Results of Sep 12th SHARE Act Legislative Hearing (Included HPA)

[stanc]

I fully agree, Tom. All I'm saying is, don't frame it as a public health issue (i.e., noise pollution), or else don't be surprised if you get laws mandating suppressor use "to protect public health."

[Kswhitetails]

Again with the "noise pollution" nonsense.

I suppose that the person who came up with this idea, and all of the shooters who repeat it, probably think they are being very clever in employing an environmentalist argument.

If I were a strategist for anti-gun groups, I would have them agree with removing restrictions on suppressors on the grounds it would benefit the public by reducing noise pollution.

Then, as with noise pollution control devices on motor vehicles, I would have them lobby Congress to make it mandatory that all firearms have suppressors attached when in use.

Imagine the effect on concealed (or even open) carry of handguns.

Stanc,

I am starting to think that your signature line is actually representative of your actual personality. I find the posts you write to be both thoughtful and infuriating at the same time. "Noise polution" may be the wrong term, but the effects are as real as you are in front of that keyboard. The fact is that a neighbor firing his 22-250, his AR, or his 9mm off his deck at his own targets do indeed make enough noise that for someone out on their deck wishing to enjoy a quiet sunset is indeed disturbed by their reports. Firing a suppressed firearm would indeed reduce the noise, period. Thus, argument validity becomes an aside. The very fact that we (and the legislation itself) identifies the desire to reduce the noise associated with firearm use makes the "noise pollution" argument valid as the legitimate purpose of the discussion. What is the purpose of a suppressor?

Make suppressors mandatory? Seriously? Fine, I for one welcome the opening of the suppressor market to the general consumer, and the VAST and IMMEDIATE innovation that would come with it. SilencerCo has already been leading the way with an integrally suppressed 9mm. Bring on the new toys! The picture you post is of a suppressor that would very quickly wind up in the back of a safe, and would stay there indefinitely. Obviously, there are ways to make that better, and by opening the market to the American consumer, you'd see how quickly that thing and every other like it would become the very bottom of the list of suppressors to own.

Every disadvantage you think of when making this argument -it's too big, it's too heavy, it's too loud, it's too (whatever); would become the very starting point of a new company, of a new product line, of a new and vastly improved suppressor system. Make suppressors mandatory and wait for the market to catch up. America was MADE for this kind of challenge.

I understand the thought that making a logical argument at a time when feelings and emotions are the norm is starting from a point of weakness. I get that the task is going to take work, effort, maybe even blood, sweat, and tears. Our fore fathers, had they been of the school of thought that anything difficult isn't worth doing... Well, I hate to think of what we'd be like as a nation today. If even a nation at all...

[Klem]

Why do you say it's extremely unlikely? Pollution controls imposed by government are not left to the people to decide whether or not to implement them.

If you want to effectively control gun noise pollution, suppressor use will have to be mandatory for all firearms. This ploy can only backfire on gunowners.

I say it's extremely unlikely because it represents a complete 180-degree reversal of decades of suspicion and criminalisation of suppressors by the authorities. The authorities would resist it themselves as it makes them look like idiots. Entities like the Police would resist it because they believe suppressors have potential to facilitate crime. Plus the logistics of threading, manufacturing, cost, effort and imposition by the Government would see the NRA and other representative bodies vigorously oppose it. Thanks to Hollywood, the community ignorance of the actual efficiency of these things would see non-shooting legislators treating the initiative with suspicion - and such a wide, encompassing, complete reversal of the status quo would need all stake-holders to be enthusiastic about it. Even Blind Freddy can see that compulsory suppression on all guns will never happen so it's pointless even discussing such a fantasy.

But, given this is so obvious I suspect you are simply enjoying stirring people up in a good debate...

[stanc]

But, given this is so obvious I suspect you are simply enjoying stirring people up in a good debate...

a. It's not obvious to me.
b. In this thread are two (presumably) gun people who desire that their shooting neighbors use suppressors.
c. You yourself cited two examples of anti-gun people trying to do exactly as I hypothesized.

[stanc]

Stanc, I am starting to think that your signature line is actually representative of your actual personality.

Almost right. My signature line is representative of my actual experience. Those things that I've done well, came easily to me.
Practicing "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" typically resulted only in wasting a lot of time producing repeated failure.

I prefer success.

Make suppressors mandatory? Seriously? Fine, I for one welcome [it]...

You may welcome it, and I'm certain the suppressor industry would absolutely love it, but I would really dislike being told by government that I must use suppressors.

"Noise polution" may be the wrong term, but the effects are as real as you are in front of that keyboard. The fact is that a neighbor firing his 22-250, his AR, or his 9mm off his deck at his own targets do indeed make enough noise that for someone out on their deck wishing to enjoy a quiet sunset is indeed disturbed by their reports.

Americans have become so delicate that they are disturbed by the sound of freedom???
I am reminded of a line from Predator...

[Klem]

c. You yourself cited two examples of anti-gun people trying to do exactly as I hypothesized.

... and both their efforts were defeated by those with more social leverage. Their intentions might be aligned with your hypothesis but the reality of what happened is more aligned with mine.

[montana]

Americans have become so delicate that they are disturbed by the sound of freedom???
I am reminded of a line from Predator...

[Kswhitetails]

Almost right. My signature line is representative of my actual experience. Those things that I've done well, came easily to me.
Practicing "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" typically resulted only in wasting a lot of time producing repeated failure.

I prefer success.

Fair enough. Though, if legislation passed easily, we wouldn't be in the 2A forum... Unfortunately, passing any form of legislation regarding the repeal of long standing gun grabs is going to prove more difficult than your previous experience. What now, are you going to just let them slowly be taken or continue to be legislated out of your life? Send your guns my way, you can just roll over on it now and let your experience continue to guide you, I'll "keep trying".

You may welcome it, and I'm certain the suppressor industry would absolutely love it, but I would really dislike being told by government that I must use suppressors.

Absolutely they would. So would the consumer. And let me ask you, if someone came up with a suppressor that fit reasonably within the frame dimensions of a 1911, would you pack and shoot it? If your new AR came equipped with an integral suppressor free floated inside the hand guard, would you shoot it? If you did, and it didn't bother the neighbor, isn't that win-win? Turn the free market loose on this, and you'll see innovation explode and prices plummet. Fairly Micro, but lawfully supported.

Americans have become so delicate that they are disturbed by the sound of freedom???
I am reminded of a line from Predator...

OK - agreed. I admit I laughed here. And you're right. But I submit that if the "noise polllution" argument represents the "silliness" of the far left in this debate, then the above represents the far right. There is no doubt that suppressors depress noise emissions during firearm usage, and there used to be a time when we all thought of our neighbors before we went out to blast away. It was just a matter of the fact that the nearest neighbor was 5 miles away - so it didn't matter. And yes, yes. We have become too delicate. But that is for another forum.

[stanc]

Fair enough. Though, if legislation passed easily, we wouldn't be in the 2A forum... Unfortunately, passing any form of legislation regarding the repeal of long standing gun grabs is going to prove more difficult than your previous experience.

I've been on this planet almost 73 years. I've seen both California and Federal gun laws continue to grow in number, and become increasingly more restrictive.

I do not recall any major California or Federal gun laws ever being repealed. So, I guess you are saying that repeal will go from impossible to more impossible?

What now, are you going to just let them slowly be taken or continue to be legislated out of your life?

It doesn't seem like it's a matter of choice. Judging by history -- not just in this country, but others (Australia, for instance) -- it's a matter of when, not if.

Send your guns my way, you can just roll over on it now and let your experience continue to guide you, I'll "keep trying".

Ah, the idealism of youth. I wish you the best of luck.

Absolutely they would. So would the consumer.

The consumer is going to love being forced by law to buy and use only suppressed guns, at what, double the price of non-suppressed guns? Seriously?

And let me ask you, if someone came up with a suppressor that fit reasonably within the frame dimensions of a 1911, would you pack and shoot it? If your new AR came equipped with an integral suppressor free floated inside the hand guard, would you shoot it?

If I'm forced to, because those are the only legal options? Well, duh. Of course I would.

If you did, and it didn't bother the neighbor, isn't that win-win? Turn the free market loose on this, and you'll see innovation explode and prices plummet. Fairly Micro, but lawfully supported.

There's a huge difference between being "supported" by law, and being required by law.

[Troutguide]

When are they going to vote on this already?

[Klem]

It doesn't seem like it's a matter of choice. Judging by history -- not just in this country, but others (Australia, for instance) -- it's a matter of when, not if.


.

On this we can agree. A government ban on firearms would take longer in a country where individual firearm ownership is enshrined in the constitution, and possibly not in our lifetime but it may be the case. Depends on a lot of things, like whether the country is sucked into another serious or even world war. That would prevent it. Depends also on the misuse statistics and any trends there. More than likely the military-style semi-auto's will go and any other guns that lend themselves to human carnage. Bolt guns will never be banned from those owning rural property. A lot more expectation on the authorities to keep people safe as the criminals hang on to their weapons. A lot of people jumping up and down believing the fabric of society is going to be shattered but after the ban life goes on.

The idea of mandatory suppressors on all guns however is fantasy. Not only does it requires all stakeholders to be enthusiastic it would be arguably logistically impossible. The sheer numbers requiring suppression. There would be exceptions; concealed carry permits, Olympic shooters, antique firearms, guns which require a replacement barrel to extend past the frame or furniture, etc. It may be the case at certain rifle ranges in built-up areas, or certain hunting areas but that would be about it. Suppressors represent anathema to the authorities and that's where this debate ends.

[stanc]

The idea of mandatory suppressors on all guns however is fantasy. Not only does it requires all stakeholders to be enthusiastic it would be arguably logistically impossible. The sheer numbers requiring suppression. There would be exceptions; concealed carry permits, Olympic shooters, antique firearms, guns which require a replacement barrel to extend past the frame or furniture, etc. It may be the case at certain rifle ranges in built-up areas, or certain hunting areas but that would be about it. Suppressors represent anathema to the authorities and that's where this debate ends.

You're probably right. At least, I hope you're right. But I still think it's a bad idea for proponents to pitch it as reducing noise pollution. We'll see.

[montana]

A lot more expectation on the authorities to keep people safe as the criminals hang on to their weapons. A lot of people jumping up and down believing the fabric of society is going to be shattered but after the ban life goes on.

Respectfully, I disagree with this statement. The point of the US Second Amendment is division of power, not about hunting or sport. The day after a ban of modern firearms is enacted, life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be shattered. We are witnessing the destruction of almost all European societies today by the invasion of people who are not European and the parent people are being diminished. True Germans are going to become extinct in a few more generations as this trend continues. The same will hold true for the US if the destruction of the Second Amendment and the idea of individual liberty is destroyed. An invasion of foreign people is the best way to destroy the parent country, this is why california is the way it is. Life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be destroyed. This is a war if one understands it or not. War does change everything and unlimited immigration is a tactic used by the left for this means. Unless you have a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on our destruction just yet. American gun owners are not so easily swept a side, just ask the clintons.

[bj139]

The point of the US Second Amendment is division of power, not about hunting or sport.

The point of the second amendment is that ultimate power is in the hands of the people, not the government.

[montana]

The point of the second amendment is that ultimate power is in the hands of the people, not the government.

That is what division of power means. Our three branches of government and the bill of rights were created to prevent power from concentrating in just a few hands or becoming a mob rule based country. Needless to say it only works with a truly educated citizen ship that understands the principle. Sadly, many people have no clue about this concept.

[jdelong]

HOLY CRAP! How did this not make it into the discussion???? What kind of "witness" is this? It more and more feels like we are living in a banana republic.

"I am here to talk about how dangerous (insert product/item here) is. I am financially connected to a product that cannot detect said product and if it becomes readily available, my fortune will be ruined."

Geez.

You know what the most overlooked, unaddressed piece of information about this David Chipman "expert witness" testimony was?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidchipman


http://www.shotspotter.com/technology




"Expert witness" David Chipman has led North American sales for Shot Spotter during period of explosive growth. They just launched their IPO this summer actually, so I can see why Mr. Chipman is concerned, being their lead sales rep for North America, to "fight the true nature of gun violence". This story writes itself.

http://www.shotspotter.com/system/conten...e_2017.pdf

Their FAQ used to say they can't detect gunshots from suppressed firearms and that people don't use suppressors because they, well, I'll let them do the talking:



Suppressors are not illegal to own. That's the whole point of HPA, to deregulate the unconstitutional and baseless regulation of these firearms accessories. A company specializing in detecting gunshots with "expert ATF former SAC/ASAC" leading sales reps should know this. It is the insane fact that they are even regulated the way they are we have a problem with. If they were illegal, everyone who went through the bureaucratic garbage and unacceptable waiting period would not have Tax stamps for their cans.

We have laws against gun licensing in the US, so again, this company fails again at a basic understanding of firearms ownership in the US, granted there are some cities and States that have trampled all over the Constitution and illegally passed legislation that violates this Federal law, but it isn't the realty for most of us.

Having possession of a suppressor is not virtually guaranteed to lead to criminal prosecution, because the majority of them are tax stamped items governed under the 1934 NFA.

Silencers are not exceedingly difficult to find or make. They are very simple and easy to make even for someone that failed high school auto shop. This is Klingon aviation system recalibration.

Suppressors have a negative impact on accuracy and range of gunfire do they? These guys are technically incompetent when it comes to their understanding of suppressors. A weight on your muzzle seems to increase accuracy on most rifles, and it certainly extends the range (though minimally), by increasing velocity due to suppressor boost.

They have since scrubbed that link and replaced it with:



As they say, follow the money. How brazen for them to put him on as an expert witness. Not only does he not know that suppressed MP5s and now M4s have been in use by Federal, State, and local LE agencies dating back to the 1980s at least with the MP5, but he's also a leading sales rep for Shot Spotter.

[stanc]

Respectfully, I disagree with this statement. The point of the US Second Amendment is division of power, not about hunting or sport. The day after a ban of modern firearms is enacted, life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be shattered.

I doubt that. Machine guns have more military importance than semi-auto rifles. Was "the fabric of American society" shattered when the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted?

The evidence says that Klem is right.

When the 1934 NFA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1968 GCA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.

I don't see it being any different if semi-auto rifles are someday banned.

We are witnessing the destruction of almost all European societies today by the invasion of people who are not European and the parent people are being diminished. True Germans are going to become extinct in a few more generations as this trend continues. The same will hold true for the US if the destruction of the Second Amendment and the idea of individual liberty is destroyed. An invasion of foreign people is the best way to destroy the parent country, this is why california is the way it is.

Heh, heh. I've always thought that California is the way it is because so many east coast liberals moved here. Although I guess they could be considered "foreign people."

Life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be destroyed. This is a war if one understands it or not.

No, it isn't. I do wish people would stop misusing the term, "war."
War is military combat, waged with force of arms.
This is a philosophical/social disagreement.

War does change everything and unlimited immigration is a tactic used by the left for this means. Unless you have a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on our destruction just yet. American gun owners are not so easily swept a side, just ask the clintons.

:confused: American gun owners did not prevent Bill Clinton from signing the 1994 AWB into law.

[LRRPF52]

Thank you for providing real world examples that validate my theory. Argue on the grounds of noise pollution control, and it may come back to bite us in the ass by making suppressor use mandatory.

Not when the Committee communists (there are over 100 members of the US House of Reps who are members of shells for CPUSA, and 20 Senators including both Dems and Republicans) call their chief "expert witness" who is the lead sales representative for Shot Spotter, who just launched their IPO in July.

Their FAQs used to say suppressors defeated their technology. Now they say they can detect it. I wonder how many of the Congressrats purchased Shot Spotter IPO when it was opened, who are counting on the 300% stock increase projections, especially as they push for legislation to mandate more and more use of Shot Spotter in cities.

The Sacramento Police Department likes the technology so much that it is expanding its use into a second area of the city, said police Sgt. Bryce Heinlein.

The capital city began using SpotShotter in July 2015 in the Del Paso Heights area, covering a three-mile radius. It used money raised from assets seized from criminals to pay the $180,000 cost of the first year of operations, as well as $155,000 for 2016.

Since it began operating, the technology has resulted in officers responding to 270 gunshot incidents, resulting in 310 arrests and the confiscation of 75 illegal firearms, Heinlein said.

“It’s very effective,” he said.

The approved expansion into another area of the city is expected to cost $200,000.

ACLU has some problems with Shot Spotter, which is why the Dems in the Committee never addressed this publicly, but when you go back and listen to all the testimony and leading questions from the filthy vermin, you can see what they're talking about. I can see why they don't want to bring any attention to the ACLU's complaints with the main company that their expert witness is part of.

The privacy concern involves the potential that audio sensors could pick up the conversations of people walking by, activists say, noting cases where prosecutors have used comments recorded by sensors as evidence in court.

In 2010, prosecutors in Oakland won a conviction in the murder of Tyrone Lyles after his last words, recorded by ShotSpotter, were played in court.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-c...story.html

Follow the money proves to be as relevant of a guideline today, and the rats don't like any sunshine on their corruption.

[LRRPF52]

As to the Clinton AWB, even the corrupt scoundrels in Congress only passed the bill with a 10 year term.

Also, look at all the headway that has been made with Concealed carry across most States.

The Heller vs DC case in the SCOTUS was another major victory for freedom in the US, so the premise that all gun legislation is uni-directional favoring the communists is not supported by real events and legislation, court rulings, and judicial review.

We also had a major win with getting rid of decades of Federal abuse with firearms carry on Federal lands.

[montana]

I doubt that. Machine guns have more military importance than semi-auto rifles. Was "the fabric of American society" shattered when the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted?

The evidence says that Klem is right.

When the 1934 NFA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1968 GCA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.

I don't see it being any different if semi-auto rifles are someday banned.


Heh, heh. I've always thought that California is the way it is because so many east coast liberals moved here. Although I guess they could be considered "foreign people."


No, it isn't. I do wish people would stop misusing the term, "war."
War is military combat, waged with force of arms.
This is a philosophical/social disagreement.


:confused: American gun owners did not prevent Bill Clinton from signing the 1994 AWB into law.

First of all Stan machine guns were not banned but overly taxed.
The 1968 GCA only restricted foreign made firearms and put more restrictions when purchasing them.
The 1986 machine gun ban restricted new manufacturing of machine guns not the ones already in the public domain.
The 1994 assault weapon banned the furniture,"looks" not the firearms and gun owners didn't accept it hence it was allowed to expire after the dem's lost control of congress.

War is a part of politics which make politics a part of war according to Clauzwitz:

WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS


We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.