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

[LRRPF52]

https://naturalresources.house.gov/calen...tID=402754

I watched the whole thing. This was just a legislative hearing where the Committee members listen to testimony from expert witnesses covering the provisions and amendments in the Bill. This bill is being introduced in the House Committee on Natural Resources, which deals a lot with Federal lands-the main focus of the bill being to update management of Federal lands to better serve the wildlife and human population interface.

The firearms aspects of the bill cover inter-State transportation of firearms for lawful purposes, as well as the HPA.

The proponents of the bill had expert testimony from:

The Safari Club
Hope for Warriors
2A attorney who represented the pro-2A case in Heller

The opponents of the bill had witness testimony from:

Anti-gun activist and former ATF agent David Chipman

The proponents discussed in-depth the positive aspects of the bill and the problems it addresses that have arisen out of conflict between Federal and State law as to land management and firearms transportation (people being arrested because they landed in NY with their firearms when their flights were diverted where NY police told them that Federal law doesn't apply in NY), cases where skiers on Federal land said they don't feel safe when people are hunting in the area in hunting season, management of grey wolf species that have exceeded the intended repopulation numbers, and the HPA.

The 25yr ATF agent and his "expert, professional, LE" opinion focused entirely on the HPA aspect of the bill, stating that the widespread issuance of suppressors, "which are dangerous weapons that allow snipers to go out at night and snipe people undetected", would cause a massive headache for LE. He also stated that suppressors were never used in his vast LE career, which included being on a SWAT Team.

He also stated that the reason why people didn't die when the Bernie Sanders supporter gunned down Congressmen and their aides was because they could hear the distinct gunfire, and then was refuted by one of the members of Congress who corrected him succinctly by relating the actual testimony of the people being shot at, saying that the first shot didn't sound like a gun at all, more like a metal trashcan falling down, and that a combat veteran on the field recognized the incoming fire visually, then directed everyone to dive into a dugout.

The "expert ATF witness" went on about how suppressors allowed Police Officer Christopher Dorner to go on a shooting spree undetected, including ambushes of other police officers at night. Keep in mind that only LE has access to suppressors in CA, where Dorner murdered his victims willfully, with premeditated planning of his attacks on other police officers. The ATF witness said he never saw or experienced use of suppressors in his "vast career".





The ATF witness portrayed a general state of disarray and mayhem if suppressors were to be deregulated, showing extreme levels of ignorance and blatant lies about the facts related to them. One major statement he made was that suppressors aren't a problem right now because they are so heavily regulated, otherwise they would be used in crimes all the time.

When you look at the firearms crimes around the world where suppressors are readily available, like in Europe, there is zero data to support that claim.

The expert witnesses in support of the HPA had to clarify several times that it is still recommended that you wear hearing protection when using suppressors, and that they are not quiet like in the movies.

If I were at the hearing, I would love to have asked the retired ATF expert what enumerated powers under the Constitution governed the creation of the ATF, and should we also have Federal agencies to regulate free speech, assembly, press, religion, 4th and 5th Amendment rights, or are we fine with just having one that's sole purpose is to violate the 2nd and leave it at that.

[keystone183]

Are those dudes running surefire 60's?????

[stanc]

The ATF witness portrayed a general state of disarray and mayhem if suppressors were to be deregulated, showing extreme levels of ignorance and blatant lies about the facts related to them. One major statement he made was that suppressors aren't a problem right now because they are so heavily regulated, otherwise they would be used in crimes all the time.

When you look at the firearms crimes around the world where suppressors are readily available, like in Europe, there is zero data to support that claim.

Not sure that European experience is very applicable to the United States. And IMO, he's right, although "all the time" is hyperbole. Machine guns are highly regulated, and few at used in crime. If suppressors are deregulated, I think its almost certain their use in crimes will increase.

The expert witnesses in support of the HPA had to clarify several times that it is still recommended that you wear hearing protection when using suppressors, and that they are not quiet like in the movies.

Heh, heh. Must be some pretty crappy suppressors. I used to work with a manufacturer of suppressors that were very quiet. When testing them, we never felt a need to wear hearing protection. Indeed, the whole purpose of suppressors is to make hearing protection unnecessary.

OW, MY EARS!!! (3:56)
[video=youtube;y4N2Xz5uICE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4N2Xz5uICE[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4N2Xz5uICE



It's a nice ploy, though. Who knows, maybe it'll work.

[Troutguide]

The question is will crimes increase bc of suppressors and will it make it harder to discover the shooter. I don't think so, there is still sufficient noise especially with supersonic ammo that a shooter will still stand out.

[Klem]

Not sure that European experience is very applicable to the United States. And IMO, he's right, although "all the time" is hyperbole. Machine guns are highly regulated, and few at used in crime. If suppressors are deregulated, I think its almost certain their use in crimes will increase.


Heh, heh. Must be some pretty crappy suppressors. I used to work with a manufacturer of suppressors that were very quiet. When testing them, we never felt a need to wear hearing protection. Indeed, the whole purpose of suppressors is to make hearing protection unnecessary.

.

Sorry Stan, both of those claims don't sit well with me.

There is no evidence to suggest that suppressors are used in crimes to a concerning degree in places where they are more readily available (e.g. Finland and New Zealand). The idea that suppressors can facilitate crime (to a concerning degree) is also questionable.

The whole idea of suppressors is to make the muzzle report quieter, not necessarily to the extent that hearing protection is not required. In High power centre-fire rifles that is physically impossible. High power rifles are in the order of 170+db. Suppressors can shave up to 35db off that. Sound above 85db will still damage your hearing if it is cumulative, and the higher it goes the length of time where it is damaging shortens. Sound at 130db will definitely damage your hearing. The problem here is that shooters expect a lot from a device that requires a lot of money, paperwork, waiting and effort. Hollywood is also to blame for portraying them as quieter and more useful than they really are. The bottom line is these things have limitations. We used suppressed weapons often in the military yet always wore 'double ears' in training (squeezies and muffs).

They can, to a degree confound others from pin-pointing the shooter. You can also use them to facilitate communication in a group situation. Also to appreciate more readily the good guys from the bad guys by the sound of their weapons. If also subsonic then you can be a closer distance to others than unsuppressed and not be heard, or more typically be of concern if heard (e.g. if talking about civilian crime,... poaching).

I certainly wouldn't advocate not wearing ear protection with suppressors, even when using subsonics.

[41bear]

The whole idea that an object causes people to commit criminal acts is laughable and except for guns/gun parts regulation is a non issue. Do you have to pay a $200.00 tax and fill a government form to buy a 5th of Gin? Yet you can buy that bottle and then kill another person because you are driving drunk. As noted by LLRPF52 free speech is non regulated and any nut can yell "Fire" causing injury and or death.

It's only the Second amendment, with the freedom to bare arms, that gives rise to such childish and ignorant reasoning. Our Forefathers were correct to put the right to brae arms second only to that right of free speech.

[stanc]

Sorry Stan, both of those claims don't sit well with me.

What can I say. Sometimes the truth hurts.

There is no evidence to suggest that suppressors are used in crimes to a concerning degree in places where they are more readily available (e.g. Finland and New Zealand). The idea that suppressors can facilitate crime (to a concerning degree) is also questionable.

Aren't places like Finland much more restrictive/regulated in regards to gun ownership, requiring approval process for ordinary firearms similar to that for machine guns and other NFA items in the US?

My thinking is that if crimes committed with guns is low because firearm ownership is highly controlled, then allowing suppressors to be readily available (as in Finland) should not result in significant illegal use.

The US has tight controls on machine gun ownership, and there is negligible use of fully automatic weapons in crimes. OTOH, guns that are more readily available, are also used in crimes much more. It seems unlikely to be just coincidence.

But, I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. It may be that the sheer bulk of suppressor-equipped guns would make them too undesirable or impractical for criminals to make significant use of them.

The whole idea of suppressors is to make the muzzle report quieter, not necessarily to the extent that hearing protection is not required.

Perhaps not always, but that usually is the purpose for using suppressors.

In High power centre-fire rifles that is physically impossible. High power rifles are in the order of 170+db. Suppressors can shave up to 35db off that. Sound above 85db will still damage your hearing if it is cumulative, and the higher it goes the length of time where it is damaging shortens. Sound at 130db will definitely damage your hearing. The problem here is that shooters expect a lot from a device that requires a lot of money, paperwork, waiting and effort. Hollywood is also to blame for portraying them as quieter and more useful than they really are. The bottom line is these things have limitations. We used suppressed weapons often in the military yet always wore 'double ears' in training (squeezies and muffs).

They can, to a degree confound others from pin-pointing the shooter. You can also use them to facilitate communication in a group situation. Also to appreciate more readily the good guys from the bad guys by the sound of their weapons. If also subsonic then you can be a closer distance to others than unsuppressed and not be heard, or more typically be of concern if heard (e.g. if talking about civilian crime,... poaching).

I certainly wouldn't advocate not wearing ear protection with suppressors, even when using subsonics.

I once helped demo a suppressed .45 Government Model at a law enforcement expo. It was so quiet, neither I nor the cops who shot it wore hearing protection.

At another time, while testing a suppressed .308 sniper rifle out in the desert, my friend fired the rifle in a near vertical position to demonstrate how quiet it was when there were no physical objects for the supersonic shock wave to impact. The only audible sound was that of the firing pin hitting the primer.

The Australian soldier in that video was using a suppressor so he could shoot without having to use hearing protection.

Hunters use suppressors so they don't have to wear hearing protection. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvFrSLdw5cY
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...suppressed

Shooting suppressed. Note the absence of hearing protection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr36MCm5dkk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_D9neCL2c8
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...essed+guns

Suppressed 9mm pistol fired indoors:

[video=youtube;QTY15uXE1-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTY15uXE1-o[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTY15uXE1-o

[41bear]

I had to come back and add that if a criminal wants to use a suppressor to commit a crime one can be made far cheaper than paying for one legally which also allows for use on a weapon not designed to be able to attach it. Just my 2 cents

[stanc]

The whole idea that an object causes people to commit criminal acts is laughable...

I don't know of anyone who has ever said that guns or suppressors cause people to commit crimes.

[Klem]

Stan,
Once your hearing has gone that's it and once you get chronic tinnitus you'll regret it. I said we used double ears in training, while that old video is operational. Helmets help too as (sound) pressure is transmitted through the bones in the skull as well as the traditional route through the ear. That includes over-pressure from detonations. Centrefire suppressed, including handguns is 'loud'. Standing around with the cops and firing into the air is a nice touch of machismo but you need to have more respect for the fragile nature of hearing. It's all relative to cartridge, barrel length and type of suppressor. A little .22 rimfire is nice and quiet and no ears needed. Subsonic, suppressed Blackout from a 12" barrel is getting towards needing ears, especially when under roofs and in rooms. A few shots in the open is no big deal. Suppressed Grendel is definitely earmuff time. You might only shoot one or two rounds occasionally in the open and put up with accumulating damage that might not be noticed until you are old and grey.

As for countries that regulate firearms more the USA, perhaps that is the reason why suppressors don't feature to a concerning degree in their crime, or perhaps it's more related to cultural propensity to commit crime and to use firearms in crime. One example of a country that has ready access to military centre-fire rifles is Switzerland where crime with these guns, let alone with suppressors, is almost non-existent. Across the world it is also relatively easy to manufacture a DIY suppressor if you cannot get your hands on a legitimately manufactured one, yet their use in all countries to commit crime is rare. One argument opposing this fact by law-makers is that any amount of crime using a suppressor is unacceptable. The US has 370-million people so there's bound to be one person who is going to misuse a suppressor if they are more readily available,. This will be the argument of many opposing law makers and for that there is no counter-argument, other than to suggest it is unreasonable to prevent the vast majority from enjoying this freedom. Like driving a car...the only way you can prevent all accidents is to ban all cars. Cars are important to society and if you couch suppressors similarly, as more than just an indulgence (e.g. mitigating hearing loss and noise pollution) then suddenly there is a community benefit opposing their restriction. More importantly, this community benefit arguably justifies some misuse.

[keystone183]

Heh, heh. Must be some pretty crappy suppressors. I used to work with a manufacturer of suppressors that were very quiet. When testing them, we never felt a need to wear hearing protection. Indeed, the whole purpose of suppressors is to make hearing protection unnecessary.

Guess you couldn't hear before you worked with them? Otherwise, you may go now.....

[bj139]

If I were at the hearing, I would love to have asked the retired ATF expert what enumerated powers under the Constitution governed the creation of the ATF, and should we also have Federal agencies to regulate free speech, assembly, press, religion, 4th and 5th Amendment rights, or are we fine with just having one that's sole purpose is to violate the 2nd and leave it at that.

This is the entire problem. Great paragraph.

[stanc]

I said we used double ears in training, while that old video is operational.

Operational use is what I was addressing.

Centrefire suppressed, including handguns is 'loud'.

Not in my experience. And the video I posted also showed that to be untrue; if there's anyplace where a suppressed 9mm would seem loud, it'd be in a confined space like an underground bunker.

Standing around with the cops and firing into the air is a nice touch of machismo but you need to have more respect for the fragile nature of hearing. It's all relative to cartridge, barrel length and type of suppressor.

So you completely ignored the fact that I told you the shot was so quiet only the sound of the firing pin impacting the primer was audible???

A little .22 rimfire is nice and quiet and no ears needed. Subsonic, suppressed Blackout from a 12" barrel is getting towards needing ears, especially when under roofs and in rooms. A few shots in the open is no big deal. Suppressed Grendel is definitely earmuff time. You might only shoot one or two rounds occasionally in the open and put up with accumulating damage that might not be noticed until you are old and grey.

Meh. I've seen no evidence that civilian use of suppressors -- which is what the HPA is concerned with -- is routinely done while wearing ear plugs or muffs. As best I can tell, the vast majority of civilians who use suppressors, don't wear hearing protection, especially when hunting or other "operational" use. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

As for countries that regulate firearms more the USA, perhaps that is the reason why suppressors don't feature to a concerning degree in their crime, or perhaps it's more related to cultural propensity to commit crime and to use firearms in crime.

Concur.

One example of a country that has ready access to military centre-fire rifles is Switzerland where crime with these guns, let alone with suppressors, is almost non-existent.

Don't purchasers of suppressors in Switzerland have to go through an approval process similar to NFA purchases in the US?

Across the world it is also relatively easy to manufacture a DIY suppressor if you cannot get your hands on a legitimately manufactured one, yet their use in all countries to commit crime is rare.

LOL. Most criminals are not DIY-type people who have the interest or ability to manufacture their own suppressors. I think the most likely reason suppressors are rarely used in crime is simply that they add so much bulk to the gun that concealed carry becomes impractical.

Cars are important to society and if you couch suppressors similarly, as more than just an indulgence (e.g. mitigating hearing loss and noise pollution) then suddenly there is a community benefit opposing their restriction.

The trouble with that notion is that suppressors are an indulgence. Cars are necessary to our society; suppressors are not.

Now understand, I'm not arguing against the HPA. I hope it passes. I just consider ideas like "reducing noise pollution" as silly ploys which any thinking person would easily see as nonsense.

[stanc]

guess you couldn't hear before you worked with them? Otherwise, you may go now.....

What did you say? I can't hear you. Speak louder, dammit!

[Bigs28]

This "was" informative. Thanks lrr

[keystone183]

Now understand, I'm not arguing against the HPA. I hope it passes. I just consider ideas like "reducing noise pollution" as silly ploys which any thinking person would easily see as nonsense.

Silly ploys are what wins hearts and minds..... Constitutional authority...not so much. How else did we get here in the first place.....

[LRRPF52]

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

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

Summary
Served this nation for over 25 years in support of ATF's mission to combat violent crime. Led North American Sales for ShotSpotter during period of explosive growth while demonstrating the true nature of gun violence. Dedicated to developing, implementing and evaluating firearms violence reduction strategies aimed at making neighborhoods safe. Possessed a Top Secret SCI clearance.

Specialties: Violent Crime Reduction Strategist; Certified Explosives Specialist; Program Developer and Evaluator; SVP of Sales and Solutions; Interagency Liaison Specialist; Team Leader and Manager; Public Speaker.

http://www.shotspotter.com/technology

A gunshot-detection company with the goal of reducing gun violence in violence-racked cities is ready to hear what Wall Street thinks of it.

ShotSpotter Inc. SSTI, +0.63% priced its initial public offering at $11 a share Wednesday to raise $30.8 million. The stock is expected to start trading Wednesday on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “SSTI.”

The Newark, Calif., company was founded in 2001 and says 89 cities use its technology.

Roth Capital Partners was the sole book-running manager on the offering, with Northland Capital Markets and Imperial Capital as additional underwriters.

"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:

"What about silencers?
While high-quality silencers (also known as "muzzle blast suppressors") do have the ability to defeat ShotSpotter, the reality is, they are very rare and are illegal nationwide. Thus, while owning a licensed gun is not illegal, and carrying it usually is not (depending on jurisdiction), having in one’s possession a silencer is virtually guaranteed to lead to criminal prosecution. Moreover, silencers are both exceedingly difficult to find and have a negative impact on the accuracy and range of gunfire. Perhaps this is why less than 1% of all crimes in which guns are fired involve silencers, according to the FBI."

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:

16. Does ShotSpotter detect gunshots from gun silencers?
In regard to gun silencers it is more accurate to call them suppressors as they suppress the impulsive sound of gunfire not wholly eliminate it.
We have successfully if not inadvertently detected confirmed suppressed gunfire within our existing deployments. Although we have not formally tested the theoretical impact to our system we intend to do some targeted testing in the near future. We believe we will have various options ranging from increasing our sensor array density to developing software/firmware to address the detection of suppressed gunfire if it were to become a widespread issue.

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]

Silly ploys are what wins hearts and minds..... Constitutional authority...not so much. How else did we get here in the first place.....

We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.

[keystone183]

We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.

reducing noise pollutionfor the little childrens............. There. Fixed.

[LRRPF52]

We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.

Discharging a firearm inside my home in an emergency isn't an inane argument, nor is wanting to protect the hearing of animals when hunting (horses and dogs for example).

There is no need for me to have to justify why I want or don't want to use a particular firearms accessory to some power hungry despot and any other citizens that feel I should have to make my case to them as to why I want to use that device. Especially looking at sound moderators, which aren't even weapons, this whole reality is an example of why the NFA was way off the reservation when looking at individual rights.

My understanding what drove the inclusion of suppressors in the unconstitutional 1934 NFA was their concern over poaching, as the world was in the midst of a Great Depression and some people were hunting more for food supply after losing employment. It's odd though as suppressors were not very widespread at the time, being they had only been recently invented. The logic of regulating suppressors to stop poaching falls pretty flat on its face when you accept the reality of the bow and arrow or crossbow.

Statist control freaks are going to assault your rights at every chance I guess, unless there's some other series of events we just don't know about. The gangster-on-gangster machine-gun ambushes and drive-by shootings were no justification to regulate machine-guns, but they did that too. The St. Valentines Day Massacre between Al Capone's goons and the North Side Irish Gang in Chicago happened on Feb. 14th, 1929. At the time, a lot of the legislation in States dealing with organized crime they helped create with Prohibition was focused on short barreled shotguns first, then machine-guns.

It's interesting how they use extreme cases of career criminals to justify eradicating the rights of everyone else. They tried to include handguns with the 1934 NFA, but the NRA fought that and there wasn't enough support for it, so that provision was dropped.