User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:10:57 PM EDT
[#1]
How about you pretend for a moment that most of us don't want to go through the trouble of researching and editing the USC to find out what the hell it is you are trying to say and just give us the bullet points!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:19:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Pass my model law and "silencers" are no longer firearms.
It's that simple. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:19:56 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:24:31 PM EDT
[#4]
What, huh? Did you say a something?
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:26:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Those are the sections of the USC that regulate sound suppressors. He is asking for suppressors ("silencers" to the Hollywood and soccer mom crowd) to be unregulated. No more tax to pay. No more .gov permission to obtain. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:30:35 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:32:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:33:46 PM EDT
[#8]
This may in fact be a good strategy: now that we finally have the ball, after the other team ran 20 series in a row, we need to
PLAY SOME SERIOUS OFFENSE When I say this may be a good strategy, I don't actually see suppresors becoming totally unrestricted. What I CAN see is us doing just what the other side has been doing for years: push way harder than we think we have a chance for, and then when we "compromise", a silencer is all of a sudden just a Title I firearm, which is LIGHT-YEARS beyond the situation we're in now, and other side feels like we had to give up some field (compromise) when in reality we did nothing but gain. For those whose eyes glazed over at the sight of having to read a whole paragraph, I'll say it here: Try for more than we expect, then when we "compromise", we still win! Realistically we could get silencers made Title I firearms if we push for them to be totally unregulated |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:35:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Like a scope they should not be restricted.
CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:45:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Wouldn't make a bit of difference for me. The State of Michigan feels that I am better off without any device that reduces or modifies the report of a firearm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:53:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Ditto in the People's Paradise of New York 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:55:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Well I would hope we could count on you people's support regardless of what your state laws say, otherwise, with all the negative attitude we have in the gun community NO WONDER we don't ever make any progress.
Shoot we're only getting some rights back this time because the law /automatically/ sunsets, not because of some super awesome co-ordinated campaign to write a bill and pass a law to repeal it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 12:57:22 PM EDT
[#13]
legal in 33 states.
So move. CRC 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 1:06:43 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm in. I'll write to the congresscritters I posted a draft letter on the subject here and on another forum recently to that effect. I'm glad someone else feels the same way. Who's a good congressman sympathetic to our cause? Craig from Idaho?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 1:17:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Or Jeff Sessions from Alabama, but it could be important to find someone who's viewed by his/her colleagues as more moderate because of the back-scratching dealmating vote-trading that goes on, you know? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 1:21:33 PM EDT
[#16]
That depends on the election in November.
CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 5:58:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Bump for night crew.
I think a good title would be Firearm noise reduction and sport shooter's hearing protection restoration act of 2004/5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:26:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Don't get mad. I support any move towards removing the unconstitutional restrictions on our gfun rights. I was just lementing the fact that the State of Michigan has a seperate more restrictive ban than the national ban. A removal of the Federal restriction would just be one step closer to freedom for the State of Michingan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:33:23 PM EDT
[#19]
I'm in. Someone draft a good letter to cut and paste and I'll send it in. Get it to other boards you post on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:38:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Like the idea very much. Only suggest one change. Make it "Protection" instead of "Restoration". You can't give people back their lost hearing but you can protect future generations of shooters.
The panty-wad do-gooders love to PROTECT things and there's a huge "Do it for the Children" (  ) angle that could be worked in here as well. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2004 6:59:20 PM EDT
[#21]
There is really valid reasoning behind such a law. the fact that suburbia is encroaching on gun ranges, noise polution is becoming more of an issue. Make it the "Sportsmans Noise Pollution Reduction Act" Purpose is to reduce complaints from residents related to lawful shooting events and hunting activities.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
