What is the chance of the Hearing Protection Act becoming law?

[BigBore44]

You have just demonstrated more common sense than the entire body and, in doing so using less than 35,000 words, have violated the "Bamboozle Principle" which requires that anything to be said be must be said using, at a minimum, twenty times more words than needed, preferably ambiguous or confounding in nature.

My question is why? Is it so the general public will show lest interest in reading the bill? Or so they can sneak provisions in the bill that someone would have to sort though 1000 pages of legal jargon BS to find? I've attempted to read a few bills. And I've got a pretty decent vocabulary. But I found myself spending more time looking words up in a thesaurus than actually reading. Then the "mainstream" media give us a 10 second explanation of the bill and it's obvious it's not inclusive of any details and clearly biased. Especially if it means raising taxes or limiting rights of citizens.

KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. If they did that, it wouldn't take 100 hour sessions of congress for every bill to be passed or rejected. We aren't all lawyers. But every bill affects us. I would think a bill should be able to be understood by the vast majority of citizens without giving them headaches or anxiety attacks.

But I give the proposal a 40/60 chance.

 

[LiveLife]

Why reinvent the wheel?

We start passing pro 2A laws like Democrats passed anti 2A laws for decades!

Nibble, nibble, nibble ... but with republicans controlling WH/Senate/House, Chomp, chomp, chomp

It's been like that in California with Democrats controlling Governor/Senate/Assembly and now they pass whatever laws they want to pass.

We need to start thinking and acting like we control the WH/Senate/House.

I tell you, what goes around comes around. Ain't life funny?

 

[Aim1]

Could Trump pass this with Executive Action?


I'm assuming if he did it'd be unconstitutional?

 

[Aim1]

Could Trump pass this with Executive Action?


I'm assuming if he did it'd be unconstitutional?

.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

Never gonna pass. Doubt it even makes it out of committee.

 

[RPRNY]

Could Trump pass this with Executive Action?


I'm assuming if he did it'd be unconstitutional?

He cannot. Sentence 1, Article 1 of the US Constitution (which Obama never read) clearly establishes legislative power in Congressional hands. To amend NFA (or tax law) requires Congress.

 

[GooseGestapo]

As far as revenue impact; removal of suppressors from NFA and subjected to same rules as firearms, it would actually be revenue positive.
They would be subject to the same Pitman-Robertson excise taxes, and with the 50-100 fold increase in manufacturing and sales, the impact on revenue would be positive.
This is something that is long over due.
Contact your representatives and senators to get them on board with this.

 

[cdk8]

I agree that using it as a component of budget reconciliation could increase the odds of it passing. If the bill passes, I am willing to bet that it would be financially beneficial to both State and Federal governments. The increased sales of cans, firearms for suppressing, and accessories like threaded barrels and raised sights, would likely bring in several times more money in sales taxes than the revenue coming from the tax stamp. This money could reduce what the Feds have to spend on individual States. Further, it could give rise to new companies making affordable cans, meaning more jobs, more money paid to the government (via both corporate and individual tax), and less money the government would have to pay out in social support programs for those without work.

Beyond demonstrating that making it more practical for gun owners to purchase silencers is not going to give into a giant wave of crime, demonstrating financial benefit could further incentivize making it a priority IMO.

 

[RPRNY]

I agree that using it as a component of budget reconciliation could increase the odds of it passing. If the bill passes, I am willing to bet that it would be financially beneficial to both State and Federal governments. The increased sales of cans, firearms for suppressing, and accessories like threaded barrels and raised sights, would likely bring in several times more money in sales taxes than the revenue coming from the tax stamp. This money could reduce what the Feds have to spend on individual States. Further, it could give rise to new companies making affordable cans, meaning more jobs, more money paid to the government (via both corporate and individual tax), and less money the government would have to pay out in social support programs for those without work.

Beyond demonstrating that making it more practical for gun owners to purchase silencers is not going to give into a giant wave of crime, demonstrating financial benefit could further incentivize making it a priority IMO.

CBO does not do the kind of dynamic scoring that would show an increase in revenue via Pittman-Robertson. But this will not be decided as a revenue measure. The loss of revenue from the tax stamp is a rounding error at most.

 

[AlexanderA]

CBO does not do the kind of dynamic scoring that would show an increase in revenue via Pittman-Robertson. But this will not be decided as a revenue measure. The loss of revenue from the tax stamp is a rounding error at most.

This is true in practical terms. But conceptually the entire NFA is a revenue measure, and thus any changes in it can be brought under the budget reconciliation procedure. That's the only hope of passage, because otherwise it will be filibustered to death by the Democrats in the Senate (cutting off debate requires 60 votes).

 

[RPRNY]

This is true in practical terms. But conceptually the entire NFA is a revenue measure, and thus any changes in it can be brought under the budget reconciliation procedure. That's the only hope of passage, because otherwise it will be filibustered to death by the Democrats in the Senate (cutting off debate requires 60 votes).

Indeed. We're in the same ballpark. I meant that the measure will not be decided on its merits or threats to revenue because it's too small beans. The budget reconciliation process is, as you note, a convenient tool for addressing this issue but unless leadership in either the Senate or House, or Chairman Brady, champion the bill, it will not make it to reconciliation. A rider on a must pass with a tax title - an infrastructure bill is certain - or as part of comprehensive tax reform, are less reliant on leadership.

 

[george burns]

It could happen if they gat enough medical evidence that shooting sports definatively cause injury and even deafness, to the shooter, Since it is an Olympic sport, it could get through, "stranger things have happened". It depends who and how hard they come after it.

 

[Elkins45]

Anything is possible. Don't forget that we scored what I consider a big win under the Obama administration when national parks were forced to follow the CCW regs of the state they are in. Anybody can attach almost anything to a "must pass" bill.

 

[AlexanderA]

It could happen if they get enough medical evidence that shooting sports definitively cause injury and even deafness, to the shooter,

Be careful here. If there is overwhelming medical evidence that shooting sports cause injury to the shooters, why, the obvious answer is to ban all shooting sports. This is the usual knee-jerk reaction of the nanny-staters. At the same time that you show that unabated noise can cause hearing loss, you must also show that shooting is worthwhile in the first place. This gets a bit complicated.

 

[strambo]

What's with all the "it will never happen" negativity? He put his son in charge of a 2A task-force and Don Jr. has specifically said he is going to push for the HPA and national CCW reciprocity. Both of those are doable.

 

[basicblur]

What's with all the "it will never happen" negativity? He put his son in charge of a 2A task-force and Don Jr. has specifically said he is going to push for the HPA and national CCW reciprocity. Both of those are doable.

I'm with you - I've listened to quite a few podcasts with folks that do politics / law for a living covering the HPA.

It's been pointed out that a number of senators who are up for re-election in 2018 are from states that Trump carried, so they could be "convinced" to support the HPA to bolster their re-election efforts.

It's surprising the number of folks that don't seem to know Trump Jr. is heading a working group pushing for repeal of a number of gun laws, and you know he's run this by papa before setting out on this endeavor. I don't remember who I was listening to last week (somebody on Tom Gresham's show?) that said POTUS has let it be known he will sign the act if it lands on his desk.

AFA stuff POTUS / ATF can change...while they may not be able to change the law AFA the $200 tax stamp, could they not change the rules / ATF guidelines on the time required for background checks?
Is this ridiculous wait (just got my last 2 cans, which took 8 months, 1 week, 1 day) law or is it just ATF rules / regulations? Could the ATF not change that to a simple background check at the store as is done now with firearms?

I've heard Tom Gresham discuss DT Jr's working group a number of times. While he's not on the group, he says he does have input, and a few times has discussed what could be done by simply:
1. Summoning the head of the ATF to the White House.
2. Letting him know what policies, rules, etc. that POTUS wants changed / modified.
3. Submit a report within 60 days verifying said changes have been made.
4. If you can't do that, look for another job.

 

[greyling22]

no chance of it passing.

Imagine you are a politician and want re-election more than anything else because you realize being a politician is a really good job: power, prestige, money, you name it. doesn't matter how pro-gun you are, if you personally can afford the stamp, and you know that if you pass the law, and some ninny uses a can in a mass shooting (and sadly, you know they will) that comes back on you when it is time for re-election, and nobody is going to risk that. I know that sounds cynical, and I wish our elected leaders would think about more than themselves, but my (albeit limited) experience says not.

 

[strambo]

No, they'll never pass nationwide CC for active and retired LE either, what if one screws up and shoots a charter member of BLM? European politicians with their draconian gun laws would never dream of "allowing" suppressor use either for fear of a mass shooting event. Nope, never gonna happen.

Cans also make so much sense for criminal use. I mean it isn't as if they are very large and bulky, add cost, difficult to conceal, and yet add another item they can be caught with by the Police. I mean, from a functional perspective, it is worth it to the criminal to use one because a shot in the ghetto draws so much attention am I right?

 

[Decoy80]

Criminals dont pay the 200 bucks for the NFA stamp. Abiding by any law passed is not a concern to them. On the other side I would like to have one but am unwilling to go through the red tape bull. So no 200 bucks from me either. The idiots who kill a bunch of innocent people are among us and this legislitation nor any form of law against owning guns will get rid of the problem. A law that makes it illegal not to carry might help with the problem but has no hope to pass either.

 

[AlexanderA]

He put his son in charge of a 2A task-force and Don Jr. has specifically said he is going to push for the HPA and national CCW reciprocity.

For those who say that Don, Jr. will lobby on behalf of pro-2A laws, keep this in mind: As part of the "wall of separation" between his business interests and the Presidency, Trump put his sons in charge of his businesses and directed them to have no contact with the government. So that precludes any lobbying by Don, Jr. or Eric. Presumably Don, Jr. will have to resign from the 2nd Amendment task force.

 

[strambo]

For those who say that Don, Jr. will lobby on behalf of pro-2A laws, keep this in mind: As part of the "wall of separation" between his business interests and the Presidency, Trump put his sons in charge of his businesses and directed them to have no contact with the government. So that precludes any lobbying by Don, Jr. or Eric. Presumably Don, Jr. will have to resign from the 2nd Amendment task force.

The 2A has nothing to do with Trump's RE business, I don't see any conflict. They don't make (or lose) a dime no matter what the gun laws are now, or could be later.

 

[Mike OTDP]

AFA stuff POTUS / ATF can change...while they may not be able to change the law AFA the $200 tax stamp, could they not change the rules / ATF guidelines on the time required for background checks?
Is this ridiculous wait (just got my last 2 cans, which took 8 months, 1 week, 1 day) law or is it just ATF rules / regulations? Could the ATF not change that to a simple background check at the store as is done now with firearms?

NFA'34 requires you to submit photos and fingerprint cards...but it does not specify what the Government must do with them. And the current "wait eight or nine months" scheme begs for a lawsuit. The obvious quick fix is to collect the paperwork...then do a NICS check. Especially for repeat buyers.

 

[Cannibul]

NFA'34 requires you to submit photos and fingerprint cards...but it does not specify what the Government must do with them. And the current "wait eight or nine months" scheme begs for a lawsuit. The obvious quick fix is to collect the paperwork...then do a NICS check. Especially for repeat buyers.

Repeat buyers should just be approved RFN. Kind of stupid to keep doing the same thing over and over with the same result.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I don't know if it will pass, personally I doubt it but I have to disagree with some of the above posts. How does removing the tax stamp make them more likely to be used in a mass shooting. I mean they are already committing an illegal act usually in a gun free zone. Why do they care if they commit one more crime since they are probably going to kill themselves or get killed anyway?

 

[greyling22]

Quanity and access. If they are easy to come by there will be more out there to be stolen or misused.

I don't know if it will pass, personally I doubt it but I have to disagree with some of the above posts. How does removing the tax stamp make them more likely to be used in a mass shooting. I mean they are already committing an illegal act usually in a gun free zone. Why do they care if they commit one more crime since they are probably going to kill themselves or get killed anyway?