Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/1/2006 1:22:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 1:45:29 PM EDT by fossil_fuel]
BILL TITLE: Sportsman's Hearing Protection and Noise Pollution Reduction Act of 2006

BILL SPONSOR: Sen. Fossil_Fuel [L-NY]

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is increasingly being recognized as a serious issue among hunters and target shooters. Even brief exposure to the noises of gunfire can cause permanent hearing loss. While hearing protection in the form of earmuffs or earplugs is sometimes an option, it is not always practical or safe, as it makes the wearer less aware of their surroundings and makes it difficult to hear range officers, instructors, or hunting partners. In addition, some hearing experts believe that even with ear protection, chronic cumulative hearing loss can occur. Noise pollution is often a problem as well, with houses or businesses located near firing ranges having to deal with the constant sound of gunfire. Many firing ranges are being forced to close down due to noise issues. This will be an increasing problem as rural areas become further developed.

To deal with this problem, the firearms laws in this country need to be amended to allow wider access to noise suppressors. Even in many European nations, where firearm ownership is very tightly controlled, noise suppressor use is allowed and even encouraged to cut down on noise pollution and hearing loss. However, in the United States sound suppressors are difficult to acquire, as a citizen must pay a $200 tax, undergo an exhaustive background check by the ATF, and endure a long waiting period before they are given permission to own one. This is the same process that citizens must go through to be allowed to own a machinegun. Does it make sense that the ownership of a simple safety device is as heavily restricted as that of a machinegun?

Noise suppressors are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The intent of restricting them so heavily was to deter illegal poaching during the Great Depression, a time when cash-strapped local and state governments could not afford to deal with the problem. However, this problem has since largely been resolved thanks to the excellent system of state-level fish and game control agencies. Besides illegal poaching, noise suppressors have almost no history of use in crime.

It's time to bring our hearing protection laws into the 21st century and remove the barriers to citizens owning noise suppressors.

BE IT RESOLVED, that every reference to "sound suppressor" "silencer" and "sound reduction device" is hereby removed from the National Firearms Act.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:25:25 PM EDT
what do you all think?

i think we can pull this off! let's start writing our senators and representatives!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:25:48 PM EDT
I like it......now, we just need to get you elected.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:27:51 PM EDT
Not to shoot you down, but I think some congress critters /senat-bores would just say, "stop shooting guns".

Either that or they'll say that maybe we shouldn't have firearms as they commit too much noise pollution , hurts the user & there oughta be a law to protect people.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:28:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:28:35 PM EDT
I would be happy if they just allowed suppressors in my state for citizens.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:29:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By skebe:
Not to shoot you down, but I think some congress critters /senat-bores would just say, "stop shooting guns".

Either that or they'll say that maybe we shouldn't have firearms as they commit too much noise pollution , hurts the user & there oughta be a law to protect people.




are you kidding me? that would be political suicide. even most democrats support gunownership for hunting. we have to portray this as a health and safety issue, which it is.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:31:19 PM EDT
or at least drop the stamp from 200 to 5$
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:32:39 PM EDT
Sounds good to me! I would definitely help to get something along those lines passed. It won't happen, but I would support it. Everyone needs their futile gesture.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:34:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By skebe:
Not to shoot you down, but I think some congress critters /senat-bores would just say, "stop shooting guns".

Either that or they'll say that maybe we shouldn't have firearms as they commit too much noise pollution , hurts the user & there oughta be a law to protect people.




are you kidding me? that would be political suicide. even most democrats support gunownership for hunting. we have to portray this as a health and safety issue, which it is.




Why don't we write a letter to the NRA about this. About once a month I see where a shooting facility is being overrun by a town, and they want to shut it down. The reason always given is noise.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:34:42 PM EDT
Dude, you are in NY....

How about you try the AWB first?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:36:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:37:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gonzo_beyondo:
Dude, you are in NY....

How about you try the AWB first?



NY is a lost cause. once i'm out of school i'm moving to either colorado or texas. however, i TRULY believe that we can get this passed if we cast it as a health and safety issue. just look at europe!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:39:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 1:41:17 PM EDT by skebe]
Gents please don't get me wrong. I fully agree that this is something to fight for.

I just see the nanny state not really caring about our health & safety.

I'm actually surprised that they haven't tried to increase my health insurance rates due to the fact I own firearms, take martial arts, & drive a 4x4.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:41:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 1:44:40 PM EDT by GhostRing]

Originally Posted By Ring:
or at least drop the stamp from 200 to 5$



I'd be all for that!
But yes, I'd like to see sound suppressors removed from the NFA list.


It's time to bring our hearing protection laws into the 21st century and allow citizens to own noise suppressors.

This is a bit misleading...

I assume you mean all citizens?
because most are allowed to own them, they are just overly regulated.
Are you saying completely remove all regulation or treat them more like title 1 firearms?
I don't mind the bg check, if I can walk out of the store that day with a suppressor.

***what about form 1 suppressors?
I can see still going through the ATF, but that should only be $5***
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:44:19 PM EDT
Kind of a double edged sword, get something like that done then you will have cities, counties(where allowed) or states passing laws that say ALL firearms used at a range must be suppressed.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:45:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GhostRing:

Originally Posted By Ring:
or at least drop the stamp from 200 to 5$



I'd be all for that!
But yes, I'd like to see sound suppressors removed from the NFA list.


It's time to bring our hearing protection laws into the 21st century and allow citizens to own noise suppressors.

This is a bit misleading...

I assume you mean all citizens?
because most are allowed to own them, they are just overly regulated.
Are you saying completely remove all regulation or treat them more like title 1 firearms?
I don't mind the bg check, if I can walk out of the store that day with a suppressor.




okay, i'll change the wording a bit. i want you to be able to go into the gun store and buy one with no more difficulty than buying a scope, pin on muzzle brake or flash hider.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:45:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
or at least drop the stamp from 200 to 5$



Don't care about the $200. It's the Ass Ache and FUCKING WAITING that's annoying.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:47:33 PM EDT

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from both the BATFE and the county sheriff or chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a $200 transfer tax. This process takes approximately 4-6 months to complete. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present.


it's all of THAT shit that pisses me off.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:49:41 PM EDT
In the order in which I'd rather have:

1) an AR (this IS the PRK, after all)
2) SBR/SBS/AOW (Going lower than 18" is just silly for an M14, but a true 14.5" M4 profile barrel, or even the 11.5" commando is VERY nice)
3) Suppressors (an extra part I have to buy)
4) FA (I can't afford to feed it)
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:49:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 1:54:17 PM EDT by GhostRing]

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

i want you to be able to go into the gun store and buy one with no more difficulty than buying a scope, pin on muzzle brake or flash hider.



I'm sorry to say, but this will not happen...
I say reclassify them as Title 1 items subject to a NCIS check at the store.
Private sales still subject to applicable laws.

I'm NOT being anti...just trying a more realistic approach.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:53:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 1:54:20 PM EDT by fossil_fuel]

Originally Posted By GhostRing:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

i want you to be able to go into the gun store and buy one with no more difficulty than buying a scope, pin on muzzle brake or flash hider.



I'm sorry to say, but this will not happen...
I say reclassify them as Title 1 items subject to a NCIS check at the store.
Private sales still subject to applicable laws.

I'm NOT being anti...just trying a more realistic approach.




why would you take the approach? i don't need a NCIS check to buy a barrel, or a pin on flash suppressor, or a scope, or earplugs. why should i need one for a suppressor? it's a SAFETY device after all, hell if we sell this right the VPC will probably want to mandate that every new firearm that's sold have a suppressor included!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:57:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
BILL TITLE: Sportsman's Hearing Protection and Noise Pollution Reduction Act of 2006

BILL SPONSOR: Sen. Fossil_Fuel [L-NY]



Change to: Noise Pollution Restriction Act.

Nobody likes a lot of noise.


BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is increasingly being recognized as a serious issue among hunters and target shooters. Even brief exposure to the noises of gunfire can cause permanent hearing loss. While hearing protection in the form of earmuffs or earplugs is sometimes an option, it is not always practical or safe, as it makes the wearer less aware of their surroundings and makes it difficult to hear range officers, instructors, or hunting partners. In addition, some hearing experts believe that even with ear protection, chronic cumulative hearing loss can occur. Noise pollution is often a problem as well, with houses or businesses located near firing ranges having to deal with the constant sound of gunfire. Many firing ranges are being forced to close down due to noise issues. This will be an increasing problem as rural areas become further developed.


Get rid of all of this. You have to sell it to dumbassed liberals. They HATE gunowners and especially hunters. Their response to reading that noise hurts us will be "Good!" Their response to reading that hunters will be less effective will also be a joyous one.

Think like the enemy. Liberals don't want a lot of noise, and they want to be oblivious of shooting ranges. Couch it in very generic language that in no way touches on guns directly, but forces gunowners to have a silencer for every weapon. Liberals love government force, especially AGAINST gun owners. Make it read so that force is being brought to bear against those eveil hunters and shooters.



To deal with this problem, the firearms laws in this country need to be amended to allow wider access to noise suppressors. Even in many European nations, where firearm ownership is very tightly controlled, noise suppressor use is allowed and even encouraged to cut down on noise pollution and hearing loss. However, in the United States sound suppressors are difficult to acquire, as a citizen must pay a $200 tax, undergo an exhaustive background check by the ATF, and endure a long waiting period before they are given permission to own one. This is the same process that citizens must go through to be allowed to own a machinegun. Does it make sense that the ownership of a simple safety device is as heavily restricted as that of a machinegun?

Good idea. Liberals love European laws, especially if they are draconic and socialist in mindset. Look at the GCA 68.

Get rid of the "protect the shooter" language, add "protect the housewife".


Noise suppressors are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The intent of restricting them so heavily was to deter illegal poaching during the Great Depression, a time when cash-strapped local and state governments could not afford to deal with the problem. However, this problem has since largely been resolved thanks to the excellent system of state-level fish and game control agencies. Besides illegal poaching, noise suppressors have almost no history of use in crime.
They will say they aren't used in crimes because they are so heavily regulated. Lose this.


It's time to bring our hearing protection laws into the 21st century and remove the barriers to citizens owning noise suppressors.


It's time to bring our hearing protection laws into the 21st century and force those who would burden our citizens with shocking and opprobrius noise to properly muffle their devices, no matter what type, be it a motorcycle, an aircraft, or a firearm.


BE IT RESOLVED, that every reference to "sound suppressor" "silencer" and "sound reduction device" is hereby removed from the National Firearms Act.


BE IT RESOLVED, that line XXX, line YYY, and line ZZZ be stricken from Section ABC of the US Criminal Code.

Never directly state your intent.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:59:53 PM EDT
Because a suppressor can/will change the report of certain calibers enough that source location can
be difficult.

Remember, a "silencer" is truly meant to hide the shooter, not protect him.

Like I said, I love your proposal, I just personally think it's asking them for too much at once.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:01:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 2:01:51 PM EDT by Mr-H]
Wow. Nice piece! Best case for suppressors I've seen yet.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:02:17 PM EDT
can you tack on removal of the stupid sbr stuff while you are at it?

Sounds like a good idea. On to the letter writing campaign!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:06:16 PM EDT
Remember, a "silencer" is truly meant to hide the shooter, not protect him.

let me rephrase that...

You can say a suppressor controls muzzle blast to the point that those around you aren't deafened.
Yet can also be used to hide your location decent enough that direction of fire is obscured.

They WILL take this into account.


Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:07:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 2:09:15 PM EDT by fossil_fuel]

Originally Posted By GhostRing:
Remember, a "silencer" is truly meant to hide the shooter, not protect him.

let me rephrase that...

You can say a suppressor controls muzzle blast to the point that those around you aren't deafened.
Yet can also be used to hide your location decent enough that direction of fire is obscured.

They WILL take this into account.





silencer is a misnomer. the gun is never truly "silenced". and what it was "meant" for doesn't necessarily correlation to what it "will" be used for. but i see your point. perhaps i should add a paragraph explaining that suppressors would NOT truly silence most guns, since there's still a sonic crack, only lower the noise level enough so that no hearing damage occurs?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:35:07 PM EDT
CRC, is this your troll account?



j/k
Personally, I think that the deregulation of suppressors is important because it can help keep the nimbys from complaining when they move into there newly built home thats right next to a well established range.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:56:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Samstead:
CRC, is this your troll account?



j/k
Personally, I think that the deregulation of suppressors is important because it can help keep the nimbys from complaining when they move into there newly built home thats right next to a well established range.




+1, too many ranges are being shut down because of that issue.

who are you referring to as CRC's troll account?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:05:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GhostRing:

Originally Posted By Ring:
or at least drop the stamp from 200 to 5$



I'd be all for that!
But yes, I'd like to see sound suppressors removed from the NFA list.


It's time to bring our hearing protection laws into the 21st century and allow citizens to own noise suppressors.

This is a bit misleading...

I assume you mean all citizens?
because most are allowed to own them, they are just overly regulated.
Are you saying completely remove all regulation or treat them more like title 1 firearms?
I don't mind the bg check, if I can walk out of the store that day with a suppressor.

***what about form 1 suppressors?
I can see still going through the ATF, but that should only be $5***





Remove ALL regulation from silencers/suppressors.

I don't need governmental permission, CLEO signoff, FBI background check, fingerprints, two passport-sized photos and a $200 tax stamp to buy a muffler for my lawnmower, why should I need it to buy a muffler for my boomstick?

What's next? Governmental regulation of military-style fore-end rail systems?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:29:23 PM EDT
I'm game for this I'll write letters and make calls.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:40:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 3:41:54 PM EDT by yekimak]
Mail sent to my reps.

What now?

senator e-mail list
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:23:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
what do you all think?

i think we can pull this off! let's start writing our senators and representatives!



I like it as well. But why don't you just get the tax reduced from $200 to $5 like for an AOW instead? that seems like it would be a whole lot easier, then 5 years down the road you remove them completely from the nfa

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:25:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Mail sent to my reps.

What now?

senator e-mail list



i'm going to write my reps. i'm also going to contact the NRA-ILA and ask them if they would push for this issue. might send a letter to the GOA, JFPO as well. hell, might even send a letter to the american audiology association, if there is such a thing.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:33:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Mail sent to my reps.

What now?

senator e-mail list



i'm going to write my reps. i'm also going to contact the NRA-ILA and ask them if they would push for this issue. might send a letter to the GOA, JFPO as well. hell, might even send a letter to the american audiology association, if there is such a thing.



Call the NRA-ILA and GOA and report back what they say.

CRC
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:40:29 PM EDT
It makes so much sense it hurts my head.

I suspect if you got all of the ranges that have been or are in the process of being shutdown because of neighborhoods built after the range had been established you'd have quite a sizeable force behind you on this.

I'm guessing ranges would be your biggest asset in this kind of battle. They usually have members that know people who know people or ARE the people that make things happen. Not to mention ranges should have no problem making donations if necessary in order to get this thing pushed.

I can't help but wonder if police have wanted to use them but are held back for some reason. Same with .mil. I can't think of one good reason why the military doesn't use them. If for no other reason than for the safety issue and not having to pay out disability compensation for hearing loss. Fuck the laws of war.

There is simply no reason to regulate these other than the fact that Hollywood has demonized them into an instrument of killers.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:49:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danonly:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
what do you all think?

i think we can pull this off! let's start writing our senators and representatives!



I like it as well. But why don't you just get the tax reduced from $200 to $5 like for an AOW instead? that seems like it would be a whole lot easier, then 5 years down the road you remove them completely from the nfa



as others said before the $200 tax did not mean shit to me it was taking the time to get prints, passport photos , set up a appointment with the sherrif and wait 120 days
that was a pain in the ass
and besides there are tons of places that NFA is legal but you cannot get CLEO sognoff and then you have to go thought the bullshit of setting up a corp
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:06:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
as others said before the $200 tax did not mean shit to me it was taking the time to get prints, passport photos , set up a appointment with the sherrif and wait 120 days
that was a pain in the ass
and besides there are tons of places that NFA is legal but you cannot get CLEO sognoff and then you have to go thought the bullshit of setting up a corp



Yeah.. I'd almost be happy to settle for just a $100 tax stamp, background check, and a 5 day(?) waiting period like a handgun. I'm not thrilled at all about the whole finger print thing and the waiting period is total BS. Make it legal for an FFL holder to sell them so they could be sold in any gunshop. The .gov would make more money by making them more available but still having the same check in place as they do for handguns.

Baby steps. Go for a compromise rather than demanding an all out deregulation. The suppressor companies might stand behind you to if they think the demands are reasonable and not so far beyond reach that it would be a waste of their time.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:12:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
as others said before the $200 tax did not mean shit to me it was taking the time to get prints, passport photos , set up a appointment with the sherrif and wait 120 days
that was a pain in the ass
and besides there are tons of places that NFA is legal but you cannot get CLEO sognoff and then you have to go thought the bullshit of setting up a corp



Yeah.. I'd almost be happy to settle for just a $100 tax stamp, background check, and a 5 day(?) waiting period like a handgun. I'm not thrilled at all about the whole finger print thing and the waiting period is total BS. Make it legal for an FFL holder to sell them so they could be sold in any gunshop. The .gov would make more money by making them more available but still having the same check in place as they do for handguns.

Baby steps. Go for a compromise rather than demanding an all out deregulation. The suppressor companies might stand behind you to if they think the demands are reasonable and not so far beyond reach that it would be a waste of their time.



yep just make them the same legally as handguns
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:15:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 6:16:06 PM EDT by fossil_fuel]
no, i disagree with that tactic. by saying that they should be regulated at all, you are implicitly agreeing with the fact that they are somehow dangerous. they are not, they are a SAFETY device, and companies should be encouraged to give them out free with new guns, just like the way ruger gives out a chamber lock with each gun it sells. it's for the children (and their eardrums).
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:21:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By napalm:
Remove ALL regulation from silencers/suppressors.

I don't need governmental permission, CLEO signoff, FBI background check, fingerprints, two passport-sized photos and a $200 tax stamp to buy a muffler for my lawnmower, why should I need it to buy a muffler for my boomstick?

What's next? Governmental regulation of military-style fore-end rail systems?



I'm not trying to be a wet blanket or anti-fun, but you will have to give them a much more
compelling reason to deregulate.
I would SO love for them to be as easy to get as a truck muffler!

Why can't I buy infrared or body armor direct?

I'm not so concerned with a lawnmower in city limits...a suppressed pistol that sounds like a
nail gun, I might be. People might try to pull off all kinds of stupid stuff.


I am absolutely for this, but you kind of have to think like "them".
It's too easy to convince us!
You need to ease into these things is all I'm saying.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:22:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GhostRing:

Why can't I buy infrared or body armor direct?



you can't?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:24:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
no, i disagree with that tactic. by saying that they should be regulated at all, you are implicitly agreeing with the fact that they are somehow dangerous. they are not, they are a SAFETY device, and companies should be encouraged to give them out free with new guns, just like the way ruger gives out a chamber lock with each gun it sells. it's for the children (and their eardrums).



damaging your hearing and shooting yourself (or another kid) are two different things.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:26:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 6:26:32 PM EDT by GhostRing]

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By GhostRing:

Why can't I buy infrared or body armor direct?



you can't?



I think it's a bit murky, but I don't believe you can buy from a company.
Yes, more policy than law, but the same idea.

"why would you need that?" kind of mentality. it sucks.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:26:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
no, i disagree with that tactic. by saying that they should be regulated at all, you are implicitly agreeing with the fact that they are somehow dangerous. they are not, they are a SAFETY device, and companies should be encouraged to give them out free with new guns, just like the way ruger gives out a chamber lock with each gun it sells. it's for the children (and their eardrums).



It's just reversing the actions taken. Just like the Dems chip away at the 2nd Amendment because trying to implement an all out ban will never happen (not for lack of effort from some asshats mind you) we need to gradually take the rights back.

It's not implying anything. It's simply playing the fucked up politics game. Perhaps Go in saying you want complete deregulation but when they say no use the compromise to soften them up. It makes it seem like they are getting something out of it. Don't bite off more than the anti's can chew or you'll end up choking on it.

Let them think it implies they need regulation. Who care. As long as the regulation isn't as strict it'll be a step in the right direction. After a few years go in again and try to chip a little more off.

Trying to go in full bore will, without a doubt, fail.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:29:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
no, i disagree with that tactic. by saying that they should be regulated at all, you are implicitly agreeing with the fact that they are somehow dangerous. they are not, they are a SAFETY device, and companies should be encouraged to give them out free with new guns, just like the way ruger gives out a chamber lock with each gun it sells. it's for the children (and their eardrums).



It's just reversing the actions taken. Just like the Dems chip away at the 2nd Amendment because trying to implement an all out ban will never happen (not for lack of effort from some asshats mind you) we need to gradually take the rights back.

It's not implying anything. It's simply playing the fucked up politics game. Perhaps Go in saying you want complete deregulation but when they say no use the compromise to soften them up. It makes it seem like they are getting something out of it. Don't bite off more than the anti's can chew or you'll end up choking on it.

Let them think it implies they need regulation. Who care. As long as the regulation isn't as strict it'll be a step in the right direction. After a few years go in again and try to chip a little more off.

Trying to go in full bore will, without a doubt, fail.



i disagree. i think we can get the antis onboard as long as we frame this as a PUBLIC SAFETY issue. make it seem like this will further THEIR agenda in some way. after all, 1. it's for the children, we need to protect their hearing and 2. the europeans already do it, and the anti's would love for us to be more like europe in any way possible.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:36:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
i disagree. i think we can get the antis onboard as long as we frame this as a PUBLIC SAFETY issue. make it seem like this will further THEIR agenda in some way. after all, 1. it's for the children, we need to protect their hearing and 2. the europeans already do it, and the anti's would love for us to be more like europe in any way possible.



I think you're seriously reaching with that one.

If you try to appeal to their "parental" side with the "safety: it's for the children" they will immediately come back and say not only that the suppressors should remain as regulated as they are but that handguns and rifles should be regulated in the same way as suppressors.

Anything that has any hint of 2nd Amendment gun rights in it wil immediately put them into a defensive brain lock. The turn off logic and common sense and simply put their hands over their ears and scream LALALALALALA!!! They don't want to hear anything that might hint at anything related to guns being a positive thing.

That's why you play their game. Go for the gusto knowing that your real Ace up your sleeve is to give compromise. It'll make them think they're winning by forcing you to lower your demands to meet theirs even though they don't actually have any.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:37:59 PM EDT
Merely getting suppressors of the NFA would be a huge step.

Your bill needs to do that.

CRC
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:40:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
as others said before the $200 tax did not mean shit to me it was taking the time to get prints, passport photos , set up a appointment with the sherrif and wait 120 days
that was a pain in the ass
and besides there are tons of places that NFA is legal but you cannot get CLEO sognoff and then you have to go thought the bullshit of setting up a corp



Yeah.. I'd almost be happy to settle for just a $100 tax stamp, background check, and a 5 day(?) waiting period like a handgun. I'm not thrilled at all about the whole finger print thing and the waiting period is total BS. Make it legal for an FFL holder to sell them so they could be sold in any gunshop. The .gov would make more money by making them more available but still having the same check in place as they do for handguns.

Baby steps. Go for a compromise rather than demanding an all out deregulation. The suppressor companies might stand behind you to if they think the demands are reasonable and not so far beyond reach that it would be a waste of their time.




there are many different ideas out there on how we can forward our agenda legislatively. Some people want to go for the home run grand slam, others want some good singles or doubles. The effective action of the gun banners was bit by bit- something here, something there. a ruling here that could be tightened up later on with a different definition, etc etc.

i think the most effective way we can counteract that is to take it away a bit at a time, just like how they did it. We've had two major victories in the supreme court nominees (I hope and pray) and lots of good stuff with 38 (?37) states passing CCW which is giving steam to the nationwide CCW idea (whether you believe it should be fed or not) Try to imagine a nationwide CCW getting passed 15 years ago.

lotsa little victories is my motto.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:54:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danonly:
there are many different ideas out there on how we can forward our agenda legislatively. Some people want to go for the home run grand slam, others want some good singles or doubles. The effective action of the gun banners was bit by bit- something here, something there. a ruling here that could be tightened up later on with a different definition, etc etc.

i think the most effective way we can counteract that is to take it away a bit at a time, just like how they did it. We've had two major victories in the supreme court nominees (I hope and pray) and lots of good stuff with 38 (?37) states passing CCW which is giving steam to the nationwide CCW idea (whether you believe it should be fed or not) Try to imagine a nationwide CCW getting passed 15 years ago.

lotsa little victories is my motto.



In short... what I said.
Top Top