H.R.3799 - Hearing Protection Act of 2015

[RevDisk]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799/text

http://www.fightthenoise.org/take-action/

50 cosigners
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799/cosponsors


Basically, bill is that suppressors would be treated like long guns. No $200, no NFA coverage, just NICS check. As someone who has mild hearing loss from being near a lot of gunfire, I will be writing my congresscritters asking them to support the bill.

[MechAg94]

I do sort of wonder why the military doesn't build in some sound suppression into their normal infantry arms.  Seems to me they could get around the regs and find a design that doesn't require so much regular cleaning even if it isn't as effective as others.

[Fitz]

I do sort of wonder why the military doesn't build in some sound suppression into their normal infantry arms.  Seems to me they could get around the regs and find a design that doesn't require so much regular cleaning even if it isn't as effective as others.

Because the reality is that suppression is of limited utility to military applications in general, has some down sides, and we (are supposed to ) wear earpro anyways.

Buncha machine guns clackin, *expletive deleted*it going explodey. M4 with a suppressor wouldn't make much of a diff.

[RevDisk]

Reality is, it's NFA and if a metal tube falls off the bang stick, you'd have the entire battalion combing the area where it was lost until it was found.

Even if it's dropped to "long gun" status, military's not going to touch it. Whenever it comes legally on par with magazines (ie if one fell in the mud and someone accidentally picked it up, no felonies would be committed), you might see the military look into it. Obviously, special operations units use the hell out of them because they can use common sense and try to reduce hearing damage.

[roo_ster]

I do sort of wonder why the military doesn't build in some sound suppression into their normal infantry arms.  Seems to me they could get around the regs and find a design that doesn't require so much regular cleaning even if it isn't as effective as others.

Reality is, it's NFA and if a metal tube falls off the bang stick, you'd have the entire battalion combing the area where it was lost until it was found.

Even if it's dropped to "long gun" status, military's not going to touch it. Whenever it comes legally on par with magazines (ie if one fell in the mud and someone accidentally picked it up, no felonies would be committed), you might see the military look into it. Obviously, special operations units use the hell out of them because they can use common sense and try to reduce hearing damage.

Ayup. 

My unit had a bunch, mostly used by the recon detachment (first for the MP5, then M4A1), some for snipers (SR25, others).  Can you get a suppressor for the M4A1 that has a M203 on it that won't get the user killed?  Yes, you can.

The rest of us didn't use them for the reasons Fitz stated.  RD was out on its own and they failed if they actually had to open up with their weapons.

[brimic]

I'd vastly prefer a 'Repeal of NFA 34, GCA 68, and dissolution of the BATFE Bill of 2016' but at least its a start.

The persecution and incarceration of people possessing inanimate objects has to be stopped.

[wmenorr67]

I'd vastly prefer a 'Repeal of NFA 34, GCA 68, and dissolution of the BATFE Bill of 2016' but at least its a start.

Wonder if a very Pro 2A President could handle that with an Executive Order?

[RevDisk]

Wonder if a very Pro 2A President could handle that with an Executive Order?

No, and he or she should be thrown out of office if he or she tried.

Laws are made by Congress, and can only be overturned by Congress or if ruled unconstitutional by the courts. The president ONLY can issue orders to the executive branch within the framework of the law. Granted, there's a LOT of grey or open area in there. Only area were the President can trump the courts and Congress is by pardons. A President could pardon anyone caught violating NFA, but he or she could not order the executive branch to stop arresting people for NFA violations.

[brimic]

[41magsnub]

No, and he or she should be thrown out of office if he or she tried.

Laws are made by Congress, and can only be overturned by Congress or if ruled unconstitutional by the courts. The president ONLY can issue orders to the executive branch within the framework of the law. Granted, there's a LOT of grey or open area in there. Only area were the President can trump the courts and Congress is by pardons. A President could pardon anyone caught violating NFA, but he or she could not order the executive branch to stop arresting people for NFA violations.

No kidding, if they had that power imagine what other scary things (not related to the 2A) a president could unilaterally do.

[makattak]

No kidding, if they had that power imagine what other scary things (not related to the 2A) a president could unilaterally do.

You mean like unilaterally decide to give criminal aliens permanent residency and employment forms?

[roo_ster]

In totally unrelated news, a group is calling for sticking to principles and unilaterally disarming both nuclear and conventional forces.

[brimic]

You mean like unilaterally decide to give criminal aliens permanent residency and employment forms?

Wait! I've got one!
What if... what if the President unilaterally told his AG to use 'prosecutorial discretion' wrt marijuana production and distribution?
Hypothetically speaking, of course....


http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

[RevDisk]

Wow, that was interesting. So, I got a form letter response about conjugal visits at federal prison when I put in a thing asking my Rep to ideally cosign, but at least vote for it.

Thankfully, called up and got the right staffer, who was mortified and deeply apologized about sending the wrong form. Which is good because otherwise, I was going to have a proper rage out.

[Perd Hapley]

Wait! I've got one!
What if... what if the President unilaterally told his AG to use 'prosecutorial discretion' wrt marijuana production and distribution?
Hypothetically speaking, of course....


http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

What if the President could unilaterally persecute banks that make loans to gun companies? Or use the IRS to harass unfriendly political and religious organizations? Or use the ATF for gun-running? Etc.

[brimic]

Wow, that was interesting. So, I got a form letter response about conjugal visits at federal prison when I put in a thing asking my Rep to ideally cosign, but at least vote for it.

Thankfully, called up and got the right staffer, who was mortified and deeply apologized about sending the wrong form. Which is good because otherwise, I was going to have a proper rage out.

[brimic]

What if the President could unilaterally persecute banks that make loans to gun companies? Or use the IRS to harass unfriendly political and religious organizations? Or use the ATF for gun-running? Etc.

Hypothetically speaking, it could cause a country-wide run on gun shops.

[MillCreek]

Wow, that was interesting. So, I got a form letter response about conjugal visits at federal prison when I put in a thing asking my Rep to ideally cosign, but at least vote for it.

So what is the state of the art on conjugal visits in Federal prisons?

[RevDisk]

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 3799, the Hearing Protection Act of 2015.  It was good to hear from you.
 
              As you know, Rep. Matt Salmon introduced H.R. 3799 on October 22, 2015.  This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers, and (2) treat any person who acquires or possesses a firearm silencer as meeting any registration or licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer.  Any person who pays a tax on a silencer after October 22, 2015 may receive a refund of such tax.  Finally, the bill amends the federal criminal code to preempt state or local laws that tax or regulate firearm silencers.
 
              Like you, I recognize that silencers protect the hearing of a firearm’s operator and those nearby.  Rest assured, I will continue to monitor this issue, and, should H.R. 3799 come before the House floor for a vote, I will certainly keep your views in mind.
 
              Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please don’t hesitate to contact me in the future on any issue of concern to you or your family.
Sincerely,
 
Joe Pitts
Member of Congress

Not a firm yes form letter, but has the facts. So either he doesn't even know about the issue, or is wait and see what the party line is. I'd be curious to see what the current Republicans running for President would say in their form letters.

[KD5NRH]

Any person who pays a tax on a silencer after October 22, 2015 may receive a refund of such tax.  Finally, the bill amends the federal criminal code to preempt state or local laws that tax or regulate firearm silencers.

Doesn't specify the tax, so could one then claim a Federal tax credit for any state sales tax paid on the item?

[Hawkmoon]

Even equating a can with a long gun and requiring "just" a NICS check doesn't make any sense to me.

However, if they do that, that should also mean that it's legal to make your own, right? So maybe we'll start a market in 80% suppressors

[mtnbkr]

My representative sent me a noncommittal response to my email, but she's pro-2nd and has voted accordingly in the past, so hope springs eternal.  Note, I didn't contact her about the "2nd Amendment", I contacted her about suppressors and cosponsoring this bill.

Dear Mr. Mtnbkr,

          Thank you for contacting me about our nation’s Second Amendment.  I appreciate hearing from you and always welcome you to share your comments and concerns with me.

          From my time in the General Assembly, the oldest continuous law-making body in the New World, I have been committed to protecting the rights and responsibilities of Americans.  Our founders articulated these in our Constitution, which I have sworn to uphold as law of the land.  As a former senior Justice Department official, I have worked closely with law enforcement on the local, state, and federal levels for years to ensure firearms are kept out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill while preserving the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and concurrently opposing policies to the contrary.

          Thank you again for contacting me.  It is a privilege to serve you in the Tenth District.  I may also be contacted at my Sterling office at 703-404-6903, or my Washington, D.C. office at 202-225-5136.  By visiting http://comstock.house.gov, you can sign up to receive my email newsletters and follow my efforts to serve you.  You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter for real-time updates on my activities in Congress and in the District.  If I may ever be of service, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Chris

[MechAg94]

Ayup. 

My unit had a bunch, mostly used by the recon detachment (first for the MP5, then M4A1), some for snipers (SR25, others).  Can you get a suppressor for the M4A1 that has a M203 on it that won't get the user killed?  Yes, you can.

The rest of us didn't use them for the reasons Fitz stated.  RD was out on its own and they failed if they actually had to open up with their weapons.

Thanks for the info.  If suppressors are made more common, I can see more development on different types.  There are large numbers and types of flash hiders and compensators for lots of guns both permanently mounted and detachable.  I figured suppressors development might end up the same way.  It would be interesting if nearly every gun available had some sort of suppressor option or barrels that included suppression as part of the design.  I figure there are a lot of possibilities that just are not practical given current laws.