HPA again

[GEM]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/03/hearing-protection-act-reintroduced/

Sad to say, there is NO chance of this going anywhere for the obvious reasons of the split Congress. When there was a one party control, said pro-gun party couldn't wait to ditch it.

Not to start a political debate again. This just FYI.

 

[CapnMac]

Given the amount of dross which is proposed at every session's start (arious repeals, enactments, impeachments, etc.) I'm entirely adverse to HPA becoming something "trotted out every year." There's always the possibility of it gaining traction one year.

Such things are just the thing the astute political class needs anyway. The Person offering it can crow that they "tried" to the proponents. Those opposed can crow to those opposed for "defeating" the motion. Politically, it's a wash. Socially, the idea is reinforced, even if only vaguely.

 

[Jeff H]

Not going anywhere anytime soon. Just clench your wallet and buy the suppressor you want and wait the 6 months for the paperwork to clear.

 

[Redacted]

Sad to say, there is NO chance of this going anywhere for the obvious reasons of the split Congress.

I think you are probably right, but I believe that it is important to stake out a position in case the gun control people want a 'compromise'.
In the past the gun control people's idea of 'compromise' was taking some of our rights and 'letting' us keep some of our rights.
Now we will want them to give us something in return. That way the gun control people will learn what real compromise is.

 

[Delawarean]

Not going anywhere anytime soon. Just clench your wallet and buy the suppressor you want and wait the 6 months for the paperwork to clear.

I would if my state would allow it!

 

[Elkins45]

I think you are probably right, but I believe that it is important to stake out a position in case the gun control people want a 'compromise'.
In the past the gun control people's idea of 'compromise' was taking some of our rights and 'letting' us keep some of our rights.
Now we will want them to give us something in return. That way the gun control people will learn what real compromise is.

This is what we should have traded bump stocks for, since Trump was going to give them up anyway. and done it by legislation rather than fiat.

 

[herrwalther]

The fingers I have crossed for this bill to pass are so tight they are turning blue. I have been putting off getting a threaded 9mm barrel for a firearm. I know as soon as I order a threaded barrel for a suppressor, this will pass. That is how Murphy works.

 

[pdsmith505]

The fingers I have crossed for this bill to pass are so tight they are turning blue. I have been putting off getting a threaded 9mm barrel for a firearm. I know as soon as I order a threaded barrel for a suppressor, this will pass. That is how Murphy works.

Then for the rest of our sakes, buy the barrel already!


But seriously, this is just fodder for the donor base: "Lookie here, we tried to get it through again... maybe after the next election we can pass it!"

 

[Elkins45]

Then for the rest of our sakes, buy the barrel already!

Yeah, if it passes we will take up a collection and reimburse you!

 

[SKILCZ]

I think you are probably right, but I believe that it is important to stake out a position in case the gun control people want a 'compromise'.
In the past the gun control people's idea of 'compromise' was taking some of our rights and 'letting' us keep some of our rights.
Now we will want them to give us something in return. That way the gun control people will learn what real compromise is.

"Compromise" to an anti-gunner = total ban on all guns and ammo. They just want US to "compromise" our way there one step at a time since outright banning and confiscation is less politically palatable.

This is what we should have traded bump stocks for, since Trump was going to give them up anyway. and done it by legislation rather than fiat.

That would have been a smarter move.

The fingers I have crossed for this bill to pass are so tight they are turning blue. I have been putting off getting a threaded 9mm barrel for a firearm. I know as soon as I order a threaded barrel for a suppressor, this will pass. That is how Murphy works.

If you can get suppressors de-regulated and removed from NFA, I'll reimburse you for that barrel myself. You can quote me on that.

 

[LRDGCO]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/03/hearing-protection-act-reintroduced/

Sad to say, there is NO chance of this going anywhere for the obvious reasons of the split Congress. When there was a one party control, said pro-gun party couldn't wait to ditch it.
.

In fairness to the GOP, they never had the votes to get it through the Senate. Eight Democrat votes were needed in the Senate, and they weren't there.

Your analysis about its chances in the current legislature is correct because, the Dem House is going to pursue aggressive gun owner discrimination legislation and it will have to be vehemently opposed. Where HPA has some value in positioning is as a constant lever in the communications battle. Dems lie about their interest in "Common sense gun control" and their desire to find "compromises that ensure gun safety". So, every time new gun owner discrimination legislation is introduced, the NRA and others should point to the Hearing Protection Act as common sense legislation aimed to find common ground that Democrats have opposed and on which they are unwilling to compromise.

 

[AlexanderA]

"Compromise" to an anti-gunner = total ban on all guns and ammo. They just want US to "compromise" our way there one step at a time since outright banning and confiscation is less politically palatable.

Ideally, a "compromise" would be a comprehensive gun bill in which we would get (from our point of view) as much or more than what we would give up. Something along the lines of removing suppressors and SBR's from the NFA, and opening the MG registry, in exchange for UBC's (structured so as to preclude registration -- it can be done). Unfortunately, neither side is talking to the other -- the pro-gun side because it doesn't want to "give an inch," and the antigun side because it smells complete victory. Here in Virginia, we're looking at a complete catastrophe within a 2-year window. How is "not giving an inch" going to work out for us?

 

[GEM]

Somebody (who was that?) was willing to shut down the government over some construction project of suspect utility. Never see the GOP willing to shut down the government for some gun rights issue. Or actually invoke a real filibuster, make the Dems take to the floor for hours and days of speeches.

Alexander A is correct that some compromise as he suggested could be had but each side wants to keep the issues as absolutist talking points for fund raising and election BS.

A great victory for gun rights (when Common Use Kavanaugh leads SCOTUS to void the state bans, void the SBR, suppressors, NFA restrictions) would led to the financial collapse of major gun rights organizations that are also business oriented.

I'm not so sure that SCOTUS wouldn't support restrictions as a 5 to 4. If RBG goes, no guarantee that a new nominee is proactive on gun rights if they could get one now. Many 'conservatives' are not gun rights supporters but more into other 'conservative' issues.

 

[herrwalther]

I'm not so sure that SCOTUS wouldn't support restrictions as a 5 to 4. If RBG goes, no guarantee that a new nominee is proactive on gun rights if they could get one now. Many 'conservatives' are not gun rights supporters but more into other 'conservative' issues.

This I agree with. With the run around and mud dragging that Kavanaugh went through for his confirmation, any other appointee by Trump would get the same. If not worse.

 

[Mike OTDP]

Ideally, a "compromise" would be a comprehensive gun bill in which we would get (from our point of view) as much or more than what we would give up. Something along the lines of removing suppressors and SBR's from the NFA, and opening the MG registry, in exchange for UBC's (structured so as to preclude registration -- it can be done).

I don't think it's occurred to the Left that a SCOTUS ruling that took gun and accoutrement bans completely off the table would make UBCs significantly more palatable.

But I concur that there's trade space. The only issue is that the other side isn't willing to trade, merely to dictate terms of surrender.

 

[SKILCZ]

Ideally, a "compromise" would be a comprehensive gun bill in which we would get (from our point of view) as much or more than what we would give up. Something along the lines of removing suppressors and SBR's from the NFA, and opening the MG registry, in exchange for UBC's (structured so as to preclude registration -- it can be done). Unfortunately, neither side is talking to the other -- the pro-gun side because it doesn't want to "give an inch," and the antigun side because it smells complete victory. Here in Virginia, we're looking at a complete catastrophe within a 2-year window. How is "not giving an inch" going to work out for us?

How can it be done w/o registration?

 

[bearcreek]

How can it be done w/o registration?

By not having a record of what firearm was transferred. Not that that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.