Current and Upcoming Legislation. Local, State and Federal.

Forum rules

Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
Post a reply

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:41 pm

kf7mjf wrote:And then if it's being treated like a longarm, then one should be able to make one at home with no fuss or bother for personal use. To me that is the most immediate exciting prospect of the whole thing. I'll roll my own and wait for the commercial market to stabilize a bit.


This is what I am hopeful for. As a pessimistic optimist I expect it won't be passed in this friendly hoped for form.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:38 am

kf7mjf wrote:And then if it's being treated like a longarm, then one should be able to make one at home with no fuss or bother for personal use. To me that is the most immediate exciting prospect of the whole thing. I'll roll my own and wait for the commercial market to stabilize a bit.

80% suppressors then? Comes with a drill bit to finish it off?

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:52 am

Companion bill now introduced into the US Senate chamber by Repub. Sen Mike Crapo (ID) as S. 59:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170111/nra-applauds-senator-crapo-on-introduction-of-hearing-protection-act

Let's hope companion bills in both Senate and House quickly move forward to passage and concurrence. It would be awful nice to see suppressors de-listed from the NFA such that no transfer tax required and these items subject to much less onerous Title I background check and sale procedures.

Recent state-level suppressor legalization efforts in Iowa and Minnesota enjoyed bipartisan support. I'm not expecting that at the federal level for suppressor de-regulation given the recent temper tantrums and tirades coming from the left over their loss in the presidential election and loss of their US Senate majority. There's already been some predictable ballyhooing by liberal stalwart publications Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. But we will see shortly what kind of overall support materializes.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:59 am

It just needs a simple majority to pass the Senate?

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:22 am

kf7mjf wrote:It just needs a simple majority to pass the Senate?


I dont know if you are asking because you dont know or if you are pointing out the folly of thinking this would be a simple majority-vote-and-done by asking, either way....

Technically bills in the senate can be passed with a simple majority vote. That said, in actual practice the mere whiff of a threat of filibuster is enough to essentially require a super-majority vote on a bill. As you probably know in order to end the filibuster a cloture motion must pass in order to limit debate; and cloture motions require a super-majority. Senate rule change issues are a little different (2/3rds) and the actual procedure is more Byzantine than above but thats the gist of it.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:12 am

airmandan wrote:
kf7mjf wrote:And then if it's being treated like a longarm, then one should be able to make one at home with no fuss or bother for personal use. To me that is the most immediate exciting prospect of the whole thing. I'll roll my own and wait for the commercial market to stabilize a bit.

80% suppressors then? Comes with a drill bit to finish it off?


Or like a pop bottle, just fire the first shot, perhaps a reduced load to reduce potential of big damage. Then merely file off rough edges.

:bigsmile: :bigsmile:

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:16 am

Oil filter suppressors will become very popular I think

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:26 am

kf7mjf wrote:Oil filter suppressors will become very popular I think

As well as fuel filters

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:30 am

As most already knows......... Writing to our Senators is a total waste of time.

I have written to them, as well as Denny Heck.... At least his letter gives me the impression that if enough of you all write him, he MIGHT change his position.

The Senator's reply letter just made me want to puke, and indicates to me, that they will never change.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:32 am

airmandan wrote:80% suppressors then? Comes with a drill bit to finish it off?

Already have those, minus the drill bit. They're marketed as "solvent traps". SDTA is probably the most popular seller right now. The cool thing is that you select your tube material, diameter, and length, then order the rest of the parts a la carte (baffles freeze plugs, undrilled end cap, threaded rear mount, spacer tube, centering tool, etc.). If the $200 tax is eliminated, then DIY silencer kits will truly be affordable for everyone. As it is now, a completed one can end up costing you a few hundred dollars depending on your part selection.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:06 am

jdhbulseye wrote:
kf7mjf wrote:It just needs a simple majority to pass the Senate?


I dont know if you are asking because you dont know or if you are pointing out the folly of thinking this would be a simple majority-vote-and-done by asking, either way....

Technically bills in the senate can be passed with a simple majority vote. That said, in actual practice the mere whiff of a threat of filibuster is enough to essentially require a super-majority vote on a bill. As you probably know in order to end the filibuster a cloture motion must pass in order to limit debate; and cloture motions require a super-majority. Senate rule change issues are a little different (2/3rds) and the actual procedure is more Byzantine than above but thats the gist of it.


I think JDH got it pretty well. The process of ending a filibuster and forcing a vote is called cloture. Basically if some wool wearing, granola munching Senator decides to filibuster then the approval of 60 senators is required to force cloture.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

So basically this will require some level of bipartisan support. At least 8 or so Democratic senators will have to support forcing cloture as we can count on some kind of filibuster activity. We'll just have to see how it goes but it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that it will pass the Senate.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:27 am

That's what I was wondering.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:28 am

Is there any reason they are going this route vs challenging the NFA on a constitutional basis? Barrel length and suppressor use are the few areas where Europe and Canada have greater freedom than the US and it seems like now would be a good time to revisit the constitutionality of arbitrary barrel length limits, etc.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:38 am

Just think of how Suppressors have advanced in the last few years, now multiply that x 1000 as machinists and back yard gunsmiths will be free to experiment with different ideas and designs.

Re: H.R. 367 -- Hearing Protection Act -- Suppressors Off NF

Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:29 am

TINCANBANDIT wrote:Just think of how Suppressors have advanced in the last few years, now multiply that x 1000 as machinists and back yard gunsmiths will be free to experiment with different ideas and designs.


Just think of all the home threading jobs and baffle strikes.
Post a reply