The Hearing Protection Act of 2017

[GobbleDog 816]

 

NRA website

 

On Monday, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) – joined by co-sponsors the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (HPA). Similar legislation was introduced in the House with 42 co-sponsors.

 

The HPA would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and treat them as ordinary firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As with other firearms, commercial manufacturers, dealers, and importers would still have to be licensed, and the items’ retail sales would be subject to the GCA’s background check and transfer form requirements. Currently, suppressors (misleadingly referred to as “silencers” in federal law) are subject to the NFA’s cumbersome and lengthy application process and a $200 tax stamp.

 

Lawful purchasers can expect a raft of red tape and months of waiting. This is so, even though the devices themselves are completely harmless and very rarely used in crime.

 

 

LA Times

 

Stiff federal regulations on silencers date back to 1934, when they were enacted as part of a crackdown on machine guns and other instruments of mobster violence. In recent years, they’ve stuck in the gun lobby’s craw, as do most restrictions on the sale of firearms and related equipment. Advocates of the measure say silencers, or “suppressors,” to use the preferred industry term, have been given a bad rap by Hollywood and pulp fiction. They says silencers don’t normally reduce the noise of a gunshot to the quiet “thump,” like a fist hitting a pillow, that one hears in James Bond movies, but only enough to stave off hearing loss and allow hunters to hear each other in the wild.

 

“Suppressors do not make guns silent or dangerous,” Rep. Carter said in introducing the bill. “They are simply a form of hearing protection, both for the shooter and their hunting dogs.”

 

Gun control advocates don’t buy these pro-silencer arguments and neither should you. “There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” says Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “There is evidence of a public health crisis from gun violence, and we think that’s where legislative efforts should be directed.”

 

Others point to indications that silencers can reduce public awareness of developing firearm attacks and interfere with law enforcement. That appeared to happen in the 2013 Southern California murder rampage of former Los Angeles police Officer Christopher Dorner. Dorner’s early morning killing of a couple in a parked car in Irvine initially went undetected, even though he loosed 14 gunshots — apparently with a silenced weapon. Later in the rampage, when Dorner was cornered in the San Bernardino National Forest, his use of a silenced sniper rifle made it difficult for sheriff’s deputies under fire to pinpoint his position.

 

Silencer makers themselves boast that the equipment makes rifles “more accurate” and allows more “rapid follow-up shots” by “reducing recoil and muzzle flip.” That raises the prospect of even more carnage from determined mass shooters.

 

Supposedly the Republican controlled government is gonna pass this rather easily. Would be nice to to shoot targets without ear-protection. I have no idea what affect it'll have on gun violence rates.... a few more dead here or there won't move the needle much.

 

So, where does the Geek Board stand on "the Hearing Protection Act of 2017" ?

[SUXBNME 1,335]

I'd rather go after the dirtbags on their Harleys

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

 

Supposedly the Republican controlled government is gonna pass this rather easily. Would be nice to to shoot targets without ear-protection. I have no idea what affect it'll have on gun violence rates.... a few more dead here or there won't move the needle much.

 

So, where does the Geek Board stand on "the Hearing Protection Act of 2017" ?

I think it's stupid and overstepping. And a threat to law enforcement. But the NRA never cared about cops anyway.

[cyclone24 1,814]

I think it's stupid and overstepping. And a threat to law enforcement. But the NRA never cared about cops anyway.

This.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The bill itself? Stupid and irrelevant. Who gives a sh!t really.

 

The name of the bill? That's gold. Might as well have named it the *fock you liberals wink wink act*

 

And educate me gun nuts. I was under the impression that silencers (ahem suppressors) make a gun less accurate, not more so?

 

And would this make it substantially harder for a Leo to hear where shots are coming from?

[SUXBNME 1,335]

The bill itself? Stupid and irrelevant. Who gives a sh!t really.

 

The name of the bill? That's gold. Might as well have named it the *fock you liberals wink wink act*

 

And educate me gun nuts. I was under the impression that silencers (ahem suppressors) make a gun less accurate, not more so?

 

And would this make it substantially harder for a Leo to hear where shots are coming from?

According to COD, they just limit the accuracy over distance.

[wiffleball 4,640]

Now help me out, would this eliminate the seven plus equally wothless Benghazi hearings that cost us millions and did absolutely fock all?

 

Because if it suppressed those kind of hearings, Im in.

[wiffleball 4,640]

I'd rather go after the dirtbags on their Harleys

This.

 

The louder the muffler, the smaller the diick.

 

Just look at the gooks.

[BLS 313]

 

 

Supposedly the Republican controlled government is gonna pass this rather easily. Would be nice to to shoot targets without ear-protection. I have no idea what affect it'll have on gun violence rates.... a few more dead here or there won't move the needle much.

 

So, where does the Geek Board stand on "the Hearing Protection Act of 2017" ?

 

There's no reason not to do it.

[Mungwater 588]

 

There's no reason not to do it.

in my mind, if there is a mass shooting, more people would be oblivious because the sound is muffled. Aside from using at the range, wheee hearing protection is required, why pass it?

[BLS 313]

I think it's stupid and overstepping. And a threat to law enforcement. But the NRA never cared about cops anyway.

 

How do you figure?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Man I can't wait for the new names that come out for bills. The Every Family Gets Rich Act where every families gets taxed an additional 5% of their income so that the country becomes richer as a whole, thus trickling down to make each individual family rich.

[BLS 313]

The bill itself? Stupid and irrelevant. Who gives a sh!t really.

 

The name of the bill? That's gold. Might as well have named it the *fock you liberals wink wink act*

 

And educate me gun nuts. I was under the impression that silencers (ahem suppressors) make a gun less accurate, not more so?

 

And would this make it substantially harder for a Leo to hear where shots are coming from?

 

They don't affect accuracy. They only affect report and bullet velocity; IE, they slow the bullet down some.

 

Essentially they are mufflers for guns. Nothing more. They do NOT silence guns sounds. You can still VERY easily hear it, but it minimizes report to the point where you can shoot them without hearing protection.

It's still loud, but not nearly as bad.

[BLS 313]

in my mind, if there is a mass shooting, more people would be oblivious because the sound is muffled. Aside from using at the range, wheee hearing protection is required, why pass it?

 

Trust me, I've used a suppressor. You'll still hear it.

It's NOTHING like the movies.

[Mungwater 588]

 

They don't affect accuracy. They only affect report and bullet velocity; IE, they slow the bullet down some.

 

Essentially they are mufflers for guns. Nothing more. They do NOT silence guns sounds. You can still VERY easily hear it, but it minimizes report to the point where you can shoot them without hearing protection.

It's still loud, but not nearly as bad.

But is that the island you want to take? Doesnt seem necessary.

[BLS 313]

But is that the island you want to take? Doesnt seem necessary.

 

What island are you talking about?

 

If you could make it so it allows mufflers on cars, wouldn't you do it?

 

outdoor ranges are annoying to neighbors, other shooters, etc. Why wouldn't you want to allow them?

 

Everybody automatically assumes it's going to cause pandemonium and those arguments are never founded.

 

It's honestly a no brainer. Everybody I know who's up on this law, has basically approached this as "It's about friggin time!"

 

Besides, you can already get suppressors for weapons, but they make you go through a BS NFA tax stamp to get one, which means they cost about $1000.....for a muffler.

It's ridiculous.

[Mungwater 588]

 

What island are you talking about?

 

If you could make it so it allows mufflers on cars, wouldn't you do it?

 

outdoor ranges are annoying to neighbors, other shooters, etc. Why wouldn't you want to allow them?

 

Everybody automatically assumes it's going to cause pandemonium and those arguments are never founded.

 

It's honestly a no brainer. Everybody I know who's up on this law, has basically approached this as "It's about friggin time!"

 

Besides, you can already get suppressors for weapons, but they make you go through a BS NFA tax stamp to get one, which means they cost about $1000.....for a muffler.

It's ridiculous.

Is that the island is just another way to say to choose your battles. I'm all for guns and non infringing of the right, but it doesn't say you have to do it comfortably and waste money doing it

[hoytdwow 202]

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

How do you figure?

Well, the NRA supports armor piercing rounds, not good for cops. And I'm assuming you've never heard a volly of shots in an urban environment, and be the one that has to run towards it. There's a lot of noise pollution and it's hard enough as is to figure out where they are coming from. But I'll fall back on your vast experience at the range and let you explain it to me.

[RLLD 3,455]

I'd rather go after the dirtbags on their Harleys

 

They are slightly less annoying than the rice rockets or the rice burners in their tuned up Civic's.....

[wiffleball 4,640]

I see law enforcement opposing this. Some of the larger cities actually have Systems in place to triangulate The location of Shootings.In those cases, those systems rely upon the guns report In order to work accurately.

[BLS 313]

Well, the NRA supports armor piercing rounds, not good for cops. And I'm assuming you've never heard a volly of shots in an urban environment, and be the one that has to run towards it. There's a lot of noise pollution and it's hard enough as is to figure out where they are coming from. But I'll fall back on your vast experience at the range and let you explain it to me.

 

I knew you were a democrat. You just needed enough rope.

 

Armor piercing? Really? How many cops do you know that have been shot with armor piercing rounds?

I already know the answer. Zero.

 

Do you know what makes them armor piercing? Let's have a discussion.

 

Do you really think gangbangers are going to be running around with hipoints and suppressors? Because a 6" suppressor helps concealment, right?

 

 

Seriously?

 

You do remind me of many cops I've met. You're a damned hero 24/7, can't shoot for sh1t, qualified once in the military with a handgun, but somehow you're an expert, and don't know half of what you think you know.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

I knew you were a democrat. You just needed enough rope.

 

Armor piercing? Really? How many cops do you know that have been shot with armor piercing rounds?

I already know the answer. Zero.

 

Do you know what makes them armor piercing? Let's have a discussion.

 

Do you really think gangbangers are going to be running around with hipoints and suppressors? Because a 6" suppressor helps concealment, right?

 

 

Seriously?

 

You do remind me of many cops I've met. You're a damned hero 24/7, can't shoot for sh1t, qualified once in the military with a handgun, but somehow you're an expert, and don't know half of what you think you know.

Ok. You're right. It's just that ever cop group in the country opposed them. But let's defer to you.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

 

They don't affect accuracy. They only affect report and bullet velocity; IE, they slow the bullet down some.

 

Essentially they are mufflers for guns. Nothing more. They do NOT silence guns sounds. You can still VERY easily hear it, but it minimizes report to the point where you can shoot them without hearing protection.

It's still loud, but not nearly as bad.

Yeah, I've heard it before. My brother has one or more in his collection of weaponry. Nowhere near as cool as In the movies.

 

I could have sworn he said it makes the gun less accurate. He does a lot of shooting with a sniper rifle. Teaches classes in... I think he calls it long range marksmanship or something. Claims he can hit someone over a mile away.

 

Maybe he meant the decreases velocity decreases range. Or who knows. I tend to glaze over when he and his friends start fapping to gun pron.

 

The one I saw was for a handgun. I have no idea what a rifle one would sound like.

[Strike 3,975]

I don't have much of an opinion on this. As I've stated a million times I don't own a gun and don't ever plan to. I'd end up shooting myself. But, a couple of points just from a logic standpoint:

 

1) It doesn't make a lot of sense to regulate suppressors the same as actual guns. If you're buying one you already have the gun which you presumably are legally allowed to own. And it doesn't sound like this completely eliminates regulations; it just minimizes them since this piece is an accessory and not an actual weapon.

 

2) HT - Using LE as support or non support for something is probably not a good idea. If LE had their way your house would be able to be bugged legally without a warrant, there would be no miranda rights during an arrest, and they'd be able to beat you senseless during interrogations. IOW, they have a slight bias.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

Asking how many cops have been shot by armor piercing rounds is kinda silly, seeing as they are illegal for hand guns, and the overwhelming amount of times cops are shot is with a handgun. Homey usually doesn't run around the hood with a hunting rifle. But I do know cops that have been shot while wearing their vest, and they lived.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

I don't have much of an opinion on this. As I've stated a million times I don't own a gun and don't ever plan to. I'd end up shooting myself. But, a couple of points just from a logic standpoint:

 

1) It doesn't make a lot of sense to regulate suppressors the same as actual guns. If you're buying one you already have the gun which you presumably are legally allowed to own. And it doesn't sound like this completely eliminates regulations; it just minimizes them since this piece is an accessory and not an actual weapon.

 

2) HT - Using LE as support or non support for something is probably not a good idea. If LE had their way your house would be able to be bugged legally without a warrant, there would be no miranda rights during an arrest, and they'd be able to beat you senseless during interrogations. IOW, they have a slight bias.

Well, their bias has merit. And are you just going to dismiss their concerns, because you think they feel a certain way?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

I see law enforcement opposing this. Some of the larger cities actually have Systems in place to triangulate The location of Shootings.In those cases, those systems rely upon the guns report In order to work accurately.

Shot spotter has been a bust in NYC for the most part. I don't know about other cities.

[frank 2,145]

What?

[Strike 3,975]

Well, their bias has merit. And are you just going to dismiss their concerns, because you think they feel a certain way?

 

No. I just don't don't think they should be used as an argument for or against anything. Your response is basically "Yeah they'd infringe upon all my rights in a heartbeat if given the authority to do so, but THIS TIME they're right". Well, I'd rather just not use them at all for discussions about policy.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

No. I just don't don't think they should be used as an argument for or against anything. Your response is basically "Yeah they'd infringe upon all my rights in a heartbeat if given the authority to do so, but THIS TIME they're right". Well, I'd rather just not use them at all for discussions about policy.

I don't know who else to rely upon when it comes to some of these matters for a birds eye view. They are the ones that actually deal with and are affected by policy. They shouldn't be the end all, but should be considered.

[BLS 313]

Ok. You're right. It's just that ever cop group in the country opposed them. But let's defer to you.

 

Link?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

Link?

Ok, not every. You win

[BLS 313]

Asking how many cops have been shot by armor piercing rounds is kinda silly, seeing as they are illegal for hand guns, and the overwhelming amount of times cops are shot is with a handgun. Homey usually doesn't run around the hood with a hunting rifle. But I do know cops that have been shot while wearing their vest, and they lived.

 

Exactly, yet you brought it up. Nobody uses an AR15 in police shootings because they're too damn big to carry around.

 

I know plenty of cops that lived after catching one in the vest. Again, we're not talking about steel core ammo here. We're talking about sound suppressors for law-abiding citizens.

I cannot fathom why anyone would have a problem with that.

[Strike 3,975]

Ok, not every. You win

 

How about a link to one, or a few? I mean, I've never seen any police groups comment on silencers. Not sure how often something like this comes up.

[BLS 313]

I don't know who else to rely upon when it comes to some of these matters for a birds eye view. They are the ones that actually deal with and are affected by policy. They shouldn't be the end all, but should be considered.

 

You don't think the millions of gun owners in this country aren't affected by possible hearing loss? Who's their voice, and where do they come into play?

As much as you may not like it, the world doesn't revolve around you and LE.

 

I know a lot of cops who don't think civilians should have firearms period. That doesn't mean we should take their word as gospel, even though it might affect them, it also affects others.

 

Look, suppressors are easily made at home. There's tons of tutorials on it on youtube, etc.

If there was a "need" for a suppressor by Homie Mc G, he'd have one. Legal or not, they don't care. And if there was enough demand for it, people would be getting them illegally, but they're not.

Why do you think that is?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

How about a link to one, or a few? I mean, I've never seen any police groups comment on silencers. Not sure how often something like this comes up.

I was talking about armor piercing rounds. The silencer thing is recent, I assume opposition is forthcoming

[Strike 3,975]

I was talking about armor piercing rounds. The silencer thing is recent, I assume opposition is forthcoming

 

What if they're in favor of making it easier for recreational shooters to get suppressors? Will you change your tune on this bill?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

 

You don't think the millions of gun owners in this country aren't affected by possible hearing loss? Who's their voice, and where do they come into play?

As much as you may not like it, the world doesn't revolve around you and LE.

 

I know a lot of cops who don't think civilians should have firearms period. That doesn't mean we should take their word as gospel, even though it might affect them, it also affects others.

 

Look, suppressors are easily made at home. There's tons of tutorials on it on youtube, etc.

If there was a "need" for a suppressor by Homie Mc G, he'd have one. Legal or not, they don't care. And if there was enough demand for it, people would be getting them illegally, but they're not.

Why do you think that is?

I'm not opposed to people owning guns. Not by a long shot. But if guns are used for protection and hunting, there is no need to have a silencer. The bad outweighs the good here. Ans if people wear ear protection at the range there should be no hearing loss issue. Sorry its uncomfortable. And I live near a shooting range. Not right next to it, but close enough that I hear it. No problem. I knew it was there when I bought the house.

[Strike 3,975]

Good common sense article about this issue:

 

http://www.standard.net/National-Commentary/2017/01/15/The-surprising-truth-about-gun-silencers.html

 

And the writer is a Chicago writer. He probably understands gun violence better than most. His city deals with it daily on a large scale.