouldn't have wanted to vote for the HPA by itself might have an easier time swallowing voting for a broader Sportsman's Bill, especially where their anti-gunner constituents might not notice so much. Hard to say, we'll need to put as much pressure as we can on them when we get there. I know I have one Senator that is pretty set on voting against it but we're going to try our best to twist his arm so to speak.
 
GOP toadies need to be reminded that they passed the original import ban. It didn't expire and was the blueprint for the AWB, as well as an abundance of subsequent executive orders.
"Stroke of the pin. Law of the Land. Kind of Cool"
--Bill Clinton
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
barnbwt wrote:
Sportsmans Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act (feds can't seem to wipe their noses without making a back-ronymn for it)

Because the SHARE Act is a lot quicker and easier to say than the Sportsmans Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act. And to think that people don't believe Congress has any interest in efficiency. :p
 
Do you think it won't pass the Senate?

There's not much of anything that's going to pass in the Senate. Roping HPA into a larger bill addressing other issues was clever but Senate Democrats are essentially trying to sabotage government and refusing to pass almost anything except basic funding for the government. This could change when they realize it's a poor strategy. But Chuck Schumer isn't exactly a rocket scientist, so when this realization will dawn is anyone's guess. One theory is that they now want McConnell to end the filibuster in the hopes that they win big in the mid-terms and can then legislate against Trump. Hard to tell what goes on inside their pointy little heads.

But the fact is that getting anything passed in the Senate is a an uphill battle at the best of times. Getting something even to a vote at present is an enormous challenge.
 
Does anyone honestly think a senator from a blue state is going to vote for a bill that makes suppressors a title 1 item? :rofl:

Even if it does pass there is still state laws that will make them illegal. Again, that would probably be most of the blue states. Look at the states that have laws making suppressors illegal and that will be about the number of votes you get in the senate against any legislation making them unregulated.

State laws can be the same as federal laws or as draconian as they want. CA is a good example.

But I'm hopeful because I would like to have a few and in this state if the ATF restriction disappeared I could pick one up tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone honestly think a senator from a blue state is going to vote for a bill that makes suppressors a title 1 item? :rofl:

Even if it does pass there is still state laws that will make them illegal. Again, that would probably be most of the blue states. Look at the states that have laws making suppressors illegal and that will be about the number of votes you get in the senate against any legislation making them unregulated.

State laws can be the same as federal laws or as draconian as they want. CA is a good example.

But I'm hopeful because I would like to have a few and in this state if the ATF restriction disappeared I could pick one up tomorrow.
there are only 8 states where silencers are illegal for private ownership.
 
I am all for the intent of the law, but lumping it in with hunting regs and putting "sportsman" in the title is dangerous. Our 2nd amendment is not about hunting, or sports.
 
...
-ATF will no longer be able to designate shotguns or rifles with large bores as Destructive Devices purely upon whim any longer (my guess is additional requirements, like explosives, will need to be met), so all the 12ga autos banned under Clinton will be normalized. Anti-material rifles and autocannon more powerful than 50BMG will become viable, and most likely, non-explosive ammunition for many military cannon will become importable

And if they include this section I can see none of it taking effect. I could see quite some opposition to legalizing "anti-material rifles and autocannons" putting the whole thing out to pasture, I just don't see 50 votes for that in the senate, and it's unlikely to get enough votes in the house.
 
I fully expect some stuff to be trimmed before proceeding; silencers & sporting purposes reform are the two biggies*. But as a starting point, this has everything but a machinegun amnesty. If it does anything more than wither on the vine like it has been, it is still progress. At least someone's paying enough attention to draft this bill; HPAs had no movement for a couple months now.

TCB
*fun fact, DDs have a sporting exemption too, hence passage would largely moot that NFA area
 
And if they include this section I can see none of it taking effect. I could see quite some opposition to legalizing "anti-material rifles and autocannons" putting the whole thing out to pasture, I just don't see 50 votes for that in the senate, and it's unlikely to get enough votes in the house.

But the threshold isn't 50. A motion for cloture (to proceed to vote) requires 6) votes, which is why nothing gets done in the Senate.
 
there are only 8 states where silencers are illegal for private ownership.

Those would be for sure no votes. I know that my two Dem. senators (Murray and Cantwell) would never vote for it even though there is no state restriction. I would say you are looking at 46 votes against. That won't pass a bill in the senate. These days it takes 60 votes to pass..
 
Last edited:
SHARE Act reconfiguration already getting some press; supposedly there's a committee hearing on it tomorrow
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/12/gun-silencer-restrictions-house-jeff-duncan-239440
The way the Dems are teeing up out of the gate in blind opposition to the silencer portions, leads me to believe that area will be a sacrificial canard that would be stripped late in the game to much rejoicing (while hopefully, the other good stuff is allowed through). I'd be okay with that, putting us basically back to where we were yesterday as far as HPA progress, but perhaps further along in other areas. It'd have been a lot smarter to add a stipulation stating that only silencers which drop decibels below 100 will be deregulated (which is all of them with present technology). That kind of incremental-sounding shenanigans is precisely how the other side couches their bans as gentle policy changes, and seems to work pretty well on the ignorant. Can't really call something louder than 100dBa 'silent' after all...

Interesting article on the obvious money to be made; I really hope the silencer industry groups have been going to work on the usual suspects like McCain that are certain to throw a wrench into the process if they don't get a cut of the door;
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/news/companies/silencer-hearing-protection-act/index.html
Not a new story, but did contain this interesting factoid I didn't remember reading;
"More than 330,000 silencers were registered nationwide in the two years ending in February 2016, according to the federal government. That amounts to about a third of all silencers registered since 1934, when the National Firearms Act was implemented."
330,000 cans...think about how much the average can likely costs including tax payment, and how difficult/obscure the process currently is...cha-ching! Instant billions to be made, easily.
 
SHARE Act reconfiguration already getting some press; supposedly there's a committee hearing on it tomorrow
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/12/gun-silencer-restrictions-house-jeff-duncan-239440
The way the Dems are teeing up out of the gate in blind opposition to the silencer portions, leads me to believe that area will be a sacrificial canard that would be stripped late in the game to much rejoicing (while hopefully, the other good stuff is allowed through). I'd be okay with that, putting us basically back to where we were yesterday as far as HPA progress, but perhaps further along in other areas. It'd have been a lot smarter to add a stipulation stating that only silencers which drop decibels below 100 will be deregulated (which is all of them with present technology). That kind of incremental-sounding shenanigans is precisely how the other side couches their bans as gentle policy changes, and seems to work pretty well on the ignorant. Can't really call something louder than 100dBa 'silent' after all...

Interesting article on the obvious money to be made; I really hope the silencer industry groups have been going to work on the usual suspects like McCain that are certain to throw a wrench into the process if they don't get a cut of the door;
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/news/companies/silencer-hearing-protection-act/index.html
Not a new story, but did contain this interesting factoid I didn't remember reading;
"More than 330,000 silencers were registered nationwide in the two years ending in February 2016, according to the federal government. That amounts to about a third of all silencers registered since 1934, when the National Firearms Act was implemented."
330,000 cans...think about how much the average can likely costs including tax payment, and how difficult/obscure the process currently is...cha-ching! Instant billions to be made, easily.


Sadly some silencer companies are laying off folks because a lot of people have stopped buying suppressors waiting for HPA to pass.
 
Annnnnd...just like that it's all over. Morning of the big gun rights hearing, Republican House Whip Scalise was shot along with others. Now we get to see how pro gun the "pro gun" party actually is, I suppose. Prayers for all wounded, and hopefully no fatalities. Still, I'll be surprised if this isn't sufficient distraction to knock our once-a-decade gun rights effort out of the running.

At least it sounds like he wasn't using a silencer...
 
Last edited:
SHARE Act hearing has been delayed "indefinitely" per the committee website. I hope Gorsuch was enough for everyone, because that's all we'll be getting this go-around.

That's all, folks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top