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

[stanc]

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

LOL. Well, maybe. IF you could show a bunch of crying, screaming children with blood running out of their ears due to the noise of gunfire.

But, far more likely that what would happen is that it would result in increased calls to ban guns...for the well-being of all the little chillun.

[stanc]

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.

If you want to get the law changed, you darned sure need to come up with a convincing argument.

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.

The reality is it's far easier for most people to poach with a gun, than 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.

Humans are not a rational species. In matters such as this, emotional usually prevails over rational.

[Bigs28]

30mm. , b ,m. ? . , .. . , ,,, ?,
,. . ,, ,,,,,,,,,,., . ,, ,. , il

[biodsl]

An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.

I suspect there are a lot of home owners around my gun club who'd love it if all the members were using suppressors.

[stanc]

I suspect there are a lot of home owners around my gun club who'd love it if all the members were using suppressors.

Heh, heh. That's probably true. So, does this mean there'll be a law requiring all guns be equipped with suppressors?



P.S. Your post reminds me of a nice shooting range in the San Diego area that had been operating for decades. Until about 40 years ago, when housing tracts were developed around the range.

Soon afterwards, complaints about the noise -- and the occasional stray bullet -- forced the range out of business.

[montana]

Stan, I guess the easy access to shoes, socks, pants, underwear, etc increases their use in crimes. All items of clothing should be heavily regulated. I wont even get into the unregulated access of car mufflers, enabling criminals to escape stealthy away from the scene of a crime. It would be much easier to catch a barefooted, naked criminal trying to escape in a non muffled automobile.
Your argument is silly and could be applied to anything. With that logic we should heavily regulate everything and anything that a potential criminal could use in the act of a crime. With that logic bows and arrows should have ear shattering noise makers every time a bow string is released. I now see where the logic of the word "infringe" has about as much meaning today as male and female comes from.

[41bear]

It's out of committee and now on the House Floor for a vote.

[TomSawyerNW]

I admit I'm only partly following this, but I have interest in this issue. I like to shoot, and I hate that the neighbors don't like the noise. And frankly speaking, I don't care to be sitting on the deck in the evenings and hearing shooting noise a couple fields over. Noise pollution.

But I have to ask, if suppressers will increase crime, then why hasn't the black market already manufactured them and made them available?

370 million people in this country, and with cities like Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., St. Louis, etc., I have yet to hear of a shooting committed by someone using a suppressor. Or, have I missed a CNN headline?

[bj139]

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.

Thank you for posting this. It is right on the mark. Government does not belong in this issue but they violate the Constitution nonetheless.

[stanc]

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).

I fully agree. And those are good arguments, unlike the "reducing noise pollution" silliness.

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.

That's very idealistic, but not realistic. The reality is that you do have to comply with legal requirements to buy and possess some devices.
Unless, of course, you wish to break the law and face the consequences if caught...

Statist control freaks are going to assault your rights at every chance I guess...

Of course they will.

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.

It's not surprising. People generally use whatever method they think will further their goal.

[stanc]

I have to ask, if suppressers will increase crime, then why hasn't the black market already manufactured them and made them available?

I think removing restrictions on suppressors probably won't result in a significant increase in criminal use, because there are few types of crimes for which suppressors would be useful and/or practical.

[stanc]

I admit I'm only partly following this, but I have interest in this issue. I like to shoot, and I hate that the neighbors don't like the noise. And frankly speaking, I don't care to be sitting on the deck in the evenings and hearing shooting noise a couple fields over. Noise pollution.

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.

[Klem]

I fully agree. And those are good arguments, unlike the "reducing noise pollution" silliness.

.

You'd be surprised.

The Swiss are right into reducing noise pollution at their ranges, building sound-proof buildings and blinker-walls forward of the firing line to reduce noise pollution in a country with limited level ground.

Their resurgent use in the UK has been largely due to the growing population encroaching on rural areas and the need to reduce noise pollution.

In Australia, a guy called Andrew Stucken (a lawyer) purchased a house near the Lyndhurst Rifle Range in 2014. It wasn't until he moved in that he realised on the weekends there was a lot of noise coming over his fence. He petitioned the NSW Police Commissioner to enforce compulsory suppressors for all shooters using the range. An interesting situation in a country where only approved and disciplined bodies can use suppressors. Unsurprisingly the shooters themselves resisted and even stopped him when he tried to join their club in an attempt to change it from within. As a lawyer he did get some purchase in the appeal system until finally the then Police Commissioner vetoed his initiative.

For a short while a notable Australian anti-gun lobbyist, John Crook was on record as being pro-suppressor, to reduce the 'shocking' sound produced by rifle ranges in built-up areas. He was against their use in rural areas however as he felt people in the vicinity needed to know if there was a shooter nearby. His gun lobby subsequently talked him out of it however believing any promotion of suppressor use encouraged the use of guns. They are now anti-suppressor/anti-gun in all scenarios.

[stanc]

In Australia, a guy called Andrew Stucken (a lawyer) purchased a house near the Lyndhurst Rifle Range in 2014. It wasn't until he moved in that he realised on the weekends there was a lot of noise coming over his fence. He petitioned the NSW Police Commissioner to enforce compulsory suppressors for all shooters using the range.

For a short while a notable Australian anti-gun lobbyist, John Crook was on record as being pro-suppressor, to reduce the 'shocking' sound produced by rifle ranges in built-up areas.

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.

[Klem]

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.

A very unlikely scenario I think we all agree.

Using that logic, suppressors could become compulsory regardless of whether the gun lobby uses noise pollution to argue for greater access to suppressors or not. Mufflers on cars are compulsory so by the same token, why not make it the same for guns? Kind of like, 'Be careful what you wish for' as the government decides, OK, you want suppressors, then everyone has to have them from now on.

A logical but extremely unlikely scenario.

All I predict is the gradual relaxation of laws surrounding their control and access. Unlikely to ever get like New Zealand however, where the only government control over suppressors is the collection of a 20% Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the retail level.

[stanc]

A very unlikely scenario I think we all agree.

Using that logic, suppressors could become compulsory regardless of whether the gun lobby uses noise pollution to argue for greater access to suppressors or not. Mufflers on cars are compulsory so by the same token, why not make it the same for guns? Kind of like, 'Be careful what you wish for' as the government decides, OK, you want suppressors, then everyone has to have them from now on.

A logical but extremely unlikely scenario.

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.

[JASmith]

My main worry about the HPA has already been voiced by Klem and acouple of orhers -- they are all too likely to become mandatory at ranges near urban areas.

While that moght be OK in the AR crowd where a huge fraction of rifles already have threaded mizzles, the guys shooting classic weapons, e. g., Springields, Enfields, Model 70s, Savage 99s, etc. would not be able to use them.

[montana]

This discussion is giving me a headache. The leftist, anti everything crowed could, will and do use any excuse to stop the use of firearms by citizens. There is no logic, reality or proven science to back up any of their claims to disarm the American people. Suppressors do cut down on noise from rifle ranges and protect hearing. I live in a mountain valley with two shooting ranges on opposite sides of the valley. Some days the air carries the sound quite efficiently and is very noticeable, "music to my ears". In my younger days people were happy because the ranges gave people a close place to sight in their rifles before hunting season other than their back yards. Since then a lot of newbies have moved in and started complaining. "Too bad", Montana passed a law preventing the closure of established shooting ranges resulting from residential growth and noise complaints. This law and many other pro gun laws were passed by the hard work of Gary Marbut's Montana Shooting Sports Association. I enjoy discussions about pro active firearm strategies but we don't need to over think this. No matter what leverage, strategy, logic that is used, you can bank on the left to create a new, exaggerated bold face lie about a much needed, common sense, prohibiting, anti gun law. Logic will only work with logical people, not the insane, dumb downed, emotional based, power hungry leftist drones. Getting pro gun representatives in office is the only cure for the cancerous, leftist destruction process of our Constitutional rights. It is because of dedicated people like Gary Marbut and his supporters that I live in a very pro gun state.

[stanc]

This discussion is giving me a headache. The leftist, anti everything crowed could, will and do use any excuse to stop the use of firearms by citizens. There is no logic, reality or proven science to back up any of their claims to disarm the American people. Suppressors do cut down on noise from rifle ranges and protect hearing. I live in a mountain valley with two shooting ranges on opposite sides of the valley. Some days the air carries the sound quite efficiently and is very noticeable, "music to my ears". In my younger days people were happy because the ranges gave people a close place to sight in their rifles before hunting season other than their back yards. Since then a lot of newbies have moved in and started complaining. "Too bad", Montana passed a law preventing the closure of established shooting ranges resulting from residential growth and noise complaints.

Yup. In the San Diego area there was a nice outdoor range that had been in operation for decades. Then about 40 years ago, population growth resulted in housing tracts being developed on the land surrounding the range. Soon afterwards, complaints from the people who moved in forced the range to be permanently shut down.

No matter what leverage, strategy, logic that is used, you can bank on the left to create a new, exaggerated bold face lie about a much needed, common sense, prohibiting, anti gun law.

Granted, but why help them by providing a reason that we argue for now, but then would later have to defend against...and look like hypocrites or fools in the process.

Logic will only work with logical people, not the insane, dumb downed, emotional based, power hungry leftist drones.

Well, there is some lack of logic among gun people, too. Consider this comment from the OP:

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.

IMO, that's illogical and counter-productive testimony. If they are so loud that you should wear ear plugs/muffs anyway, what's the point in wanting to use suppressors?

[montana]

I agree with you Stan, but comparing the left"s lack of logic to the poor explanation of suppressor use is not even in the same universe. It should have been explained better that hearing damage is decreased ten fold when using a suppressed firearm compared to non suppressed. A good comparison would be to running heavy equipment. Heavy equipment has mufflers but hearing protection is recommended for long term exposure. Running heavy equipment with just a straight pipe will damage hearing immediately not to mention any person near that piece of equipment. What the laws tell shooters today is they must run their firearms with a straight stack. Many suppressors are not hearing safe but are much better for long term exposure compared to non suppressed. Most hunters today never use suppressors because of laws and or exorbitant cost of licensing. Many do not use ear protection, "including myself" as they need to use their sense of hearing to acquire their game. Using a suppressed weapon for hunting will save hearing plain and simple as it will in all shooting. Having the option of going suppressed is a viable health issue, not a crime issue.