SHARE Act/ Hearing Protection Act 2017

[streaker69]

Anyone got an example where the government actually gave up a tax without taxing something else in return?

How's Johnstown doing these days, with all that alcohol tax money?

I just really have my doubts that our government will give up a revenue stream without having something to replace it.

[SgtRecon]

All good, but you just will not be able to get one for a long time. If this bill passes which I think it will if it makes it through the Senate, they will fly off of the shelves.

So , I wonder if some entrepreneur will start making 80% kits ?...wonder if home built will be addressed (legalized) also ?

[esh21167]

Written by ASA on January 9, 2017: WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the reintroduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) and Rep. John Carter (TX-31). “The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “We are thrilled for the opportunity to work with Representatives Duncan and Carter, who have reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act in this new Congress.
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/blog/



As we fight for our right to shoot quietly, we need your help to make sure our voice is heard loud and clear on Capitol Hill. Please take the time to fill out the form below so that you can send an email to your Representatives and Senators to let them know that you support the Hearing Protection Act.
http://americansuppressorassociation...rotection-act/

Contact your legislators.

[Sgt.K]

Well, with that logic, why don't we just go back a little further to say....1968 and do away with the GCA altogether. Heck, don't stop there....1934, get rid of NFA. Or maybe, 1927, when mailing arms was banned by Congress. No, No....1865, when Southern States decided to forbid black people from owning firearms. Almost there....1791, lets just rewrite the 2nd Amendment to say...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the Individual, the people, to keep, posses, own, mail, manufacture and distribute, shall not be infringed, at any time, now and in the future, regardless of the advancement of firearm and ammunition technologies."

I would love to see it all go away, truly. But there's not a snowball's chance in hell it's gonna happen all at once. A well-thought-out, well-written piece of legislation that does away with restrictions without any "gotcha" provisions is a positive, even if small.

I've heard the phrase "Don't shoot for the moon, shoot for the stars. That way, if you miss, you can still land on the moon." That works for someone trying to become a Rockette - with all that training, even if they don't quite make it, they'll still be good enough for off-Broadway, or maybe even Broadway.

Legislation like this is all or nothing. Either it passes, and we get unrestricted National Constitutional Carry, or we get jack squat. Or - we can push for National Reciprocity now and get it. Then we can prove to the People's Republiks (and their sheeple) that the "blood in the streets" cry is nonsense, and start removing even more restrictions.

Bit by bit is how they took our rights. It's how we'll get them back.

[ungawa]

Couldn't they just be banned on the State/local level even if they are pulled from that BS list from the federal level?

They are banned at the state level in many states. Including PA:

§908. Prohibited offensive weapons.

(a) Offense defined.-A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.

(b) Exceptions.

(1) It is a defense under this section for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed or dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic performance, or that, with the exception of a bomb, grenade or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §5801 et seq.), or that he possessed it briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any intent or likelihood that the weapon would be used unlawfully.

(2) This section does not apply to police forensic firearms experts or police forensic firearms laboratories. Also exempt from this section are forensic firearms experts or forensic firearms laboratories operating in the ordinary course of business and engaged in lawful operation who notify in writing, on an annual basis, the chief or head of any police force or police department of a city, and, elsewhere, the sheriff of a county in which they are located, of the possession, type and use of offensive weapons.

(3) This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

(c) Definitions.-As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive, or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. "Offensive weapons" Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

It is not clear to me if we would be able to own them under current PA law if this federal law passed since we would not have the defense of having them registered under the NFA.

[RenoV8]

I would love to see it all go away, truly. But there's not a snowball's chance in hell it's gonna happen all at once. A well-thought-out, well-written piece of legislation that does away with restrictions without any "gotcha" provisions is a positive, even if small.

I've heard the phrase "Don't shoot for the moon, shoot for the stars. That way, if you miss, you can still land on the moon." That works for someone trying to become a Rockette - with all that training, even if they don't quite make it, they'll still be good enough for off-Broadway, or maybe even Broadway.

Legislation like this is all or nothing. Either it passes, and we get unrestricted National Constitutional Carry, or we get jack squat. Or - we can push for National Reciprocity now and get it. Then we can prove to the People's Republiks (and their sheeple) that the "blood in the streets" cry is nonsense, and start removing even more restrictions.

Bit by bit is how they took our rights. It's how we'll get them back.

Agreed...

I tend to ask for a lot, hoping I will get more than half of my demands. I never got a thing, I didn't ask for.....

We will get a lot back, but need to keep pressing for more...its an ole Liberal trick I picked up...lol

[Sgt.K]

...he complied with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §5801 et seq.)...

It is not clear to me if we would be able to own them under current PA law if this federal law passed since we would not have the defense of having them registered under the NFA.

I would suggest:

If suppressors are removed from the NFA then owning one could not be in *violation* of NFA, and therefore would *comply* with NFA.

Also:

...silent discharge...

Since when is a suppressor silent? They must be talking about some *other* device...

[ItchyTick]

I'm not holding my breath.

[ungawa]

I would suggest:

If suppressors are removed from the NFA then owning one could not be in *violation* of NFA, and therefore would *comply* with NFA.

Blackjacks, sandbags, metal knuckles, and daggers are not a violation of the NFA, either, and yet they are illegal. If you could register them under NFA, they would be legal. Silencers are are treated exactly the same way by that text.

Also:

Since when is a suppressor silent? They must be talking about some *other* device...

I've heard that speculation before and don't buy it. It is obvious what the intent of the law is. And the Treasury/ATF has called them "silencers" for a long, long time so there is no distinction in the wording IMO.

[Smilez226]

They are banned at the state level in many states. Including PA:



It is not clear to me if we would be able to own them under current PA law if this federal law passed since we would not have the defense of having them registered under the NFA.

Exactly what I mean, so then what? People who have cans just gonna hand em over. Nah I doubt that. Gonna be grand fathered into it some how and just F every one else who wants one.